Re: Harry Potter–A Worthwhile series??

[GulPlum]

No: HPFGUIDX 33696

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "kimballs6" <kevinkimball at h...> wrote:
> Much debate is swirling around the Harry Potter books versus 
> C.S. Lewis's and Tolkien's stories.  Many argue that these 
> books are all similar--just fantasy, pure and simple.  I disagree.  
> They are fantasies (Lewis going into allegory), but that is where 
> the similarity ends.  After reading the first book in the Potter 
> series, reading The Hobbit, and brushing up on The Lion, the 
> Witch and the Wardrobe, I see a tremendous gulf between 
> Rowling and the other two writers.  This paper discusses the 
> difference between their world views and the incredible gulf 
> between writing abilities.

<snipperama>
Several people have already made detailed replies to your essay, so
I'll try to keep my comments short.

One thing with which nobody else (as far as I've seen) has taken
issue is your basic premise. 

Incidentally, where is this debate about comparing Rowling with Lewis 
and Tolkein? The only comparison I've ever seen has been between the 
recent movies, and largely only by those who wish, for whatever 
reason, to show Rowling's work to be wanting. Among the acres of 
press, none of Rowling's "fans" have ever tried to imply that her 
world is on a par with the other two examples you cite.

There is one basic and straightforward flaw in your entire diatribe:
Lewis and Tolkein were language scholars whose deliberate and
specific intention was to create Great Literature (capital G & L)
with extremely strong religious sub-texts (in Lewis's case, it's not
really "sub" anything). Both were scholars first, evangelists second
(if not vice-versa), and story-tellers third.

Rowling's intention has always and consistently been to tell a story, 
and nothing more. She has no ambitions for her oeuvre other than to 
give pleasure to children, telling them a story they will understand 
in an accessible language. That her books have become a phenomenon is 
quite clearly an even greater surprise to her than it is to anyone 
else. It is because the HP world has become a phenomenon that the 
usual rent-a-quotes feel obliged to compare Rowling to those of her 
forebears who are also seen as phenomena.

Both in terms of style and substance, to compare Rowling to Lewis and
Tolkein is unfair to all three of them. If anything, compare Harry
Potter to the Famous Five, Jennings or even the Bobbsey Twins, in 
whose distinguished company he belongs and where, after the movies 
have come and gone, I am sure he will remain. Undertake such a 
comparison, and I'm sure that both on literary and moral merit, 
Rowling will be more than entitled to hold her head high. These 
aren't necessarily great literary inventions, but they are books of 
their time for children of that time, introducing them to the joys of 
reading.

The only reason anyone puts Rowling into the same boat as Tolkein and
Lewis is because each created a self-consistent universe which told a
single story over several books. One may as well include Ian Fleming
and his James Bond books in that boat, as (unlike the films) there is 
a subtle continuity from book to book (although of course there isn't 
a clear running narrative). I'm aware that a significant proportion of
the regs here are women and thus the Bond books wouldn't necessarily
spring to mind - they are very much "boys' stories". :-)

Other people have commented on your over-simplified (and even
simplistic) comparison of the moral universe of the three books, so I
won't go into detail. 

However, considering Lewis and Tolkein were deliberately writing
Christian morality plays, it's not surprising that the gist of their
oeuvre is to pit ultimate good against ultimate evil in a framework 
of moral absolutism. The worlds they created are perforce removed 
from our own, which is painted not in black and white but in infinite 
shades of grey, and thus moral absolutes are difficult to find and 
portray in an exciting way. 

Rowling attempts to tell a story about a world with which her readers
can more immediately identify, and thus she is forced o show a 
morality which we can recognise in our daily lives - lying sometimes 
serves a greater good, and rules are a framework to help us live our 
lives, not absolute commandments, applicable to every situation.

The same is true of the grammatical and syntactical absolutism you
apply to a critique of Rowling's style - I actually agree with you in
that some of her constructions grate on me, but as others have pointed
out, language rules change. Rowling is a woman and is perhaps more
sensitive to personal pronouns than the men to whom you compare her 
(not to mention yourself, and me as well...) and this is certainly a 
feature of acceptable modern style for which you appear to fail to 
give her allowance.

One final comment: this is a discussion forum, not an essay publishing
house. The aim is for all of us to benefit from an exchange of 
opinions which may be divergent from our own. I've seen nothing from 
you before or since your post and am curious whether you actually 
wish to debate your ideas, some of which perhaps have some merit. By 
its very nature this is a fan forum and it's easy for readers and 
posters to become complacent. I therefore sincerely look forward to 
your thoughts on what others have said about your critique.