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

[thinmanjones1983]

No: HPFGUIDX 162686

Yay, more answers!

>
> Betsy Hp:
> Hmm... The Potter books have never struck me as particularly gifted
> when it comes to language.  I've read prettier books, IOWs, that
> really illustrate the beauty and poetry of the English language.  JKR
> isn't a sensual writer at all, IMO.  (I don't know what Hogwarts'
> smells like, what Harry's dorm bed feels like, the sounds and smells
> and visuals of a Scottish fall, etc.)  But I don't think that's what
> JKR was going for, so it's not something I fault her for.  Just, I
> wouldn't use the Potter books as an example of great English
> literature.
>

While I don't see Rowling's language as a weak point, when compared to
some of the best English novels I've read it's admittedly fairly flat,
but gets the job done nicely. Although I wouldn't say that she writes
overly simple prose, it's just more of a mundane style than a poetic
one. Perhaps a more elaborate text would only hinder the story, who
knows?

> JKR has formed an interesting plot, and created an interesting
> (though far from fully fleshed) world.  She's also created some
> interesting characters.  And though many of her plot lines and
> characters are derivative, she pulls them together in an interesting
> way.
>
> But I honestly think a complete judgment of the Potter series as a
> whole will have to wait until the last book it out.  Once the last
> word is read, will the urge to reread remain?  Personally, I've been
> troubled by some of the actions of the main characters, and have
> gotten to a point where I don't like some of them.  At this point I
> can't see wanting to spend time with them again.  But book 7 may well
> change that.
>

Interesting remarks I'd say. I think what pulled me in was the simple
yet magical stories, but what made me really into the books was the
characters. While I can see how some of them can be perceived as
annoying or dislikable, I find them engaging and pretty human. As you
point out, the series isn't ended yet, so the jury's still out one some
things.


>
> Betsy Hp:
> Since I've only read Lewis, Tolkien, and Dahl, I can only comment on
> them. <g>  At this point, I think JKR isn't at their level.  She's
> not quite as funny as Dahl, as magical as Lewis, nor as genre
> expanding as Tolkien.  (Though to be fair, I've really only read
> Tolkien as an adult.  Perhaps the lack of innocence on my part makes
> me a harsher critic.  Both Dahl and Lewis benefit from the nostalgic
> glow of my childhood.)
>

I agree partly here, since my opinion is that Rowling combines the
strongest elements of Dahl and Lewis, but I don't think I could actually
put her above them just yet. Tolkien is untouchable in my book, though.
Still, this means that we both hold Rowling in quite high esteem I
guess.


> > >>klotjohan:
> > 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.
>
> Betsy Hp:
> Actually, I think she's probably a bit less open than today's average
> author because of her fame.  (Though probably about equal to authors
> of her level of popularity.)  I've run across other authors who
> maintain blogs where readers can post questions and comments, and
> they respond fairly regularly.
>
> I doubt JKR could do something like that, because of the amount of
> her fans.  However, I think she's done her best to be available with
> her website.  She does a question answer thing based on votes (vote
> for your favorite question), and she'll post about her writing
> progress every once in a while.
>

You're probably right. It may well be that she's a not a very good
example of reader-writer interaction. OTOH, what she's done on her
website is fairly remarkable considering the vastness of the HP
phenomenon.

>
> Betsy Hp:
> Oh, fandom is *full* of suggestions that one thing or another in the
> books was directly influenced by fan input.  I tend to take such
> claims with a whopping big pinch of salt.  IIRC, however, I think JKR
> said something about her personal experience with the press
> influencing the Rita Skeeter stuff in GoF.  (I've no idea where that
> interview is located -- if it even exists. <g>)
>

OK, sounds likely that that could have influenced her. I'll keep an eye
out for the interview, thanks for the tip.


