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

Tue Dec 12 21:42:12 UTC 2006

No: HPFGUIDX 162723

Mr. Jones/klotjohan:
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.)

Ceridwen:
Background: 51 yr old female.  U.S.  Married.  Four children.  Some 
college.

I like the books or I wouldn't read them.  My main reason for reading 
books is to enjoy myself.  I am not looking for social commentary or to 
be informed of some cause or plight.  I am an "escapist" reader.

The Harry Potter books provide something for grown-ups who read them 
along with their children.  Aside from the magic, the school situations 
are familiar: bullies, dreary homework, failed romances, nasty 
teachers, situations that seem to happen by themselves but that 
negatively impact the hero, and so on.  The pleasure of reading them as 
an adult is that they don't talk down to the reader, and they offer an 
insight that kids don't always see.  The undercurrents in certain 
situations, such as the nasty teacher and the situations that seem to 
happen by themselves, are different to an adult who has more life 
experience than children, and JKR doesn't play these currents down when 
she writes.

I didn't read the books when I first heard of them.  They 
were 'trendy', and that often means a book has some transient morality 
or some other politically correct viewpoint that I don't want shoved 
down my throat.  I did break down and get HP & The Philosopher's Stone 
when the movie was about to come out, because my youngest wanted to see 
the movie and I thought we should read the book first.

Hee!  Completely hooked.

Mr. Jones/klotjohan:
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?

Ceridwen:
I didn't read most of these.  Not as a child, and not as an adult.  I 
did read Tolkien as an adult, both The Hobbit and LOTR, and enjoyed the 
stories.  I tried to read The Hobbit when I was thirteen, but couldn't 
get past the first page.  It moved like molasses and bored me to almost 
immediate yawns.  I read more popular children's books: The Bobbsey 
Twins, Nancy Drew, various fairy stories - Pinocchio without Disney's 
influence was amazingly and gratifyingly dark when I was ten.  I liked 
mysteries, so that is what I read.  I moved on to Sherlock Holmes when 
I was in my early teens.

The Harry Potter series is no Lord of the Rings.  I wouldn't expect it 
to be.  Both have their elements of fantasy, but Rowling is going for a 
different audience and a different effect than Tolkien.  Frodo's 
journey is more blatantly a hero's journey and quest, while Harry is at 
school and suffering the same sorts of problems kids have faced since 
schools began.  The stories have a resonance on the level of a familiar 
story told by friends, not on some epic scale.

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

Ceridwen:
No.

Mr. Jones/klotjohan:
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?

Ceridwen:
Others have mentioned the order of the spirits coming out of 
Voldemort's wand in GoF.  JKR got the order wrong, and it was changed 
in subsequent editions.  But I have also heard of an interview where 
JKR states that she is writing the books to please herself.  If that is 
so, then criticism wouldn't play as much of a part as it would to a 
writer who wants to write to please his or her audience.

Mr. Jones/klotjohan:
Most of you have probably encountered some form of 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. 

Ceridwen:
I've read other people's opinions that JKR's books are sexist.  I think 
these people are reaching.  People with agendas seem to want everything 
to reflect their own philosophy, despite what it would do to a story.  
McGonagall is not Headmistress, Hermione serves Harry like a good woman 
ought to, only the boys seem to do any adventuring while Hermione is 
more sedentary in the library, and so on.  And, there have been 
comments about the way Harry is treated by various other characters.

I really hate children's stories that think they have to move in and 
teach.  I really, really do.  That was an idea that came in during the 
1970s, and hasn't quite left.  There is no pure good story.  These 
stories *have* to have a moral.  Is this what Zipes means 
by "commercial homogenization"?  Or is he talking about societal 
mores?  It's really hard to talk about his comments without knowing 
what he means.

Of course, I did look up his book on-line, and am reading excerpts.  He 
seems to think that children's books are written by adults, for adults 
(page 63).  So I am guessing, without reading further, that he is 
saying that children's books are there to provide cultural 
indoctrination for children.  I really haven't heard that criticism 
leveled at the Harry Potter series.

But, what is so bad about writing within a particular cultural 
viewpoint?  Even Science Fiction stories set on different planets have 
some sort of cultural background.  Homogenization?  Is that another 
term for 'brainwashing'?

Mr. Jones/klotjohan:
However, he bases his arguments on the first four books (Sticks and 
Stones was published in 2001) and points to the similarity of the plot 
points in the different stories, as well as the lack of real female 
heroes or villains. 

Ceridwen:
This isn't new.  The article I'm thinking of, from Salon.com, said 
about the same thing 
(http://archive.salon.com/books/feature/2000/01/13/potter/index.html 
Harry Potter's Girl Trouble by Christine Schoefer).  This article was 
also written before OotP.  Personally, I think the characters change 
from book to book, take on new roles, and that McGonagall didn't start 
out as Headmistress never meant that she wouldn't become one.  She 
wasn't permanently slotted in the supporting role.  Headmasters leave, 
deputy heads move up.

Mr. Jones/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.

Ceridwen:
I like that the stories have not stayed fluffy.  PS/SS had a fairy-tale 
quality to it that didn't carry over.  Each book seems to grow older 
with Harry and his friends.  I do like the darker tones of the later 
books.  But that was no surprise, since the books were progressing and 
the storyline was leading toward a darker place.  My favorite books are 
HBP and CoS.

I can't say much about Zipes, since I haven't read his book.

Ceridwen.