Official Philip Nel Discussion Question #4--Will HP become classic?

[gwendolyngrace]

No: HPFGUIDX 38087

Hey, again.

Well, a lot to chew on is right!

Let's see:
> Will the Potter novels be classics?   What do they share
> in common with other classics?  In your answer, decide how you'll
> define the word 'classic.'  Does it denote 'classic literature for
> children,' 'classic fantasy,' 'classic British literature'?
> Something else?  In defining the term, choose some points of
> comparison.  (Snip) What are the criteria of a classic?

I think I'll start by defining "classic" as I see it. A "classic" is
something that holds up to repetitive reading, can be read in many
different contexts and with a number of underlying implications as to
how its audience receives it, and appeals to a wide range of
audiences. Furthermore, a "classic" is also something that typifies
its genre--while NOT crossing the line to cliche, dull, predictable,
or hackneyed. There is also the test of time, but as Jayseeweezer
pointed out, we don't have enough information about that yet.

Some of these criteria are incomplete within the canon (such as
whether the series will fall back on "predictable" or "cliche" devices
to resolve the plot), but extrapolating from the 57% of the books we
have, I'd venture to say that HP shows every sign of becoming a classic.

Before certain camps (or SHIPS) lynch me, I'd also like to say that
*some* degree of predictability may appear within a story or series
and not affect its "classic" status. When used in moderation, allowing
the audience to know what's coming, or better yet, to suspect what's
coming and have those expectations confirmed, can be a powerful and
satisfying conclusion. However, I think JKR has set up a pattern of
surprising her readers with twists that are nevertheless altogether
foreshadowed and noticeable when read again. Thus, I hope that she
continues in her tradition and manages to avoid the worst of the pat
answers or endings in the books--or at least, that if she chooses one,
she will not choose any more. If she refrains from piling cliche upon
cliche upon cliche, I think she can avoid being labelled hackneyed and
retain a satisfactory conclusion to her saga.

For that's the final criterion and perhaps the most important: a
"classic" must be an overall *satisfying* story. And that satisfaction
must continue, no matter how often or how many times one returns. The
reader need not be *happy* with every authorial decision, but rather
the reader must concede that, after all, it's for the best.

For example, I still am very angry that some of my favourite
characters die in Lloyd Alexander's "Chronicles of Prydain," but
regardless of that, when I put down the last page of "The High King,"
I am content. While there are things I might change, or things I never
found out and wish to know, I am satisfied with the conclusion as the
author conceived it. Does that make sense? It's a key component of the
classic, I think, so if I didn't get that across, much of the rest of
what I have to say won't follow well.

So apologies--let me know if I have to clarify that further, but the
nutshell is: Don't have to like it, but have to be contented with the
outcome. Every time.


Now, the next part of Dr. Nel's question concerns what genre HP
represents. If a classic "typifies its genre," then what genre is that?

I think it's a lot of genres rolled into one, actually. It's humour,
but it's also angst and social struggles. It's fantasy, but it's also
very grounded in the modern world. It's adventure, but it's also about
relationships, family, and love. It's about children, but it's also
about adults. What genre indeed?

Overall, I'd have to put it in "fantasy." Magic, witches, wizards,
dragons...definitely fantasy territory. And after all, fantasy books
must also be about relationships, social structure, and involve some
conflict and danger tempered with a dose of humour, or they are empty
and limp. Children's? No, I don't think so. The first two books,
perhaps, but not the entire series.

The other major components to HP in terms of defining it as "fantasy"
are the wish fulfillment aspects of the story, and the idea of
coexisting but separated worlds. Here, we begin to address indirectly
the "archetypal" issues that Luke broke out into separate questions.

Many tales centre on a "wish fulfillment" concept: who among us
wouldn't like to learn that we are in reality powerful magicians or
princes or heroes?

Another very popular question in literature and film is whether our
world is really real, or whether we coexist with or can travel among
other worlds.

