Byatt and Rowling (was re: Occlumency and Spies)

[lupinlore]

No: HPFGUIDX 130687

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Wilson, Bruce" 
<brucewilson at m...> wrote:

> 
> [Wilson, Bruce]: 
> I think that Byatt's objection to JKR is motivated by jealousy.  
Byatt's novels are regarded as 'better literature' by the 
> cognoscetti, but JKR us much more successful--and wealthy. (Richer 
> than the Queen, last I heard.)

I don't think that is entirely the case.  I grant you that Byatt 
probably does feel some jealousy -- she would not be human if she 
did not.  But I don't think her critique can be dismissed QUITE that 
easily.

In my opinion, she is on the firmest ground when she criticizes 
concrete elements of Rowling's writing.  For instance, she is 
correct that the whole explanation about Harry, the Dursleys, and 
Dumbledore has been poorly done and extremely unconvincing.  She is 
also definitely correct that Rowling is derivative, often 
extraordinarily so.  Finally, I think she is right that Rowling 
doesn't do a very good job of conveying sweeping issues of light and 
darkness -- in large part because the chief villain is such a comic 
book moustache-twister and his minions such clumsy bunglers.

However, Byatt gets into trouble when she departs from concrete 
critique and launches into more theoretical realms.  For one thing, 
her assumption that derivative=bad is, while common, not really a 
good one.  After all, there really isn't anything new under the sun, 
and everything arises from multiple roots.  Besides, if there ever 
was anything totally new it would be useless and incomprehensible, 
as we have no way of approaching anything except through the 
touchstones of our personal experience. 

Byatt's complaint that Rowling's writing lacks the numinous is, I 
think, untrue.  I agree that Rowling doesn't do a very good job, 
always, of conveying the sense of transcendant good and evil at 
work, but I don't agree that such issues aren't present.

Finally, the equation of Rowling's popularity with some widespread 
desire for regression is facile.  It's the kind of amorphous 
explanation that, pressed hard enough, can explain anything and 
everything.

So, on the whole, Byatt's critique is of mixed quality.  When 
dealing with specific aspects of Rowling's writing, her criticism is 
often sharp and telling.  When she moves on to more theoretical 
issues, however, her critique begins to flounder.


Lupinlore