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

[thinmanjones1983]

No: HPFGUIDX 162789

> 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.
>

klotjohan:
I see where you're coming from. For me criticism of the kind that the
paper concerns is a way for me to look at literature from new
directions, to question preconceived notions and just pry around in
general. So far, I've learned some new things about Rowling and HP that
I hadn't considered before, and hopefully I can transform all of it into
something valuable. Your input is greatly appreciated!


> 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.
>
<snip>
> 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.
<snip>
> 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.
>
><snip>
> 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.

klotjohan:
I'll snip most of your excellent summary of the books because of
bandwidth consideration, but I'd like to compliment your insightfulness.
Your description of the keys to the human imagination is something to
ponder about, good stuff. The morality of Rowling's tales and the
ethical fabric of her fictional world are fascinating to absorb. Complex
characters are common in areas like anime, not in Hollywood. Much
ambiguity is lost in the transition from books to movies I feel, though
I still like them all. Focusing on perils rather than morals is
naturally a great way to increase tension and excitement as well as
attachment to the characters, and Rowling does a fine job with this.


> bboyminn:
>
<snip>
> 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.

klotjohan:
Different strokes :) LOTR had me instantly gripped as a twelve-year old,
although I can see how others can perceive him as dull. It would be
harder to think of HP as dull, so on that I agree.


> > 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?
>
<snip>
>
> 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.
>

klotjohan:
Seems reasonable enough. It's certainly easy to drift into the realm of
speculation here.


> 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.
>

klotjohan:
True and significant. I adressed this in another post.

> '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.
<snip>
>
<snip>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.
>

klotjohan:
Strong points, I think there are other examples of literature that or
more in need of scrutinizing than HP. As you say, the books should do
more good than bad if logic holds.


> 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.
>
<snip>
>
> 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.
>

klotjohan:
Some fine arguments here, it really speaks against Zipes' line of
reasoning on the matter. You may also be right about the publicity
fuelling the desire to criticize Rowling, although Zipes states that the
reaction to his critique was both surprising and unexpectedly massive.
He poses the question of why these particular books have gained such
recognition, and argues that phenomena like this "are driven by
commodity consumption that at the same time sets the parameters of
reading and aesthetic taste." It's certainly bold of him to propose that
readers are "induced" to enjoy books of this kind in order "to conform
to a cultural convention of amusement and distraction". I can see how
this can apply to some types of books, but I'm not convinced about the
conventionality that he tries to demonstrate in the HP series. Zipes
voices many important problems, yet it's hard for me to fit Harry Potter
into it all.


> > 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.
>

klotjohan:
Again, very well put. That's one of the problems with writing a series
with a fixed amount of volumes, although it may also heighten the
overall quality. It can be very satisfying to know that something is
complete and the story told in full. In some ways, Tolkien was more
about the world than the stories. Not that the stories wasn't wonderful
IMO, but he did after all set out to create a mythological world more
concise than any other, and partly succeeded as well. Still, I admire
Rowling's creative abilities and think Hogwarts is a fantastic place to
be.

> Just a few thoughts.
>
> Steve/bboyminn
>

Not so few, and I'm grateful for every one.

David/klotjohan