Why to Like and Not Like OoP

[sueeeyqbong]

No: HPFGUIDX 70594

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "m.steinberger" 
<steinber at z...> wrote:
(I've cheekily added my response at the top of this message, but M. 
Steinberger's wonderful original post is below it ...since the 
initial post was so long, I thought people might not see my added 
comments if they were at the bottom. I haven't snipped any of it 
because I thought it such a great post, that cutting any of it out 
wasn't doing it justice.) :

Me : (sueeeyqbong)
Bravo, M. Steinberger, for such an inciteful unprejudiced and fair 
minded assessment of OoP. I would love to read your complete 
thesis...please post it, and to heck with anyone who isn't open 
minded enough to take it on board. 

I too have problems with OoP...they don't stop me enjoying the book 
immensely, but they do make me reassess what I thought were the 
strengths of JKR's writing style until now. Until OoP, I thought 
that the Harry Potter books were very well written...reading OoP has 
made me realise just how clumsy her writing style can be at times 
(for example her overuse of adverbs and use of clicheed and 
repetitive descriptions...Malfoy always sneers or drawls, etc), and 
how her plots can sometimes be illogical and her characterisation 
quite two dimensional and stereotyped. Don't get me wrong...I LOVE 
the Harry Potter books, because of their imagination and their vivid 
detailed sense of escapism, (and actually partly  for their 
shortcomings which endear me to them a bit, if I'm honest) but I 
can't pretend that they are works of great literary merit, the kind 
that could stand comparison with the subtlety of Phillip Pullman or 
William Nicholson, for example. Someone said of the writing style of 
OoP that JKR wrote  'how children themselves would like to write' 
and I think that this is quite true...it's highly effective writing, 
definitely, and highly enjoyable, but I can't pretend that it's 
among the most acomplished prose around. I don't think that it needs 
to be either, and to JKR's credit, I don't think she's under any 
illusions that it's highly literary fiction that she's writing...why 
does it need to be? Sometimes I think we judge the Harry Potter 
books by unnecessarily high standards...what does it matter if 
there's the occasional 'flint' or that sometimes the plot doesn't 
withstand the harshest of scrutiny? I think that books are most 
enjoyed if approached in the spirit in which they were conceived, 
and sometimes think some of the posters here are subconsciously 
blinding themselves to any sense of criticism of the HP books 
because they feel it might lessen their HP reading pleasure. It IS 
possible to really enjoy the boks and yet be aware that they are 
flawed.

I don't mean to direct these comments at anyone in particular, and 
realise that most of the HP fans in this group genuinely have no 
criticism of the books...I just think that some posts are creating a 
restrictive dogmatic atmosphere which isn't conducive to genuine 
appreciation or criticism.

Best wishes everyone. I do hope I haven't offended anyone. If I 
have, I'm sure to hear of it.    ;_)

Sueeeyqbong
> 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]