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

[thinmanjones1983]

No: HPFGUIDX 162706

Welcome to the discussion, Pippin, and thank you for answering!


> > 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.
>

Yes, history is written by the victors, perhaps even in literature. The
"problem" with HP is that it might not bring enough new things to the
table. But who knows?


>
> 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.
>

klotjohan:
Nicely put. Personally I really enjoy the homely and anglo-saxon feel
the language and especially the dialogue gives me. A matter of taste,
naturally.

> >
> > 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.
>

klotjohan:
I should try this WOMBAT thing :)

> >
> > 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?)
>

klotjohan:
Good observations, they may come in handy. Could you point me to places
where I could learn more about this?

> 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.
>

klotjohan:
In what way do they remind you of fan fiction? I'm not too familiar with
it I'm afraid.


> 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

klotjohan:
That's my sentiments as well. I'll try to expand a bit on Zipes later
on, but for now I'd like to hear what you think about the
"conventionality" and adherence to a pattern of the first books in the
series. I agree that the expected can be soothing to the mind, but as
you say it can be detrimantal as well. Did you experience any difference
in this respect between the books, and if so was it a positive or
negative change?

/Klotjohan