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

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 162689

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "thinmanjones1983" <klotjohan at ...> wrote:

> So, without further ado, here are the questions:
> 
> 1. What do you think of the Harry Potter books and why? (I realise
> nearly all of the members are likely great fans, but I'm aiming for
> objectivity here. Don't hesitate to offer literary criticism if you have
> any.)

Pippin:
They're fascinating entertainment. I think we'll have to wait for the
judgement of the ages on whether they're art. James Branch Cabell's
books were wildly popular and far more literary than the Oz books
which were popular around  the same time, but aside from a brief revival
in the sixties, you don't hear much about Cabell anymore, while
The Wizard of Oz is now deathless and continues to be influential.

> 
> 2. How would you say the series compare to similar books in the genre
> (e.g. works by J.R.R. Tolkien, C.S. Lewis, Natalie Babbitt, Diana Wynne
> Jones, Philip Pullman, Roald Dahl etc.) on a literary level?

Pippin:
Rowling's style is an art that conceals art. The adverbs which drive
style addicts crazy make her characters accessible to children who
would have to work too hard to decode emotions from dialogue alone.
There's a poetry in simple clear language which I think is under
appreciated.

> 
> 3. Do you have any experience, personal or otherwise, of interaction
> with J.K. Rowling? If so, what was the nature of the interaction?

Pippin:
Well, aside from having my WOMBATs graded, no. 

> 
> 4. Have you had any indications that Rowling changed something in her
> books because of outside influence? If so, what kind of influence and by
> whom?

Pippin:
I know she changed a CoS witch who had a harelip into one with a hairy
chin, apparently after being told that this was insensitive.
She has also responded to fans by correcting the famous wand order
glitch in Goblet of Fire, as well as numerous other errors of logic
or consistency that fans have pointed out (though many remain, or
are they clues?)

Luna and Tonks remind me of stock fan fiction characters, but 
Rowling has doubtless read a lot of amateur fiction as part of her
teaching career and so their inspiration may date to long before
Rowling developed a fandom of her own.

It's difficult to respond to the Zipes critique without having read it.
But I'd say that JKR introduces what seem to be stock characters 
and situations, then does something unexpected with them,
exposing in the process how much we prefer relying on convention
to keeping an open mind.

Pippin