Secondary World or Satire? was RE: Inconsistencies

[ClareWashbrook at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 152829

bawilson at citynet.net writes:

>Do we not see more than a bit of this in JKR? <

Clare:
A bit maybe but no more.  Swift was the master of all satirists, the  big 
cheese on the cheesiest cheese wheel in cheese town.  They are  incomparable.
 
I adore JKRs world, but it IS an escapist one.  Anything which deals  with 
issues of racism, prejudice, war and cultural identity can be  thematically 
compared to a satire but the styles are radically different and  Swift's is far 
more complex, academic and erudite.  Swift is a great  writer, Rowling is a good 
writer who is a great entertainer.   It is  somewhat akin to comparing Helen 
Fielding to Emily Bronte, both created  characters and romances that touched 
people and in some cases affected them  deeply but Helen Fielding is not 
comparable in skill and eloquence to Emily  Bronte.  I dislike both of them, it is 
merely an example and I adore both  Swift and Rowling but Rowling has to take 
the stalls under Swift's private box  at the world's stage.  Rowling can weave 
a fantastic story, Swift wove an  untouchable masterpiece of linguistic and 
cerebral brilliance.
 
Is she satirising?  No, she is not.  She is touching on themes  which can be 
shared with satires.  They can be shared with other genres  too; they are not 
the possession of satire itself.  
 
She can research, she can riddle, she can backtrack an ending to  incorporate 
clues for a mystery, she can blend genres, she can plan a series to  
incorporate references not picked up until three books further down the line  -which 
is no mean feat - but a satirist?  In my opinion she just isn't  intellectual 
enough to pull it off.  Regardless of my opinion, the features  of a satire are 
absent from the books.
 
smiles,
Clare x
 
 
 
 

 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]