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

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 162718

---  "thinmanjones1983" <klotjohan at ...> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
> 
> I'm working on a college paper ... in literature about
> the Harry Potter books. The purpose is to establish if 
> and how these books can be evaluated on a literary 
> basis and, ...
> 
> So, without further ado, here are the questions:
> 
> 1. What do you think of the Harry Potter books and why?
> (... I'm aiming for objectivity here. Don't hesitate to
> offer literary criticism if you have any.)
> 

bboyminn:

First let me say that I have no idea what 'literature' or
'literary' means. Apparently, to some, it means dull 
boring high-brow pseudo-intellectual writing in which the
author is intent on proving (at least to himself) that he
is smarter than you. And that by reading and approving of
his book, you are simply trying to bask in the glow of
the author's towering intellect.

As far as 'criticism', I am equally baffled. Apparently,
a critic is someone who compains about everything, and
especially about whatever his area of alledged expertise
is.

So, on that front, I'm afraid I won't be much help.

Is JKR a great writer, not necessarily, but she IS a
great storyteller. I think of many 'folk' storytellers in
the oral tradition; the gramma suck, they use regional
idioms, and speak in lower than common language. In other
words, they do it all wrong, yet they manage to hold their
listener's spellbound. That is that magic of a great 
story teller, and I think JKR has that magic.

The most technically and literarily perfect book can be
dull as paste, while the most technically flawed book can
be a captivating read. It's all in the story. Though 
certainly a book that give due consideration to technique
as well as tells a good story is a much easier read.

JKR, believe it or not, has a very compact writing style.
Yes, the huge tomes she produces might belie that, but
what other author writes in tight two and three word
sentences, and equally writes such spare descriptions?

JKR is a master of turning the KEY of imagination. I've
brought this up before and have used Ron as an example.
How many of us have a crystal clear picture of Ron in our
mind? Yet, if you go back through the books and add up all
the descriptions of Ron, you will be very disappointed. He
is describe in only the most basic way, yet JKR tells us
just enough to turn the Ron 'key' in our mind, and from 
behind that magical door a fully formed complete in detail
Ron springs. 

When Harry first walks into the Gryffindor common room,
instead of the long endless elaborate 'painting a picture
with words' description, we get the basics, and from that
basic key, Gryffindor common room springs fully formed 
into out mind.

JKR hasn't created Hogwarts and the rest of Harry's world,
we have, it has sprung from the magic well of our 
imaginations, and that creates a very compelling reading
experience.

Further, JKR has created flawed charaters, we see Harry as
lazy, withdrawn, unreasonable, forgetful, and any number 
of other characteristics that we also see in ourselves. 
These books would be loved by the religious right, but 
gathering dust on bookstore shelves if JKR has tried to 
force a moral message into the story. She has a story to 
tell, a story of characters who make mistakes. She doesn't
put moral messages into the story, she just tells the 
story of people as they exist in her imagination, and lets
what ever moral message we might derive spring forth from
the story. 

If her moral messages were hard and fast, there would be 
little room for debate in this group. It is because we 
can see the good and bad in each character, that we can 
find ourselves in each one of them. Draco, for example, 
is a miserable human being, though one that we have all 
met, yet we can see a bit of humanity in him. We can see
a bit of the underlying cause of Draco being Draco, so as 
miserable as he is, we can have a bit of sympathy and 
understanding for him. We can be furious at Dumbledore for
not stepping in to protect Harry, but in real life adults
are rarely there to step in until it's too late. We love
him and we hate him, because that's how life is.

I think it is the very moral imperfection in JKR's world
that brings the moral message forward. Harry struggles to
do the right thing, and ultimately when it counts, he 
makes the right decision; the greater, compassionate,
selfless decision. Yet, in the small things he struggles,
just like each and everyone of us struggles to know and 
do what is right, and that is why we so deeply identify 
with Harry, because we see our daily struggle for what 
is right reflected in him. 

JKR does more by illustrating the perils of life, than
she ever could by preaching the morals of life.


> 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?
> 

bboyminn:

Sadly, I can't help you much there, I wasn't much of a 
reader in my youth. Even in later years, I read mostly
science fiction short stories. Now that I have discovered
reading for the joy that it is, I deeply regret that. I
think reading a good stories like Harry Potter, or 
Ender's Game can expand your mind, and make you a morally
and intellectually better person. Even a more superfical,
yet equally enjoyable, books like Artemis Fowl can bring
about growth in human character and values amoung it's
young readers.

Some of the books you've mention either don't appeal to
me, or appeal to me far less, because the authors were
trying much harder to force a moral message into the 
story. I think that takes away from the message far more
than it re-enforces it, and makes the story far more dull.

Personally, though I only gave it one try, I found Tolkein
to be as dry as yesterday's toast. I need a story to move
much faster than that and to be far less of a struggle. 
Which brings me back to JKR's compact writing style. If 
the story is a bit dull, don't worry, in a few pages the
story will have made huge leaps and will have certainly 
moved on to something more interesting.


