![[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.
no subject
This is interesting (and thanks for commenting!) I am very tired right now, and can't give your response quite the thought it deserves, but I will say this:
Tolkien talked about "consolation" and "escape" being essential parts of fantasy literature as he understood it. But the escape itself was always a commentary on the world that his fantasy world contrasted to - and he also said, in his best- known work:
"Good and ill have not changed since yesteryear; nor are they one thing among Elves and Dwarves and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house" (the Two Towers, Folio edition, page 40)
It's true he didn't write allegory, but he did expect that his works would be applicable to our world, as, indeed, they are. And -
Most fantasies do comment on right behavior and what it means to be a free, adult person. At least, those are the sorts of fantasies I'm used to reading. Terri-testing has a fascinating essay on her livejournal about fantasy and its role; her conclusion was that Rowling is not writing traditional fantasy at all, but rather horror. I am inclined to agree with her. Even if you don't agree that Rowling's real bent is towards horror, I think it's pretty clear that her magical World is parasitic and intellectually, imaginatively, and morally stunted, as are most of its inhabitants. It's not a good place. And what I was saying with this essay is that perhaps Rowling means us to see that the Magical World is not a good place, and that it tends to stunt its inhabitants in various ways.
More later, when I have the energy. Thanks for reading and commenting!
no subject
I agree but I still believe, that while Tolkiens fiction (and other fantasies) comment on dateless values, HP in certain ways is (also) a comment on the modern western society.
I totally agree! The strong ambiguity of all the characters and of the presented moral standards often gave me a really awkward feeling while reading. Come to think of it, this could be one of the reasons why I gave up on the books in mid-series years ago (I’m currently re-reading). On the other hand, I think, that this deeper layer of the text, which shows a very flawed world, is part of what makes the books so good.
I see your point but I believe, that by presenting their Magic World as a bad place, the books present the real world as a not so good place in some ways, too. In my opinion HP contains strong references to the real world and presents a quite interesting study on how human relations might work.
By the way, I think we agree on the fact, that the HP books deface the virtues of classical fantasies by adding a dark aspect to them, e.g. friendship goes with social exclusion of “less deserving” individuals, fatherly guidance goes with manipulation and instrumentalisation – Dumbledore is Gandalf perfect counterpart. I find this to be equally disturbing and ingenious.
no subject