Why to Like and Not Like OoP

[m.steinberger]

No: HPFGUIDX 70492

It is a shame that HP4GU has become a place where intelligent criticism of HP feels unwelcome. No one is nasty, but the only responses one gets to reasonable critique are opposition from fans or blank approval from fellow anti-fans (for lack of a better word to describe former HP fans who are now disappointed). Delving into HP’s problems doesn’t happen.

 

As a result, I’ve given up, for now, the 15-page thesis I’m in the middle of writing, detailing all the plusses and minuses of OoP. There doesn’t seem to be anyplace to post it and get further exploration, only comments by people intent on shooting the minuses down. All the careful, logical analysis, the even-handed presentations, the comparative studies, and such like are sitting half-done in a computer file, waiting for the Messiah (as we say where I come from).

 

However, I feel irresponsible, somehow, not protesting a few unreasonable things I’ve seen said on this list (and in reviews), so if you will forgive the brusque style, done only for the sake of brevity, I will post my opinions as follows:

 

Why NOT to like OoP:

 

I have no problem with the fact that many, even most, people like OoP. As has been said many times, liking OoP is a matter of taste. However, some of the adulation given the book is simply false. Below, I will list valid reasons to like OoP, but first here are the reasons that simply don’t apply.

 

1. The characters’ personalities and relationships are refreshingly realistic. Until now, perhaps this was true, however, in OoP, the personalities and relationships are not realistic at all. What *is* true is that the characters’ behavior is realistic of some real people some of the time. There are people in the world who sometimes act like Harry, Ron, Hermione, Dumbledore, and Sirius do in OoP. However, real people in the situations that these characters find themselves in would NOT realistically act the way they do, nor would anyone act the way they do for as long and consistently as the characters do, either.

            To be realistic, Harry ought to be suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, after the graveyard scene combined with the severe lack of emotional support afterwards. His behavior should not be that of a “normal,” “hormonal” teenager, but that of a frighteningly disturbed, almost psychotic kid. Kids can repress the kind of thing Harry went through, but then they look artificially put-together, not like “normal,” anger-venting teens. And if Harry somehow had magically superhuman emotional resources, he again would not be losing control of his temper. So Harry’s behavior in OoP, while realistic of certain people in the world, is totally unrealistic for Harry.

            Ron’s whole issue, in OoP, is becoming recognized as a person with merits of his own. Before he gets recognition, he’s got plenty of normal self-doubt, but afterwards, he accepts his new status as a natural thing, with none of the intensified self-doubt, testing the bounds of the new reputation, and strained relationships that normally accompany teenage (and adult) changes in status. No realism here.

            Hermione is Miss Perfect, as Rita Skeeter teases. Realism?

            Dumbledore is human, with human failings, we discover. One of those failings is being completely insensitive to the feelings of a person he never stops thinking about – Harry. And he continues to be insensitive for months on end, supposedly for Harry’s protection, supposedly because he loves Harry. Yet with all that repressed love, he never slips into any inadvertent signs of affection. And he never tries to find any back-door route to alleviate Harry’s suffering. The unrealistic part, here, is the “never.” People can be conflicted and at odds with themselves, and can make stupid decisions (like stone-walling Harry), but not for long without the conflicts creating interesting cracks and odd behaviors. But Dumbledore is a seamless poker face. Not too realistic at all.

            Poor Sirius. He shows one face from page whatever until the day he dies. Angry, frustrated, resentful, jealous of those who can act, and fond of Harry in as self-focused way as the rest of his behavior. Granted, poor Sirius is put-upon, so it is not his fault, perhaps, that he is psychologically unhealthy, but his unhealth is a fact, nonetheless. However, unhealthy characters of Sirius’s stripe don’t cooperate with authority the way Sirius cooperates with Dumbledore’s insistence on Sirius’s hated imprisonment. Yes, Sirius sneaks out once. But just once! A real personality like Sirius’s wouldn’t stay at Grimmauld place for one minute.

            So all you OoP fans can love the characters because you love the characters. But don’t love them because they are realistic. They are not realistic at all.

            And before you argue about whether they are realistic or not, let’s hear from some people who work in counseling with kids and adults who have been through real-life equivalents of what these characters have been through.

            Again – these *behaviors* exist. There are real people who *act* like these characters do – but only for brief stretches of time. There is no realism in the way these behaviors persist from July to June.

 

2. The book is a wonderful study in adolescence. Ok – forget what Harry and all have been through. Let’s pretend that they’ve only had normal childhoods with normal challenges, and now comes adolescence and they have to deal with their own hormones, with the failures of adult society and with their own disillusionment. Doesn’t the book do a good job?

            Not particularly. It certainly deals with these things, but the results are not particularly nuanced or insightful. Harry fumes and sulks, has no insights to share with us, and eventually throws things in Dumbledore’s office and grieves on the lakeshore. Oh, and he doesn’t know how to talk to girls, yet. Wow. Ron seems to have no hormones at all, and is a relatively affable sidekick, regardless of the failure of adult society and the breakdown of his school. Hermione is perfect. Neville rallies to the cause with nary a blip of failure or self-doubt. Ginny gets more assertive with no hormonal or other adolescent qualms to slow her down; she even tosses boyfriends with equanimity.

