Literary value and fan interaction - please help with my research!

[thinmanjones1983]

No: HPFGUIDX 162678

Thank you for participating! I really hope to get an interesting
discussion going since I love the books, although I try to remain
impartial in the academic context of the paper.

> zgirnius:
> I am not a literary critic, just a lifetime voracious reader. I love
> the books for the humorous touches in the invented world, the
> characters, who seem unusually vivid and engaging to me, and the
> stories. One thing that stands out to me compared to some other
> series I have read is the way things hang together, in the sense that
> rereading a book, I tend to catch a lot of things that stand out more
> once I know the ending; and this even extends between books (Book 6
> has materially altered how I think about Book 3, for example).

I agree with everything you say. May I ask what your age is and when you
started reading the books? Would you say that you as an adult get
something else from the series than children could? What I'm after here
is the labeling of some literature as "children's literature", an
abstract and uncertain classification that Zipes questions strongly
since "children" is a social construct. C.S. Lewis resisted the label of
his Narnia books as "children's literature" and I personally think that
this categorisation may easily lead to excluding other readers. I feel
that the books are well suited for children (though Zipes offers many
intriguing arguments against this) but can and should be read by adults
as well. I've met slightly resenting attitudes about reading HP since
"it's for children", as if this was detrimental to the literary value.
What are your views on this?

> zgirnius:
> I would pull Tolkien out of that list as different, and superior, to
> the others on the list that I am familiar with. I think Rowling's
> work seems as good to me as Lewis's, Jones's, and Dahl's, to the
> extent that I have read them. On a non-literary level, I prefer her
> to all the above except Tolkien.
>
> Tolkien's work, with its invented world (including millenia-long
> history and languages, plural (!) ) is something unique in my
> experience.

My sentiments precisely. In the case of Tolkien one may take the example
of The Hobbit as more aimed towards children and therefore (?) scaled
down in mythological complexity. The question is if simplicity and even
conventionality (which doesn't have to be a bad thing) goes hand in hand
with "children's literature". There are many facets of literary value
and criticism which I've yet to explore, but I think this question is
intricately connected to the subject of "high" vs. "low" literature. One
theory argues that complexity - among other things - renders a higher
"value" to the text.

>
> > 3. Do you have any experience, personal or otherwise, of interaction
> > with J.K. Rowling? If so, what was the nature of the interaction?
>
> zgirnius:
> No.
>

OK, just a follow-up question: would you say that Rowling is more or
less open to her readers compared with the average author? From what
I've seen her webpage is unusually active and maybe interactive as well.
Unfortunately I haven't had the time to look into this properly, but I'd
like to hear your thoughts on this.


>
> zgirnius:
> I doubt she has made major changes to the books based on outside
> influences. However, I think, for example, the particular way she
> shows the uselessness of the Minitry in combating Death Eaters in
> Book 6 is different than it would have been in an alternate reality
> in which the events of 9/11 never happened.
>

Nice observation, some measure of allegory and/or references to the
modern world can be expected in most books, especially one as postmodern
as HBP. The pop culture references and intertextuality of the series is
a strong property I feel, that makes the reading more fun.


>
> zgirnius:
> I think that, if one were to adopt as a goal the utter homegenization
> of children's literature, then the way to do it would be to mandate
> that in every work, there be an equal number of important male and
> female characters, split evenly among the good and evil characters;
> that these characters further be of various ages, and that they
> represent the ethnic and racial compositions of the authors' home
> countries. I think I have left out some categories that ought to be
> included, but you get the picture, I am sure.
>

On the other hand, the classic model of storytelling and character
development is firmly rooted in our consciousness and has proven
extremely effective. The similarity between, say, LOTR, Star Wars, and
Harry Potter is no coincidence. To deviate too much from the pattern can
make the story less accessible and engaging, although it's of course
easy to drift too far into the predictable. Here's a nice 
<http://www.spookybug.com/origins/myth.html> model
<http://www.spookybug.com/origins/myth.html>  of this phenomenon. My
point is that it's difficult to decide which concept is better suited
for homogenization since universal or close to universal appeal depends
on how well the text communicates with our subconcious. Still, your
argument is wellfounded, I'm just trying to broaden the discussion.

>
> I think TV is the big course of commercial homgenization, anyway, not
> children's literature. And if he wants to pick on children's books
> for this reason, he ought to pick on Goosebumps and its ilk.
>

I agree, but I think Zipes has a good point in warning about reading
just for the sake of reading, a common attitude among parents today.


> Rowling chose to write a series about a boy hero, not a girl heroine.
> I'm afraid I am one of the hordes of female readers that have no
> trouble enjoying the adventures of, a male character. I think, if I
> read his book, I would probably disagree with his views on Hermione.
> Yes, she is a helper. So is Ron. It's not a gender thing, it is
> because she is a friend of the hero.

I don't agree with Zipes about the sexism either, although I think it's
an important aspect since children pick up quickly on gender
stereotypes. Rowling does alright with these issues in my opinion, so
it's not a problem for me.

>
> > klotjohan:
> > The stories diverge more from the formula in the
> > latest two books as well, interestingly enough; especially important
is
> > the death of major characters at the end(s). So, what I'd like to
hear
> > is what you think of Zipes assessments and also whether you think
> > Rowling's less conventional stories (i.e. in OotP and HBP) is an
> > improvement or not.
>
> zgirnius:
> What, Cedric doesn't count? I think I would retroactively group GoF
> with the later books, and not the earlier ones, if what makes a
> book 'conventional' is nobody good dying. HBP is my favorite, but I
> also like all of OotP, GoF, and PoA very much as well.
>

Good point about Cedric, though I guess Zipes feel that everything
returns to normal at the end, and that the pattern from the earlier
books is repeated. I agree with you in drawing some form of line between
PoA and GoF since the latter results in a distinct difference in the
status quo of the Potterverse. After the death of Cedric, all characters
seemed much more mortal than before, at least to me. I guess this can be
considered a good thing since it heightens the tension and excitement of
the books.

Thanks again for the exemplary response, I eagerly await the
contributions of you and other members!

klotjohan