Why HP is so popular

[Tabouli]

No: HPFGUIDX 23694

I have long been formulating a theory about this.  One element is that JKR is treading an ingenious middle ground between the realism and fantasy genres.  There seems to be a taste spectrum in terms of how much fantasy a reader is willing to tolerate.  Some people are totally bored and turned off by anything they can't relate to immediately: they like their books set in their time, in a society they can recognise and understand, where things that could conceivably happen in "real life" happen and so on.  Others are totally turned off by anything too mundane and close to real life: they like their reading escapist, with characters and happenings and powers that couldn't happen in real life (I was of the latter faith as a teenager: to those who sneered "But it's not REAL!" I'd reply "Why would I want to read about real life when I can just step out the door?").  In between we have gradations, the types who like realistic science fiction, or carefully researched historical fiction, or magic realism, and so on.

Harry Potter sits nicely in the middle ground, where *both* ends of the spectrum can meet.  Realist children (and I'll talk in terms of children for the moment) can relate to Harry because he lives in modern times, with modern things they recognise and use themselves (e.g. Playstations), and goes to school, experiencing all the things any ordinary boy would experience: classes, bullies, enemies, good and bad teachers, detentions and so on.  There's more than enough reality for them to cope with the magical element in the stories.  At the other end, the fantastical, magic element appeals to the children who like to read about fantasy worlds and magic powers and so on.

If we accept a simplistic distinction between the "pure realism" and "pure fantasy" ends of the spectrum for the purposes of this message, we can also notice that the two genres have noticeable differences in focus.  Realist novels tend to be more character centred.  They tend to spend a lot of time exploring the personality of the main characters, their motivations, likes, dislikes, relationships and so on, as well as the minutiae of their everyday life, their school or workplace, their routines, and so on.  Being set in the real world, the author also has to come up with plausible tensions and complications for the characters to resolve in plausible, realistic ways.  (Think something like Bridget Jones, or Beverley Cleary's work.  I can think of lots of examples, but I don't think they'd be well-known enough to use as examples here!).  By the end of the book, the reader feels that they know the character involved intimately.

By contrast (gad, I feel essay-writing instincts kicking in), pure fantasy tends to be more world centred.  The primary creative element in the story is not the nature of the characters themselves, but the nature of the world in which they find themselves.  Take the Narnia series, for example, in particular the ones with the Pevensie children.  The character exploration in the books is pretty minimal (Peter is brave and noble, Susan is girly and compassionate and then succumbs to adolescence "silliness", Edmund is sly and traitorous then goes humble and steadfast, Lucy is valiant and sweet and loyal), but the creation of the world is lush and detailed.  The same goes for Lord of the Rings (she says, hiding from the lynch mobs of Tolkien fans baying for her blood), which is why someone on OT amusingly commented that s/he couldn't imagine having a crush on a Tolkien character, or two Tolkien characters having sex.  The characters explore the outer fantasy world much more than their inner world, and hence you don't really get acquainted with them in the same way you get acquainted with Bridget Jones, or the Marlow family in Antonia Forest's books (which are excellent, btw, though sadly out of print).

Harry Potter, on the other hand, sits craftily in between.  JKR has created a fantasy world, but places it in a familiar and understandable setting (a boarding school, 1990s London, etc.) where much can be taken as read.  I've seen Tolkien fans sneering at HP and implying that JKR "hasn't and perhaps can't create a completely independent magical world" (for God's sake, I snorted), and felt like pointing out to them that there's an important distinction between micro and macro creativity there.  One reason why there's little character development in a lot of high fantasy is that it's a macro creativity genre: much more page space has to be devoted to describing the world.  JKR's world, however, is a micro-creativity world: basically a world encapsulated by the real one, but with ingenious variations: the moving pictures, the self-shuffling cards, the creatures from myth being real, magic powers, etc.  More importantly, she devotes roughly equal air time to exploring both her characters' inner *and* outer worlds.  We *do* feel acquainted with her characters (as this list flagrantly illustrates!), she creates whole, believable characters with motivations and personalities, who develop and change, yet we also get acquainted with her world and all its eccentricities.

So my point thus far is, briefly, this: HP's popularity is partly due to it appealing both to realists, who like exploring people in believable situations they can relate to, and to fantasists, who like magic and excapism and exploring imaginary worlds.  Of course, it's not alone in this (I can think of numerous half-way books which also do this), so there must be more to it.

The other reasons for its popularity have to do with craft.  JKR is very clever at pitching her work: she has believable child protagonists, but doesn't patronise them or her readers.  She can be touching without being sentimental, moral without being preachy, and create involved and sophisticated plots without being confusing or overwhelming.  The popularity of the series with children is testimony to this: she's not underestimating their intelligence, and they love it!  She is also ingenious enough to do multi-level writing.  There are countless deeper historical and mythological references and allegories in the books, yet they can be enjoyed and understood without even noticing them.  Very impressive.  I raise my proverbial hat to her.

So there we have my analysis.  I don my bullet-proof vest and umbrella and await the torrents of counter-argument...

Tabouli.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]