Review - Harry Potter

[wilderthan]

I really don't like Harry Potter. It's one of those little concealed but apparently not widely known facts about me, which shocks everyone when I say I love books and they're all, "yeah, rite, Harry Potter is so awesum rite?" and I say "...no, it really isn't." I confess: when I was eleven or twelve or so, I read them. I also read the Sabrina the Teenage Witch novels. I read everything and wasn't very discriminating about it. I did enjoy them. I continued to enjoy them until I got to Order of the Phoenix, and then I decided that all the hype aside, I just wasn't interested anymore. Bear in mind, then, for the rest of this "essay", that I have only read up to and including The Goblet of Fire.

Cue a few years of irritation while everyone insisted I must read the rest of the books, and how dare I prefer Tolkien and Ursula Le Guin (and later, Susan Cooper). I have really no objection to people reading the books and enjoying them, taking part in the fandom that surrounds them, dressing up in witchy costumes to go and pick up the most recently released volume at midnight. Have fun with that! As far as I'm concerned you're welcome to. I'm even quite happy to concede that yes, Harry Potter did get more people reading. Whether it got them reading literature or not is another matter: how many people, I wonder, have discovered a mania for reading after reading Harry Potter and then gone onto the likes of Crime and Punishment and War and Peace, or even Lord of the Rings? Not that many, I'll bet. I think they're probably reading Twilight and the like, more often than not.

But I. Don't. Have. To. Read. Them. Just because I like books, does not mean I like those books. And I detest it every time someone shoves them in my face as 'great literature'. I actually had to study Harry Potter, in my English Literature and Language Advanced Level GCE (for those outside the UK: your results in A Levels determine whether or not you can go to a top university; mine required me to get grades AAB, I actually have ABBB[B], but that's a whole 'nother story). One of the questions we had to answer was whether we thought Harry Potter was good literature, whether we thought it would stand the test of time, and how it was suited to the time it's currently in.

It was then that I figured out that, yeah, there are things wrong with Harry Potter beyond just the hype that was irritating me so much and the feeling that Rowling in no way matched up to the giants of fantasy and sci-fi, like Tolkien. I studied it alongside Tom Brown's Schooldays, by Thomas Hughes. Do note that I didn't like that book either. But it's a well written, well shaped, well considered book -- and it doesn't use the same cheap tricks as Harry Potter does. I'm not going to say much about that, since it's not a book I liked: if I'm going to compare/contrast, I'll compare with my favourite book that is also supposed to be for younger readers, Susan Cooper's The Dark Is Rising.

There's nothing wrong with Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone being an amateur first novel. 'cause that's what it is. I'm sure many people's first novels don't even see the light of day, and yet Harry Potter somehow made it to a publisher's and was accepted. The thing is, people mostly refuse to recognise that and the cheap tricks J. K. Rowling uses. For example, her character's names. 'Draco Malfoy'. Mal, the French for bad, immediately obvious. 'Draco', suggesting dragon? Or perhaps 'draconian', which has negative connotations aplenty (not that I'd necessarily attribute those particular ones to Draco). Not very subtle, is it? 'Dumbledore'. Who doesn't get the image of a well-meaning, if strange, old man? 'Minerva', straight out of Greek myth: a goddess of knowledge. Gee, I wonder why Rowling chose that for a female teacher... 'Remus Lupin', 'Sirius Black', 'Mad-Eye Moody'... Do I even have to say anything?

And 'Harry Potter'. Nothing striking about that: perfectly ordinary, as names go, right?

Yeah. And that's the point. Harry Potter himself is not a real character -- certainly not at first. He's a cypher, a convenient space into which a kid can very easily insert himself or even herself. He's brave. Okay, generic hero characteristic. He has doubts. Again, the same. He has a Tragic Past. Don't we all? Or don't we all like to think we do? Look at the Mary Sues/self inserts people write in fandom -- so often they're people with incredibly dark, melodramatic pasts that they rise above. Harry Potter is a convenient place to insert yourself. The other characters are archetypes more than anything -- Hermione, the know it all girl; Ron, the loyal friend; Dumbledore, the mentor; Malfoy, the rival...

All of that is actually what makes Harry Potter a highly readable, enjoyable book, for young people and even adults. It's targeted very precisely toward the readership of today. Maybe that makes J. K. Rowling a better author than I might paint her as, that she can know her audience so well -- there's that view, I'm sure. But it's all very basic, and I tend to look on it as cheap tricks. The whole chapter, in the first book, about the Mirror of Erised -- how sad does it make you feel for Harry? It's sentimental, it's sad -- and it's meant to do that, very obviously. There's a whole chapter written just to enforce the love between the members of Harry Potter's family.

