Darkness of Later Books (was Sadness); Mysteries/Fantasy/Childrens Lit; Strengths & Weaknesses of SS & CoS; and more

[Penny & Bryce]

No: HPFGUIDX 32414

Hi --

As you can see, I struggled a bit with the subject heading.  Decided I 
could probably say all I wanted to on these ongoing threads in one 
message since I think they are all a bit interrelated.  I had a response 
half-drafted on the sadness thread that Elizabeth started last week & 
then my computer froze up & I lost it.

SADNESS IN HP -- IIRC, Elizabeth basically said that she enjoyed the 
earlier books because the endings were upbeat; they were "feel good" 
books that could be re-read with pleasure.  She expressed some 
reservations about GoF & where the series as a whole might be headed, 
particularly with respect to the grand finale.  Cindy the Bloodthirsty 
responded that she was all for more blood, tragedy & sadness overall. 
<g>

I think I agree with both of them in some respects, although probably 
more with Cindy.  I attended the movie with a friend here in town who 
loves HP, and as we were entering the theater, she pointed to the newest 
movie poster, shuddered & said, "I really hate that new movie poster." 
After questioning, she said it was because it was too dark.  Further 
questions & she admitted that she meant dark as in foreboding, sinister. 
  When all is said & done, she didn't like GoF much (thought it was too 
dark) and is hopeful the series will return to the fairy tale-esque 
happy-ending structure of the earlier books.  Interesting since I like 
that newest movie poster the best of all of them, and while I typically 
pick PoA as my favorite book so far, it is certainly not because of 
GoF's "dark" tone.  I love that & can't wait to see more of it. I enjoy 
the simple "feel good" endings of SS & CoS but revel in the complexity & 
sharper focus that JKR is bringing us with the later books.  I love the 
darker themes.  IMHO, JKR is really coming more & more into her own as 
the books progress.  Despite the plot holes & problems of GoF, I think 
her writing style has matured with each book.  Like Elizabeth, I do 
agree that the editorial staff really should be fixing the 
inconsistencies & minor plot problems.  I'm not sure their job to date 
has been at all satisfactory.

> Cindy again:
>  >
>  > Maybe you've put your finger on my fundamental problem with PS/SS and
>  > CoS and all mystery novels -- since there's no real suspense, you
>  > need brilliant clues and lots of misdirection to keep things
>  > interesting, I guess.
>  >

Elizabeth responded:

> 
> Well, at least we agree that PS/SS and CoS were mystery novels. I'll 
> give you
> that PS/SS wasn't an especially good one, though.
> 
> My guess is that we liked PS/SS because Harry was so darn charming & 
> lovable.
> 
> And there was that bit of cleverness with the Mirror....
> 
> Actually, looks like Rachel has a good explanation -- general fun & wit 
> combined
> with some really wild plot twists. (Am I the only one who picked up CoS
> primarily to find out "what's up with this Snape guy?") Though, to be 
> brutally
> honest, I wasn't all that impressed with the first two books. (Will I get
> Howlers for this?? ;) They were decent, but not especially better than other
> "kid's" books I've read this year. I'm still amazed that Scholastic 
> offered six
> figures for PS/SS, before CoS was even written, and all that marketing 
> hype....
> How did they know that PoA would be so great? I'm reluctant to praise the
> editorial skills of the staff at Scholastic, for obvious reasons.

I think it was the plot twists that did it for me.  I don't know if I 
can say I was "impressed" with the first 2 books.  That is, did I think 
"Wow!  This is really impressive & serious literature."  Not 
necessarily.  Did I think "This was a fantastic read!  I must start the 
2nd one right *now,* right this very second."  Yes!  :--)  By the time I 
finished PoA, I was convinced that I was involved in something huge 
though.  As Rachel said no succintly, I think it is the phenomenal plot 
twists that really pull the reader in.  (Hmm.... wasn't it David's point 
a few weeks ago that JKR's top priority is advancement of the plot, with 
characterization & creation of a magical world being secondary?).

Rachel:

> The biggest red herring it has going for it is that it is
> labeled "Childern's Fiction."

Yes.  <g>  Which brings me to:

Jon wrote:

> JKR is doing something quite unique with this hero actually growing
> up theme - I can't really think of a similar attempt in fantasy
> offhand (well, apart from Pullman, but that wasn't exactly gradual).
> She's very insistent that she won't change a word and that it is
> going to get "darker" - so, yes, the later books will probably be
> slightly different. Whether that makes the mature children's books or
> adult literature is a matter of opinion, I would suppose.

Before I go into the familiar territory of adult vs. childrens' 
literature, I noted that Jon was commenting specifically about the 
fantasy genre.  That's another label that's interestingly refuted by JKR:

In fact, I don't really like fantasy. It's not so much that I don't like it, I really haven't read a lot of it. 

It didn't occur to me for quite a while that I was writing fantasy when I'd started "Harry Potter," because I'm a bit slow on the uptake about those things. I was so caught up in it. And I was about two thirds of the way through,

 and I suddenly thought, This has got unicorns in it. I'm writing fantasy!

I've always found that to be amusing.  :--)

I don't read much fantasy & have never read Sci-Fi myself, so I really 
can't participate in genre debates on that score.

As for the coming-of-age scenario, we've had that debate many times 
over.  My subjective opinion is that if you believably age a child into 
adulthood over the course of one or more novels, you aren't necessarily 
dealing with something that can be classed as "childrens'" or "adult" 
for that matter.  For HP, I like this hybrid theory.  It would be hard 
to argue that the entire series is adult.  IMO though, it's equally hard 
to class it so far as childrens or even young adult.  I think it's also 
problematic to try & guess what labels, if any, could be placed on the 
books yet to come.  Is a believable 18 yr old Harry really a childrens' 
lit protagonist after all?

For those who are subjectively inclined to view the HP books as 
childrens' books, I'd be curious to hear your reasons.  Is it the age of 
the main characters (and if so, at what age would a later book cross the 
bridge into something other than childrens' lit for you)? Is it the fact 
that the books are marketed to children?  Something else?

At one point someone on this list pointed out that there is a definite 
distinction to be made between books that are *suitable* for children & 
those that are *written for, targeted at* children.  My own 
interpretation of JKR's statements is that she was not doing the latter, 
but it just happens that the books (the earlier ones at least) are 
suitable for, and appealing to, children.  This does not make them 
childrens' books per se though.


> 
> Elizabeth
> (Still pondering her "one question" and also considering how we could 
> arrange for HPFGU to crash any future online chats, with our list of questions 
> in our hot little virtual hands....)

We've done this before!  JKR did 3 chats in Oct 2000; we crashed each & 
every one with a list of questions you can still view in our Files area. 
  We only got 2-3 answered IIRC.  It was fairly obvious that JKR didn't 
want to answer anything too hard.  <g>  Our questions could all be 
answered as factual matters or answered to clear up inconsistencies.  In 
other words, they were not phrased in a way to try & elicit future plot 
points.  All in all, it was very disappointing.

Penny