What if? (my very last post about the Potterverse - I hope)

[mary_j_59]

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.

Comments

Re: THE RUINING OF A CLASSIC

[colyngbourne.livejournal.com]

I've really appreciated reading all these sane assessments of how JK failed in HP (and particularly in Book 7) - I agree with all you've said, but would add that another thing I honestly despised Bk7 for (I'm not sure I've ever felt so disgusted or let-down) was the seeming okay'ing of the use of the Unforgiveables by the White Hates, and that this is never mentioned as reprehensible, needing to be justified etc. As if the war situation justifies them using the kind of torture and behaviour that the Black Hats have been condemned for, but without criticism by anyone, let alone the author.

re Snape being a figure striving for sainthood (and JK not understanding/appreciating her own character), you may have seen the good article in Christian Science Monitor judging Snape to be the hero of the series? http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0725/p09s02-coop.html?page=1

Re: THE RUINING OF A CLASSIC

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Yes! I did read that article, and agree wholeheartedly, but thanks for linking to it again. As to your comment about the Unforgivable Curses and the "good guys", I agree with you. I guess I didn't make this clear enough in my original post - but my chief problem with them, as the book stands, isn't so much that Harry and Hermione performed them, as that they performed them, felt no consequences, and were never sorry for performing them. That disgusted me. Yes, it's very possible for kids under stress to do wrong (and torture is a very great wrong, as is brainwashing). But to do these evil things, to still be depicted as pure of soul, and never to think about these acts again, or to feel anything except pride at achieving them - UGH! That is really disgusting, and made me lose all sympathy for Harry completely. It is not a good thing if you lose all sympathy for the protagonist in a novel. I'd really like to know what Rowling was thinking when she wrote this scene, and how she thought her readers would take it. I would think any normal, ethical adult reader - and any older kid with even a modicum of empathy - would be disgusted with Harry and Hermione.

And this is what I mean when I say that Harry did not grow up. He never had to be sorry for misjudging Snape or failing to help him when he had the chance; he never had to be sorry for the harm he had done anyone; he never reevaluated (or even simply evaluated) his beliefs and actions - and thinking about your beliefs, and your place in the world, is a core part of adolescence, isn't it?

Thanks for reading, and for your comment. )