Susan Cooper does it in a single paragraph that makes me want to cry every single time I read it, coming after all the build up of guilt and pain in the relationship. "Bran went to [his father] and put his arm round his waist, and stood close. It was the first gesture of affection between the two that Will had ever seen. And wondering, loving surprise woke in Owen Davies's worn face as he looked down at the boy's white head, and the two stood there, waiting."

That paragraph does for me what Rowling's whole chapter cannot. It's so effective, actually, because Cooper spends a whole book leading up to it, showing us Owen and Bran's relationship. Rowling shows us Harry's parents, but in an unsubtle way that actually throws me out of it because I think, "Oh, yeah, this is the chapter in which we're supposed to feel very sorry for Harry."

There's also a very easy, blunt misdirection. You're supposed to hate Snape, supposed to believe he's the one to blame for everything, and at the end, you're supposed to be as surprised as Harry when it's Quirrel waiting there for him. At the age of eleven, I think I went right along with that, but when I reread it for A Level, I had to wince at how heavy-handed the misdirection was. I understand that later in the series Snape comes into it more, and I don't know whether the misdirection turns out to be not that misdirected when it comes down to the real truth: but in the first book, you're meant to believe it's Snape all along, and I don't think J. K. Rowling does a very good job of giving us clues that it's not actually Snape, because she's so busy blackening him to lead people astray.

It's also very black-and-white. Questions aren't raised, by this story -- and that's a thing I think is actually important in literature. Raise questions, discuss issues, end with a question. I don't know what to call stories that don't fit into that, really. I'm going to go with 'novels' as opposed to literature. Harry Potter is a novel. It's a story. I don't think it has any real lasting values. Susan Cooper's books, while also quite basic, discussing the Light and the Dark, do end with a question. If man is left on earth, to do as man will, will man be Light or Dark? The immortals leave earth, and say that the world -- for better or worse -- belongs to humans. Right now, a lot of people think the answer to that question would be 'worse'. But Harry Potter does not raise this question, does not raise any question, and does not answer one either. That's why I don't think it will last except perhaps as a phenomenon to be studied: the 'Potter mania' and what caused it.

That's why I don't like Rowling's writing. It's not particularly refined, it's unsubtle -- and that's okay, you know, I'm not saying you can't enjoy that, can't find it refreshing. I don't. I'm also not saying that 'novels' are bad -- they're good, they can provide valuable escapism, they can be incredibly rich fodder for the imagination, and I suspect Harry Potter is, for many children. But I don't call it literature, and I myself don't like it.

I wrote this by way of a) justifying my feelings on Harry Potter and b) getting me back into thinking critically about literature, after a year of mostly doing small book reviews but nothing in depth. Obviously there's reams of stuff I haven't discussed/remembered/considered: feel free to discuss that with me! I welcome it. Contradict me, even, and then I'll pray I remember more of the examples I used to use to back up my points!

(I can't believe I just wrote a 1600 word essay on Harry Potter. Apparently I'm not as rusty as I thought. My style needs to become more formal, of course, once I'm writing papers, but...)

Comments

[first-seventhe.livejournal.com]

I'm very interested at more of your thoughts on the "light and dark", although if you haven't read the end of the series, I suppose it'll be limited. Because in my mind, JKR missed a really good opportunity by sticking to her "Gryffindor good, Slytherin bad" thing rather than showing that there are shades of grey in-between. (Although, I guess, with Peter Pettigrew in Gryffindor, there's at least an example... I guess I would have liked to see at least one USEFUL Slytherin.)

[wilderthan.livejournal.com]

Do you mind if I continue comparing/contrasting with The Dark Is Rising (I promise I'll make it comprehensible to people who haven't read the book yet)? See, the thing with Harry Potter in the first four books at least is that the morality is just barely there at all. White is white, and black is black. There's no real grey area. That suits children, but it's also possible to write a book in which it isn't black and white, while still being comprehensible to children. I can give you an example from TDIR, if you're interested! In Harry Potter, there's a lack of subtlety/ambiguity, that obviously bugs me about it (although I'll happily read other novels that don't have that content: I guess studying it and it being so popular threw these issues into sharp relief for me).

[misura.livejournal.com]

Mmm - for the longest time, I was hoping for Snape to fill that part; the person who seems unpleasant, suspicious and makes it clear he is not impressed by the Boy Who Lived, and is yet on the side of the angels, so to speak.

Happily, this fandom's size is such that even now, I can still find plenty of 'new' fics that take place in some AU where things went differently and Slytherins were, if not good, then at least useful. (Oh, and where Sirius didn't die, obviously, because if you're going AU anyway, why not go all the way?)

Sorry to bump in, just felt like leaving a comment.