HP combines these concepts to creat a hero who is unaware of his
status in that "other world," and who learns to his delight that he is
much more important than he believed. Here's a very short list of
similar tales:

Labyrinth; The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe; The Matrix; The
Devil's Advocate; The Dark is Rising; His Dark Materials; Foucault's
Pendulum; The Eight; Arthurian legend (particularly Mary Stewart and
Marion Zimmer Bradley's tellings); The Tower of Beowulf; The Riftwar
Saga; Thomas Covenant; Rose or Daniel in the graphic series, "The
Sandman."

While the platform for revelation may be different in children's books
than in adult novels, I tried to include a fair number of books meant
to be read by adults to show that we don't ever really outgrow the
fantasy.

Luke asked:
> (snip) Are archetypes a 'free
> ticket' to becoming a classic, or do only some archetypal stories
> succeed?  If the latter, why perhaps--beyond the fickle fancies of
> the marketplace--do some succeed and others not?  What in Harry
> Potter's use of archetypes may have caused it to fall in
> the 'successful' category?

No, they certainly are not a free ticket. For proof, look at all the
other criteria of a classic. It's not enough to include "stock"
archetypes and move them about in a pre-determined pattern such as the
bildungsroman or the picaresque or the epic and expect the work to
succeed.

Though another thing to remember is that "what sells" and "what is
good" are two different questions. Harlequin romance sells. Is it
good? Well, it fulfills fantasies, for some. But is it good? Parke
Godwin is good. Does he sell? Only to a very discerning audience. So
you can't completely discount the fickle fancies of the consumer.

As for what in HP has made it successful and good, I believe that's
due to the combination and range of styles and emotions Rowling
evokes. She has a hearty sense of character and can convey a lot of
clues to an audience with great economy. She moves between her
convincing world and ours with agility, and understands how to keep us
with her all the time. Like a good tour guide, we are never too far
ahead, but never dragging behind. She has the elements without making
them cliche, while infusing them with enough life and inconsistency
and reality to be more than mere stock.

>
> 2) People often describe a classic as being 'timeless', and the
> implication of this statement is that whatever appeal the book has,
> it cannot be limited to a particular generation.  (Snip) Does Harry
> Potter contain any possible social
> commentary, or is it more concerned with 'timeless' matters of the
> human condition?  If it does contain any social commentary, is this
> the sort that is only of value if read as an indictment of certain
> present-day issues, or does it continue to hold appeal even without
> such comparisons?
>

Well, I think pretty clearly the books do contain commentary on both
current social issues and "timeless" human issues. When we get to the
elf questions (20 May), we can examine the social/human implications
in more detail, but for now I think it's enough to say there's clearly
a mix. Then again, even in the social category, Rowling chooses
personalities that derive from caricatures (like archetypes but more
intended as parody), and as such will nearly always be recognizable.
Doesn't every family have an Aunt Petunia or Marge? Doesn't every
generation have it's Ken Brana--I mean, its Lockhart? I think these
are people one can identify in one's own life, so that whether or not
the *specific* person or amalgam of persons Rowling modeled are
remembered, the *type* will still communicate.


Luke again:
> 3) Although sometimes classics are 'created', by school teachers and
> university professors who find them of value and therefore add them
> to the curriculum for the sake of their students, the vast majority
> of classics are spread through a form of evangelism which occurs
> between family and friends.  (Snip)  Does Harry
> Potter have the potential to achieve this cross-generational
> sharing?  How might Harry Potter's existing cross-generational appeal
> be indicative of this?
>

Heh-heh. Well, I won't talk about how schools "create" classics,
because it's not really germane to this discussion: I don't think HP
could have enjoyed half its success if it was merely a case of
teachers finding it valuable. Clearly there is something about the
books that appeals to all manner of people.

