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

[hope-24.livejournal.com]

To be blunt, I just think that Rowling needed a very honest editor who would tell her when something was incoherent or illogical - and wouldn't hold back with the red pen. A great deal of the stuff I have problems with: the failure to follow through on the four element/balance thing of the four houses, Ginny the fembot, etc - would have been jumped on, ordinarily. I wonder whether the sheer success of the novels meant that critique became a no-no?

I think your idea is cleverer than what Rowling was probably going for. :)

[professor-mum.livejournal.com]

First, I agree with the poster below: JKR needed an honest editor who wasn't afraid to rein in an 800lb gorilla who refused to practice good continuity hygine.

Second, with much distance from DH and deep reflection, it is abundantly clear to me that Jo simply did not like that Snape became a runaway fandom favorite, slightly out of her control. His ignoble death on the floor will always represent, to me, Jo flexing her authorial perogative to leave Harry no glory competition at the tale's end.

[darkthirty.livejournal.com]

Yes, I think this is in fact closer to my reading of Rowling - a left leaning, semi-anarchist pragmatist.

[sylvanawood.livejournal.com]

I don't think she meant that seriously. She said a lot of things slightly tongue in cheek which were taken out of context.

Fantasy, like any genre, has horrible crap and outstanding works. To hate a genre because one writer spoiled it is unfair and I'm sorry that this happened to you.
I doubt that it will affect many lovers of good fantasy though. Many have complained throughout the course of the series that her world building lacks logic and detail, that the rules of her world are whimsical and unclear. Which they are. She may have 'designed' everything in her notebooks, but from the many times she contradicts herself, she seems to have problems remembering just what she said where.

All this, to me, speaks more of a normal woman overwhelmed by all the attention that comes with big money (which went more than a little to her head) than someone deliberately out to subvert.

If anyhing, she's made fantasy more popular, because hardly anyone I know who read the books once, in passing, without the detailed anaylsis we do hereabouts, thinks twice about the things we discuss at length and has fun with the story instead. And if you read it through from beginning to end and aren't waiting for years for the next update, wondering if Snape will ever get treated decently - then it is a nice, fun story with some amazing depth here and there, something that made children like to read, something where good triumphs over bad - and that's it.

I'm not saying that I like it, mind you. It could have become really good. As Hope said: a good editor...

[exhpfan.livejournal.com]

I still can't believe that I wasted 3yrs of my life discussing the Harry Potter books, and that I'm still responding to post about the series. I guess addiction or habit can apply to internet actions. I never was interested in looking for symbolism. I was just a theorist trying to figure out solutions to what I thought were brilliant mysteries.

All I can say about subverting the fantasy genre is that she subverted all genres. She wrote trash, not literature of any genre.

overall comment on your original, finally!

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

Yes, you're probably giving her way too much credit--but it's a fascinating thought, and may well have been going on subconsciously....

If her goal was to get people to dislike magic, then those "Christians" who get their knickers in a twist about Halloween and so forth should force their kids to read HP.

[pierettebronski.livejournal.com]

Hi,

I just came across this entry and I know it's old and you are probably done with the topic but I just have to add my two cents.

First of all, I'm not an expert when it comes to fantasy literature. Anyway I have my own theory of what Rowling might have meant by saying that HP subverts the fantasy genre.

Fantasy novels create worlds which differ strongly from the readers reality. As far as I know, they classically do so not only by the use of supernatural elements, like magic, mythical creatures and so on, but also by setting the plot into a different age like the medieval.
Therefore the social and political structures of the story usually strongly differ from those experienced by the reader in his everyday life (feudal system).

Unlike SiFi a classical fantasy novel doesn't aim for making a statement about the “real world” but for giving us a way to escape it, if only for a short while.

I'm not sure if novels set in modern times qualify as fantasy in the classical meaning of the word. As I said I'm not an expert. The only series that comes to my mind right now, which does contains supernatural elements and huge parts of which are set in the present (relating to the books date of appearance), are The Vampire Chronicles. Even if we consider them fantasy, the world of the vampire elite, which the series is centered around, is so extremely far away from our everyday live experience (immortality, fabulous wealth, unhuman straight tec). By this it resembles the above mentioned Tolkien-kind-of-book.

Harry Potter undermines the mentioned concept by using classical elements of the fantasy genre like magic but creating an alternative world that is extremely similar to our own, considering the social mechanics (group dynamics, great importance of popularity), bureaucracy and, last but not least, the way the wizards use a channeled form of energy for convenience and entertainment in every subarea of their lives. Their magic is our electricity. They depend on it and it comes natural to them to use it. I mean, they use “lumos” as I would a flashlight.

So all in all, when Rowling speaks of subverting the fantasy genre, maybe she is referring to this mirroring quality of the novel?