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

bboyminn:

Being a financially challenged person from the heartland
I've never had occassion to meet JKR.


> 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?
> 

bboyminn:

No, JKR knows her story to the very end, and I don't think
anything can cause her to change course. The story is what
the story is, and that is the story that will be told. If
we all hate her for (theoretically) killing Harry at the
end, then so be it. Besides, she a billionare now, what
would her motivation be to please fans? 

That said, in small ways, I think fan response as added 
to the story. Question that are raise by fan, especially
it they are very popular and relecant questions, could 
get answered because fans raised them, but the overal
course of the story and it's ending, for better or worse,
are, in my opinion, immutable.

I have often suspected Snape's revealing dialog at
Spinners End was prompted by fans. Many of us have 
debated how and why Snape was able to return to Voldemort
when it seemed that Voldemort had every intension of 
killing Snape. That perhaps seemed a mystery worth 
resolving, and Spinners End gave Snape and JKR the perfect
opportunity. 

So, minor fan question might get answered in the books, but
the overal course of the story is fixed. If Harry is dead,
then Harry is dead.


> Lastly ...  criticism against Rowling and/or her books, 
> more or less constructive and sensible. I've recently 
> read parts of a book by Jack Zipes (Sticks and Stones:
> The Troublesome Success of Children's Literature from 
> Slovenly Peter to Harry Potter) where he argues that 
> children's literature represents one of the most 
> significant sources of commercial homogenization. He has
> some strong points though I sometimes ... too broad ...;

bboyminn:

Regarding 'commercial homogenization' and the Harry Potter
books, let's remember that careful planning and marketing
strategy did not make these books the success they are.
First the books became successful on their own merits, 
then the marketing potential kicked in. 

'Commercial homogenization' is a very real problem in our
modern world. Once corporations discover a working profit
making formula, they work hard to duplicate it. This can
especially be seen in TV entertainment and in the Music
industry. There are many musical acts that are far more
'formula' then talent. TV sitcoms used to be about 
picture perfect families, but since FOX's success with
disfunctional families, it has pretty much become the
norm. They are simply repeating a workable formula.

In the publishing industry, we have the same, it's true.
Some of the formula work actually has merit, and the 
formula simply serves to bring that merit to the public
attention. Other books are simply mediocre books that are
cashing in on a trend. 

As far as Harry Potter and JKR, I think they are far more
likely to have broken the existing 'commercial 
homogenization' and created a new standard and a new trend,
than to have followed any existing trend. What marketing
executive would have believed little kids would read a 
800 page book? So, if anything, the existance of Harry
Potter is breaking the homogenization of literature, and
leading to the discover, by a new generation of readers,
of the old tried and true classics.


> ... what interests me is his labeling of the Harry 
> Potter series as sexist, conventional, and too 
> mainstream. ... 

bboyminn:

Were does this crazy ill-conceived idea come from that it
is every author's responsibility to create a picture 
prefect model of the world? JKR is telling a specific
story about specific characters, and these characters are
who they are and do what they do. Her job is to tell the
story and nothing else. 

It is certainly not her job to appease every politically 
correct wacko's idea of that utopian world should look 
like. Hermione is Hermione, love her or hate her, she is 
one individual in one story, not an unrealistic unlikely 
model of some critics fantasy 'every girl'.

Stories are much much more about modeling reality, than 
they are about modeling a totally unrealistic and equally 
uninteresting perfection. That's just crazy talk.

What the criticism leveled against JKR is really about is
publicity. It is about creating a media buzz about your 
your cause or your next book, or just because you like 
seeing your name in the paper. 

As too the idea that JKR's books are too mainstream, again,
crazy talk. What is she suppose to do, intentionally write 
her books poorly so they won't be popular, just so she can
sit around in poverty and obscurity extolling the literary
merits of her failed books? 

A book that is homogenous and mainstream is not a book that
appeals to the greatest number of people, but a books that
offends the fewest. That is the marketing goal of corporate
Americe today, to create bland uninteresting products that
offend the fewest number of people and are merely accepted
by the rest. 

JKR wrote a story, just as it came to her, people liked 
the story. It is only 'mainstream' because it was a story
that struck a chord with so many people. The key in her
case is that the popularity came long before the hype.


> 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). ...

bboyminn:

In modeling the story arc of the series, I like to think
of two funnels or two cones with their large ends placed
together. Up until GoF, JKR's world is expanding, as is 
the story with it's many subplots and mysteries. Now
we have gone past the middle, and JKR's world is 
contracting. She is funneling the story down to a single
climactic point, and I think that is what we are feeling
in the change of the tone and direction of the story. JRK
simply can't run off on fanciful expansion of a world that,
for story purposes, is already too big. 

I think that compression and contraction bears heavily on
the stories in the last two books (OotP/HBP). We want to
know more about the world; we want the expansion to go on
forever until we know every detail. But she has to tell us
less of the world, and concentrate on taking the story to 
that final point. That is inevitable.

Just a few thoughts.

Steve/bboyminn