And yes, I think a lot of it has to do with cross-generational appeal.
I can't speak as a child, but I can say that as an adult, I understood
and sympathized with Harry's plight, just as I can put myself in his
place as a teenager with the world to save. :^) But while I have to
say I *enjoyed* the first two books, PoA really made the series take
off for me. It was always the adults--Snape, Dumbledore, Hagrid, even
Lockhart--who teased me and beckoned me to learn more, to look deeper.
So when we are introduced to Sirius and Remus, two more utterly
fascinating and compelling characters, that's when I really became
engaged. For me, it's the transition of the children from a world that
only matters to them (that is, a world where they are at the center)
to a world that is clearly much more vast than they are, that makes
their journey to adulthood begin. And that in turn is what pushes the
story out of the realm of children's books, for me. PoA begins to let
us in on the nuances of these adult relationships, and the things
going on in the world outside Hogwarts. GoF continues this trend. They
create a need for the children to figure out how they are going to fit
in that much larger, much more dangerous, much darker world. How are
they going to change it? And how much more will we learn about their
elders in the meantime?

Now, a child or young adult reading the book will probably discover
HRH's roles (and possible Draco's, etc.) along with them. He is more
likely to learn from their examples how one matures and takes
responsibility in life. Adults, we hope, already know something about
that, so they are able to remember their experiences *and* anticipate
the choices HRH will make. It's a much deeper relationship to the text
than CoS or SS/PS allows, although to be fair, there are hints of this
treatment in all the books.

I'm going to cut that line of thought off so I can get to the last
question:

> 4) One complaint frequently lodged against Harry Potter (aside from
> allegedly promoting witchcraft and/or not possessing 'true' literary
> merit) is the assertion that Harry Potter is basically derivative of
> its preceeding works.  Are these claims valid?  More importantly, are
> they even relevant?  Most persons involved in the literary world will
> tell you that, while obviously something can be clearly derived from
> other works in almost plagiaristic fashion and/or can be heavily
> dependent upon cliche, there is no story in existence that is
> truly "original".  Consider the difference between a derivitave work
> and an archetypal one.  Which term is most accurately applied to
> Harry Potter?  Will Harry Potter's alleged lack of "originality" be
> detrimental to its eventually becoming classic?  In other words, will
> its more "original" predecessors outlast it, once the newness of
> Harry Potter has worn off, or does Harry Potter hold something
> special to set it apart?


I kept this question in its entirety because the components of it are
important to consider in turn. First, is HP a derivative work? Yes and
no. Does it draw heavily on existing mythos, folklore, and attitudes
about magic? Yes, but frequently JKR twists those assumptions on their
sides and often outright reverses them. Case in point: the Flame
Freezing Charm. Or Broomsticks--taking a popular if completely silly
notion from real folklore and turning it into the sports car of the
wizarding world.

Is it an archetypal work? Yes, definitely, but again, she is not
content to leave her archetypes as "stock," instead developing them
out and giving them foibles as well as hidden strengths.

I think again, the distinction here is not that the work is merely
derivative. It is what Rowling does with what she derives. We still
don't know how it will all work out, but as I said earlier, to
extrapolate based on 57% of the story, it appears she will continue to
hold up some beliefs about myth and legend while rejecting others.

Once again, one can fill a story with archetypes without good results.
And one can derive from sources less "classic" than the original
archetypes and still be successful.

Two brief examples (apologies to anyone who has strong opinions about
these books):

The Sword of Shannarra by Terry Brooks. Total rip-off of Tolkein. All
the required elements are there: elves, an epic quest, warriors,
magic, wizards, dragons, big chief evil dude and even a volcanic
mountain--but the story's a no-go (IMO, of course). Did it sell? Yup.

Jack the Giant-Killer, by Charles DeLint. Cyberpunk retelling of the
fairy tale. Jack is a girl. The Jack stories themselves are retellings
of ancient myths, so they are altered from their original. But deLint
so utterly transforms what you *think* you know and makes it into a
completely new tale, that it cannot fail to win readers' minds. Did it
fly off the shelves? Not exactly. Will it endure? I think so.

How lucky that JKR seems to have found a combination both *good* and
*successful.*

Gwen