[shanaqui]

I take it Snape turned out to be bad in the end, though? I almost want to finish reading the series just to see how it all goes. Maybe I'll just google plot summaries...

[misura.livejournal.com]

Well, er, I didn't read beyond The Order of the Phoenix but from what I read on my f-list, he does indeed do something unforgivable at some point which places him firmly on the side of evil. *deliberately vague so as not to spoil even more*

[aesriella.livejournal.com]

Let me start by saying I agree 100% and more, especially with regards to the morality of the verse.

Leaving the massive insult these novels are to the English language for the moment, I think one of the most important things people forget about Harry Potter is what Rowling's derivative constructs say to her readers. The series indoctrinates the audience into accepting her twisted and conservative mores and encourage a discriminatory system.

If we consider, for example, the portrayals of those with natural gifts (wizards) and those without (non-wizards), we can see very clearly that Rowling champions a pseudo-apartheid society. The "cleverest" are segregated from the dross and dictate what they may and may not know. More importantly, the few non-wizard characters who make any appearance are invariably dull and/or evil. Hermione's parents are non-wizarding only to serve as a method for giving her a tortured conflict that the author can base sappy prose around. The caretaker, lacking talents of his own, is envious of others and seeks to do harm to children because of his petty, twisted soul. She might as well have called him Shylock. The message is simple; either you're special or you're not, and if you're not, tough titty.

It's the same with the portrayal of women, which I could discuss for hours, I have no doubt. Rowling's universe is not only infantile and therefore encourages adherence to infantile morality, but derivative, uncreative and largely stolen. When we consider Snape's Worst emory (I forget which book this is from), we see the kind of small-mindedness of her attitudes; the man was part of an evil, violent cult, yet his worst memory is being teased at school? What the hell!? Why doesn't she just bludgeon us with a big hammer with "angsty past" written on it in the blood of a teenage Gary Stu?

Anyway, I don't want to make this tl;dr, but I just wanted to say I whole-heartedly agree and it's a pleasure to see someone writing a well thought-out and critically focused commentary. Studying Harry Potter for A Level? I thought The Spire was bad!

[wilderthan.livejournal.com]

Oh, the module title was actually 'the changing language of literature', so there was a lot of going into the insult to the English language business. I didn't want to go much into that without my notes or at least a copy of the book to hand!

Yes: Harry Potter presents a society where everything is just so. J. K. Rowling doesn't as much put the values forward as just make them look true: this is the way life is/should be. It kind of bothered me when Hermione formed S.P.E.W. and it was just a running joke, too. I mean, here's something that essentially either an issue of slavery or at the very least cruelty to animals, and it's dismissed as a joke. But it's okay! House elves like to be enslaved!

I think the Snape part is from a book I haven't read -- Half Blood Prince? And yeah: she doesn't even give proper justification for people becoming evil, really. They just are. Like it's predisposed. Think especially Pettigrew (because he's weak), Quirrel (was there a reason at all?), Snape (? Not enough canon to know the whole of this).

Haha, I groaned aloud when my teacher told me we were studying Harry Potter. But it turned out to be quite fun, in that I learnt to articulate what I don't like about it.

[muggy-mountain.livejournal.com]

Just curious, have you read the final book? Some of the same issues you bring up are addressed in the final book, such as the disturbing relationship between the wizards and non-wizards. Although much of clearly runs parallel to the spiral of systematic racism and dangerous ideals of WW2, it does address that issue very plainly. Snape's worst memory is also given a bit more of a justification. Not that it would or should change your opinion on the series, I just thought it would be interesting fodder for discussion.

[samuraiter.livejournal.com]

I have to agree, truth be told. I can see why HP is as beloved as it is, but, for people like the two of us, who have had the good luck to be raised on classics of fantasy, it is a little easier to look at it more objectively. Rowling does a number of things well, but, at the same time, there are things that she handles quite poorly (romance being chief among these; the Harry-Cho dynamic was feeble to the point of being laughable, IMO), and she cannot escape falling down into cliché as she wraps up her story. I have yet to finish the final book because, really, the ending is so telegraphed that I can't find a reason to bother with it. HP jumped the shark with the events of Book Six, and I felt that going too far beyond that wasn't of much use.

[wilderthan.livejournal.com]

The Harry/Cho thing didn't convince me when I was eleven; I imagine I'd find it even more threadbare now.

[darthanne.livejournal.com]

well said. I've read all of the HP books except the last two basically because I don't like being out of loops. The rest are sitting on my shelf and not exactly high up the reading list - I will read them because I'm a completist and because being a teacher I need to be able to make informed comments on them.

I've always thought Susan Cooper was a far superior writer. Rowling might have got kids reading, but I'd hope they'd then use it for a stepping stone towards something else.

