![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
What if? (my very last post about the Potterverse - I hope)
As I expect all of my friends know, I was deeply disappointed in Deathly Hallows, and therefore in the Potterverse as a whole. It seemed to me meanspirited, full of contradictory messages, and poorly written. In many ways, after two years, it still does. But, as a result of a couple of conversations, something just occurred to me. What if the Potterverse is not exactly what it seems to be? Or, rather, what if Rowling actually achieved her goal with these books - but that goal wasn't exactly what we (or at least I ) thought it was?
There are two ways in which I think this could be so, one likely, and one perhaps unintentional. I'll start with the unintentional one.
I expect those of us on the lookout for Christian symbolism saw Harry as a Christ figure. I certainly did, and I was disgusted. But someone (was it Jodel?) pointed out that:
1. Snape's reaching out to Harry, rather than trying to save himself, was a choice - and a sacrifice. A deliberate one.
2. If anything was going to confer protection on the school and its inhabitants, the deliberate sacrifice of an acting headmaster doing his duty would be much more likely to confer that protection than the death of a boy who happened to be a walking horcrux.
I was not the person who had this insight, but it's pretty brilliant! From this, it follows that-
If there is a Christ figure in these books, it is Snape (imperfect as he is). And Harry's virtue, and his heroism, lies in his recognition of Snape and his sacrifice. Ron and most of the wizarding world don't achieve this recognition, but we are supposed to see that Harry does.
That is possible. As I said, I don't think it's intentional, but it is quite definitely there; it's a part of what I (and others) have been calling the shadow reading, and it hangs together much better than the surface reading of the books. But I think there is a reading that is intentional, and Rowling herself gave us plently of warning about what, exactly, that reading is.
She said that she didn't like fantasy. She said that she didn't think she was writing a fantasy. She said that she intended to subvert the fantasy genre.
When I read this, back in the Time magazine interview, my reaction was like Terry Pratchett's - "what do you think you're writing? You have unicorns in your story!" And I didn't take Rowling's statement seriously. Now I think I should have.
Because one of the effects of these books, at least on me, was: "Gosh, now I hate magic." I didn't want to pick up, or think about, any book with magic in it. I was thoroughly disgusted with Rowling's magical world and disliked almost everyone and everything in it - with the notable exceptions of Severus Snape, Neville Longbottom, and Luna Lovegood. I even began asking myself why I liked fantasy, anyway. Magic simply corrupted those who had it, didn't it? It took me a long time, and a lot of analysis, to come back to the fantasies I truly loved and to see the difference between those works and Rowling's. But I still have a knee-jerk reaction against fantasy and magic, as a result of these books.
I now think my reaction was exactly what Rowling was after. Jodel and Marionros remarked, in a conversation, that Rowling seemed to be out to subvert the school story. Not so - in many ways, at least according to C.S. Lewis's definition of the school story (see my essay on Eustace and Harry for more about that), Rowling simply follows the pattern slavishly. But fantasy? She does actually subvert it, and that is just what she aimed to do.
And that's brilliant, in a way. I still don't especially like what Rowling did, but she did in fact fulfill a stated goal with these books. Which means that they are a good deal more coherent and purposeful than I had initially thought.
Just a thought.
There are two ways in which I think this could be so, one likely, and one perhaps unintentional. I'll start with the unintentional one.
I expect those of us on the lookout for Christian symbolism saw Harry as a Christ figure. I certainly did, and I was disgusted. But someone (was it Jodel?) pointed out that:
1. Snape's reaching out to Harry, rather than trying to save himself, was a choice - and a sacrifice. A deliberate one.
2. If anything was going to confer protection on the school and its inhabitants, the deliberate sacrifice of an acting headmaster doing his duty would be much more likely to confer that protection than the death of a boy who happened to be a walking horcrux.
I was not the person who had this insight, but it's pretty brilliant! From this, it follows that-
If there is a Christ figure in these books, it is Snape (imperfect as he is). And Harry's virtue, and his heroism, lies in his recognition of Snape and his sacrifice. Ron and most of the wizarding world don't achieve this recognition, but we are supposed to see that Harry does.
That is possible. As I said, I don't think it's intentional, but it is quite definitely there; it's a part of what I (and others) have been calling the shadow reading, and it hangs together much better than the surface reading of the books. But I think there is a reading that is intentional, and Rowling herself gave us plently of warning about what, exactly, that reading is.
She said that she didn't like fantasy. She said that she didn't think she was writing a fantasy. She said that she intended to subvert the fantasy genre.
When I read this, back in the Time magazine interview, my reaction was like Terry Pratchett's - "what do you think you're writing? You have unicorns in your story!" And I didn't take Rowling's statement seriously. Now I think I should have.
Because one of the effects of these books, at least on me, was: "Gosh, now I hate magic." I didn't want to pick up, or think about, any book with magic in it. I was thoroughly disgusted with Rowling's magical world and disliked almost everyone and everything in it - with the notable exceptions of Severus Snape, Neville Longbottom, and Luna Lovegood. I even began asking myself why I liked fantasy, anyway. Magic simply corrupted those who had it, didn't it? It took me a long time, and a lot of analysis, to come back to the fantasies I truly loved and to see the difference between those works and Rowling's. But I still have a knee-jerk reaction against fantasy and magic, as a result of these books.