            Granted, this is a big step up from Goosebumps or the Babysitter’s Club (or whatever it’s called). But that’s not much of a compliment. It has nothing to compare to Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn (who were precocious adolescents), to Catcher in the Rye, to A Separate Peace (also early adolescents), to To Kill a Mockingbird (same comment), and many other books since then that have explored adolescence and come up with depth and insight.

            So enjoy Harry’s adolescent behavior because you find it endearing, amusing, nostalgic, or familiar, but not because it is a great study.

 

3. The books develop important themes like the failure of government, the danger of petty evil, the evil within, the importance of self-control, and so on. All I can say is that the books present these themes, but they don’t develop them, and the presentations are pretty bald-faced and simplistic. Umbridge is a pretty heavy-handed statement of the evils of government control. No subtlety there. Harry’s Evil Within is a real possession by an evil Other, not an exploration of personal evil. The only evil he discovers within himself is an unfriendly feeling of superiority to Ron, and a small pleasure in being Voldemort’s chosen nemesis, which is really just a natural, forgivable mental compensation for the suffering Voldemort has caused him. Petty evil in the form of Fudge and the Daily Prophet apologize at the end and go back to business as usual; no explorations here. Self-control? Yes, Harry could use some, as we see again, and again, and again, with no variation or development at all.

            So do you like the themes? How about reading the hundreds of very thoughtful adult books written on these subjects? This one doesn’t have much to offer.

 

4. The book has a great plot. Personally, I highly doubt this one, though it is very hard to prove. Certainly, it is possible to feel that a plot is great even when it isn’t, if you are invested enough in the characters. A similar experience happens when people read articles about their favorite film, music or sports stars. An article can be written abominably, but fans will devour it with pleasure just to learn more about their idols.

OoP’s main plot has Harry suffering mental contact with Voldemort (and all it does is cause nightmares, nothing like what Ginny suffered), for which he takes Occlumency lessons, which don’t help, leading to his being tricked by Voldemort into entering the Department of Mysteries, where there is a battle in which Sirius is killed and Dumbledore saves Harry. That’s it. Nothing wrong with this plot, but nothing great, either.

The primary subplot has Harry being discredited by the Ministry, being persecuted by Umbridge, being set up by Hermione to teach the DA, overhearing other characters’ efforts to trip Umbridge up, being set up by Hermione to give Rita an interview, getting some and then more of his credibility back because of the DA and the interview, following Hermione as she disposes of Umbridge, and seeing the Ministry eat well-disguised crow. Pretty passive from the point of view of the POV. Harry’s passivity may enhance the themes (which are not well done, in any case), but it certainly doesn’t make for a gripping plot.

            So why like the plot? Why not? It’s good enough for a read through, but I don’t think it could inspire affection if readers weren’t invested in the characters to begin with.

 

So Why Like OoP?

 

1. It tells you more about Harry, in whom you are already emotionally invested.

2. It tells you some of Snape’s and James et al’s backstory, so you can enjoy the other books more deeply.

3. It has lots of fantasy details, for those who like fantasy for its own sake.

4. It has some humor, for those who can overlook the characters’ suffering enough to enjoy the humor.

5. It has a decent plot, for those always looking for a good plot to read.

6. It has recognizably human behavior, for people who normally read books whose characters are complete cardboard.

7. It mixes a tolerable plot, characters you already like, and neat, imaginative details with important themes, which is a mix you don’t often get, even if none of these elements are brilliant in their own right.

 

Which HP fans can’t stand OoP, then?

 

1. Those who are so irked by the *lack* of realism in Harry’s character that they can’t emotionally invest in his new persona.

2. Those who don’t want to read hundreds of pages just to get a backstory.

3. Those who don’t like fantasy details for their own sake.

4. Those who can’t enjoy the humor over the suffering.

5. Those who have read better plots and characterizations, and have better plots and characterizations to read.

6. Those who are so familiar with OoP’s themes that their weak presentation offers no pleasure.

 

So why did these fans like the other HPs?

 

1. Harry’s character was not very realistic before, but it was more consistent than now, and more pleasant, to boot.

2. Fans could wait for backstory.

3. The fantasy details were intrinsic to the story in a way that they are not, here. For an exercise, try writing plot summaries of HP1-4 similar to the ones I wrote above. Now try rewriting them all without mentioning the magic. I’ve tried this. It works for OoP, but not for the other books.

4. HP1-4 did not have such intense suffering and could be very funny instead.

5. The plots and characterizations were better. Read the plot summaries you’ve written, and you’ll see.

6. The themes were much more subtly and insightfully developed. I could write a whole dissertation on the development of themes in HP1-4, but this list wouldn’t be a good place to post something that long.

 

Yes, I’m a grouch, and I’m proud of it. I wish more HP fans were intelligently critical and not just blindly adoring, but then, why spoil everyone’s fun? It’s not evil or dangerous to love OoP. So have your book and feel good with it, but please don’t do yourselves the intellectual disservice of pretending that you like it because of its “realism,” or its high-quality presentation of anything. Better than average, maybe; but that’s only because of the pitiful state of the average.

 

The Formerly Admiring Skeptic

 

P.S. I have a pet theory of why JKR wrote OoP in so mediocre a fashion which would exonerate her of almost everything but wishful thinking about human nature. But that is for another time.

 


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