(some of it reminds me of the stereotypes of adults and policemen in the Enid Blyton books actually)

[wilderthan.livejournal.com]

I'm a completist, too, which is why it pains me that I haven't read the rest. But I don't really want to for any other reason than a tiny bit of curiosity and that desire to have read the whole series.

Yeah, but in my experience (of being around other people from ages 11-17 who were interested in Harry Potter), they don't. They just stay on the same level. Which is fine with me, in one sense -- if that's all they want to do -- but... I wish people would read more and enjoy it. Sigh.

(I had a great fondness for the Enid Blyton books, but even then I knew they were stereotypical and completely unrealistic.)

[darthanne.livejournal.com]

I enjoyed Enid Blyton as a kid, read everything she ever wrote though the Secret Seven annoyed me. But in saying that I outgrew them and moved on and they did help with reading mileage and getting me hooked on reading. There are a lot of HP adult fans out there, and people who read a very narrow range of books. What really disturbed me was during an teaching lecture a lecturer who's specialist area is reading got up and went on about how the HP books are just wonderful and she wasn't meaning just to get kids reading.

[wilderthan.livejournal.com]

I reckon that some percentage of people who enjoy Harry Potter do go on to read more, whatever my experience was (quite narrow; I went to a small private school). Just the same as with Enid Blyton, I suppose.

...Oh ouch.

[snakewhissperer.livejournal.com]

I've read most of them..and while I enjoyed the first one, after about the third book it decended into 'whining teenage angst' where i really wanted to shake the book to get them to snap out of it.

A few of the issues as I see them in Harry potter. First of all, I'm a non-native (just) reader - I can't criticise the grammar, but I'm aware that the level of words is very low- I didn't learn any words that weren't made up, and usually I can pick up one or two at least!

Having that out the way..you have the issue where the only houses ever given any depth - and pitifully little at that- is Gryffindor. Do we ever hear about teh goings on in hufflepuff? Ravenclaw? No. A teensy bit about slyterin, but only when the protaganists invade the dungeon. That makes it very one dimensional. The fact its all told from harry potters point of view is very one dimensional.

Then we have three child characters who have barely had their first year of schooling not only once but repeatedly find the root of all evil, solve riddles that hte smartes wizards around shouldn't be able to, get into competitions they shouldn't..erm, yeah. Sounds rather deux et machina and mary sue. And snape is evil! they say so so you should believe it! erm, yeah, after the first time that one grows old, after the third book full of 'it must be snape! he's evil' you ask yourself how dense these kids are.

Its a light read. Its an evening of fluff. You put it down and its gone. I've read say Artemis fowl and had a lot more enjoyment out of it, and gone back to read it while I wouldn't go back to harry potter (I in fact left my book at the airport deliberately for the next person to pick up)

[wilderthan.livejournal.com]

The level of the words doesn't trouble me much: it's meant to be a kid's book, after all, and I haven't learnt many new words in my reading since I was quite little. (I read adult books when I was nine -- you know, Asimov, Le Guin, Raymond E Feist, Tolkien...) The most recent was 'insouciance' (and though I wouldn't have used the word, I knew what it meant as soon as I saw it).

Yeah, complete lack of depth, and a lack of realism. To some extent... what are we expecting realism in fiction about a school of wizards for? But on the other hand, suspension of disbelief has to stop somewhere.

[conor-ahearne.livejournal.com]

Good review. I guess I'm the only one here who did enjoy the series, but now I shall be thinking about it more critically, I'd say. One thing I noticed is that the movies did make me think about something in the books I didn't like. The author was more or less telegraphing Harry Potter ending up with Ginny Weasley but at the same time still making her such a non character that the folks making the films don't even give her more than twenty minutes in any given film including the one she was supposed to be a major plot point in, "The Chamber of Secrets." I honestly never cared about her character at any point, and thats not how you should feel when reading a book, and definitely not how you should feel about a supposedly "important" character.

[wilderthan.livejournal.com]

I did enjoy the series, before I learnt to think critically about books. Now it's quite hard for me to get on with Harry Potter and books like it because I do have the critical part of my brain switched on at a low ebb constantly!

[readableshey.livejournal.com]

Well said! I personally love Harry Potter, though. I find the series and the characters entertaining and enjoyable, but I'm the type of person who likes a quick, simple read, seeing as my life's a bit too hectic right now for anything more complicated.

The black and white view in the first few books, admittedly, weren't appealing to me. I believe toward the last few books J.K. Rowling finally incorporated some shades of gray in her characters. Overall it was just a happy, feel-good entertaining series that doesn't invoke far too much thought, IMO, but that suits me just fine. I can see how it may not suit others, though.