I now think my reaction was exactly what Rowling was after. Jodel and Marionros remarked, in a conversation, that Rowling seemed to be out to subvert the school story. Not so - in many ways, at least according to C.S. Lewis's definition of the school story (see my essay on Eustace and Harry for more about that), Rowling simply follows the pattern slavishly. But fantasy? She does actually subvert it, and that is just what she aimed to do.
And that's brilliant, in a way. I still don't especially like what Rowling did, but she did in fact fulfill a stated goal with these books. Which means that they are a good deal more coherent and purposeful than I had initially thought.
Just a thought.
Re: THE RUINING OF A CLASSIC
I went into my favorite book store to buy a new release of one of my favorite authors. I couldn't believe the lines at the checkout stand. It turned out to be the day OOTP was released. Since I live 50 miles from the nearest book store, I decided to go ahead and stand in line. I had never seen anything like what I was seeing. The books were behind the counter and the customers had to have preorder slips before they could buy the book. The man who was about my age in front of me in line had 2 slips. He told me one was for him and one was for his wife because neither would agree to wait for the other to read the book first. I couldn't believe what I was just told. I told him I wasn't a big fantasy fan and I didn't think I would like the series. He saw the book I was buying and told me the series was as much mystery as it was fantasy. I decided the Harry Potter series was a must read, so I had him save my place in line and went and got the four volume set of books 1-4. After reading these I bought the second edition release of OOTP and read it.
I found the twists used by J. K. Rowling (especially POA and GOF) very well prepared and agreed that she was writing mystery along with fanasty. Except for SS/PS the adults acted reasonable in the books. For this reason, I had after finishing my reading of books 1-5 immediately concluded that the true hidden plot of SS/PS was a trap set up by Dumbledore to capture Vapormort which trap was spoiled by the trio. This conclusion caused the entire plotline up to this point to be reasonable to me.
I then forgot about the series until early 2005. I thought it was about time for book 6 to be released so I got on the internet looking for the release date. I found one of the largest Harry Potter discussion forums and found out that my impression of SS/PS was non-existent on the forum, but it was the only explanation that caused the plot of book 1 to make sense to me. My first thread on the forum was SS/PS was a trap. I have been arguing with the fantasy genre fans ever since. During these discussions I praised JKR constantly on her ability to achieve masterful suprise twist and even compared her to Agatha Christie (The Queen of Misdirection).
It was obvious upon reading HBP that JKR had ended the book at the midway point and that all JKR had done in HBP was set up the mysteries and that the answers to these mysteries were coming in Deathly Hallows. Having to wait two years to read the second half of a mystery is not something I ever want to do again. I spent way too much time on the forums discussing the theories trying to slove the mysteries. All my theories had the adults acting in a reasonable and logical manner, especially Dumbledore.
Sadly it was all a con. She had no great twist or suprise endings to these mysteries. Deathly Hallows was nothing but a "child's fantasy adventure". Since the series is one big epic, this conclusion not only ruined Deathly Hallows for me, but the entire series.
Re: THE RUINING OF A CLASSIC
I am a teen librarian; I know a lot about children's lit and have read a lot of it, and it's just not true that the fantasy genre, more than any other, relies on stupid adults. I'd say that is far truer of the teen problem novel, where kids are left on their own to solve wrenching problems, or even actively abused. I can, off the top of my head, name several fantasy series (both for kids and for adults) in which the adults act responsible and protective and the "kids" grow up. (L.M. Boston, Diane Duane, Lloyd Alexander, C.S. Lewis, Tolkien - not a kids series at all, but kids read it - Megan Whalen Turner, Ursula LeGuin, and Hilari Bell, just for starters.)
As I said above, my real problem with the Potter books is that they fail, in the end, to tell a story. Most fantasies tell stories and have plots. I also think that some of the problems with the books were glaringly obvious, in retrospect, in both POA (where I was repelled by Dumbledore's callousness and the cruelty to Snape) and GOF (where Cedric Diggory had to die of his virtues, not of his faults - I have a paper about that.) GOF also doesn't hold up as a well-plotted novel. Why on earth couldn't Barty Crouch kidnap Harry at any time? It doesn't make sense. And, honestly, most fantasy does make sense. As Tolkien and Le Guin both said, it has to make more sense than almost any other genre if it is to work.
My feelings about the books - like you, once a couple of fellow librarians talked me into reading them, I thought they might be modern classics of children's fiction. I enjoyed them thoroughly, in spite of seeing their flaws, right through OOTP. OOTP gave me hope that Rowling might be aiming for some real emotional and moral depth. Then came HBP, which disappointed me. It seemed flat and boring at times, and I was troubled by the ending - and by Harry's bullying and cheating behavior, which had no repercussions for him. Up to DH, HBP was my least favorite. It was HBP that propelled me into the fandom; I was looking for some assurance that the Christian themes and symbols I'd noticed in the earlier books meant something. Then came DH - and all the things I'd loved in the series were pretty much negated, while the things that had troubled me were confirmed. What a disappointment!
In the end, these books are morally dubious and fail to tell a coherent story.
But, as I said above, if it was Rowling's goal to get her readers to hate fantasy, she almost succeeded with me. That's something - I guess. I still don't like it, if that was her goal, but at least she may have had a goal.