>
> Betsy Hp:
> Does "mainstream" mean popular?  Because the books are popular.  Or
> does it mean there's no interesting bits of culture in them.  Which,
> I suppose if you're British, it could all seem ho-hum.  But I think
> JKR did a good job fixing Harry into a specific place.  He and his
> fellow characters act like British children, IMO.
>

Agreed about the characters. I'd say mainstream means, at least in the
context of Zipes' book, a conventional and somewhat broad piece of pop
culture that panders to a large crowd. There's also an implicit
association made I feel between mainstream and commercialism, and
further down the road between the popular and the "lowbrow". To use
popular as a derogatory term is pretty elitist, although I wouldn't say
Zipes goes that far. My viewpoint is that the books aren't particularily
groundbreaking or unconventional, but there's definately enough to keep
me more than interested. There shouldn't be any need to reinvent the
wheel, just tweak it a bit and maybe make it spin differently. Obviously
Rowling's after entertainment rather than art, and there's nothing wrong
with that since it's an important aspect of good literature IMHO.

> "Sexist"... Yeah, I cringe at that label.  I certainly wouldn't say
> Hermione represents a typical girl.  Honestly, Ron is more likely to
> fit into the old-fashioned "girl figure" mold.  Ron is much more
> stand by his man, go Harry go, help I need a rescue, than Hermione
> is.  (There was (is?) a particularly icky trend where if a female
> character showed the slightest bit of weakness someone would scream
> sexism.  I rather dislike JKR's views of women, but I don't think I'd
> go so far as to call her sexist.)
>

Well thought of, I haven't considered Ron from that point of view
before. It illustrates how Rowling seems to like playing around with
expectations and stereo/archetypes. Would you care to elaborate on why
you dislike her views of women? I'm very curious about this.

> "Conventional" is a bit too pat, IMO.  I mean, JKR depends on a great
> many "conventions", but she brings them together in an interesting
> fashion, with combinations not usually seen together.
>

I agree, she's good at operating within the confines of the genre. Many
of her twists I find refreshing and plain old fun, since I enjoy
postmodern playfulness.

> > >>klotjohan:
> > 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.
> > <snip>
>
> Betsy Hp:
> I've been thinking about this ever since Mike Smith finished his PoA
> read through and expressed surprise and dismay that *this* was the
> fans' favorite book.
>
> (Quick background info: Mike read HBP to see what the fuss was about,
> posting his (hilarious!) impressions on his LJ, and ended HBP still
> wondering what the fuss was about.
> http://pages.prodigy.net/mike_p_smith/hbp/intro.html
> Fans suggested he check out PoA.
> http://mike-smith.livejournal.com/tag/prisonerofazkaban  )
>

Good stuff, but insanely long! I gave up after the introduction, perhaps
I'll dive into it some other time. It's both amusing and intriguing to
read criticisms from a hater, although I'm not too sure I can use any of
it in my paper :)

> So I've been wondering to myself, what's *my* favorite Potter book,
> and I've narrowed it down to either PS/SS (which pulled me in but
> good) or CoS which, without the benefit of having an entirely new
> world to explore, set up what I think is a juicy little mystery, and
> ended with an interesting face off between Harry and Tom Riddle.

Right, but would you say that the level of conventionality (let's use
the term even though it's problematic) and the shifting complexity of
the books have anything to do with your opinion of them? Or is it more
dependant on other factors? If I were blunt I'd say that the series have
become increasingly more adult with each new book, mirroring the growth
of the characters. I'd like to know how old you are, if you don't mind
(I guess most everyone in here is above 18, but still). I'm 23 myself
and mostly drawn to the combination of myth, magic, fantasy and modern
real life displayed in the books, a fictional world I find captivating.
The gravity of real life seems to be increasing as the series
progresses. Am I wrong in guessing that you're more inclined towards the
innocence and purer sense of magic in the first books? Very
understandable, if that's the case.

> Um... I'm not sure this really answers your question, klotjohan, but
> there it is. <g>
>
> Betsy Hp
>

I'm very thankful for your answers Betsy, and I hope you'd like to
continue contributing to the topic!

klotjohan