World Building And The Potterverse

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 167431

> >>Neri:
> I don't think JKR has ever intended HP to be realistic. It was not
> intended to be world-building fantasy like LotR either, or
> world-building sci-fi like Niven's Known Space, and as you say,
> neither pure illogical fantasy like Peter Pan. Most world-building
> aspects in HP are either required by the mystery plot, or are
> unintended byproducts of JKR the storyteller falling in love with   
> her own backstory.

Betsy Hp:
I agree.  But I think it's come back to bite her a time or two 
already, because while she's not too enamored of the genre, JKR *has* 
built a world.  I don't know if the bites are fatal.  We'll just have 
to see how long the Potter books stick around.

> >>Neri:
> What JKR did intend the WW to be, I believe, is first and foremost a
> *parody* of the real world, a parody were entertainment is derived
> from the deliberately unresolvable contrast between the fantastic
> stereotypes and the realistic RL concepts.
> <snip>
> In a book where the werewolf is named Remus Lupin, the Herbology   
> teacher is named Professor Sprout and the sadistic teacher Severus 
> Snape, any reader looking for hard realism is doing it on her own   
> risk. Realism is there mainly as one element of parody, to         
> demonstrate that even a fantastic world cannot be perfect and even 
> magic is mired in bureaucracy and careerism.

Betsy Hp:
I don't buy that either.  I agree that there are *elements* of parody 
in the Potter books, but they are not solely parody.  For that to be, 
the Slytherins would all need to be evil merely by virtue of their 
house (to be thrown out not brought back into the fold), and Snape 
would need to truly be sadistic (DDM arguments should hold almost no 
water).  And Lupin would need to be more defined by his being a 
werewolf (loves red meat, etc.).

And it would also mean that we readers should care a lot less about 
who's in charge of the MoM, whether or not they support Harry, the 
Weasleys' poverty, or Harry's chances of becoming an Auror. We 
shouldn't really care too much about James' and Lily's death either. 
Because it's all fake and funny.

A good example, IMO, of a parody writer is Roald Dahl.  In his "James 
and the Giant Peach" we learn that James is an orphan because his 
parents were eaten by an angry rhinoceros (happens on the first page, 
so no spoilers <g>).  Which tells you right away to not look for 
realism here.  You care for James, but not so much about his dead 
parents.  JKR goes in a different direction.  The time Harry spends 
in front of the Mirror *aching* for his dead parents takes the Potter 
series out of parody, IMO.

> > >>Pippin:
> > I'm not sure she does want us (ie adult readers) to believe the WW
> > is a real place. I think she honestly feels that if you're old
> > enough that it matters to you whether the numbers add up or the
> > economy works, you're old enough not need to believe in magical
> > wonderlands in order to appreciate their uses.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > Like Neverland? No, I don't buy that idea.

> >>Pippin:
> No, I mean that she doesn't want you, the adult reader,
> to lose yourself in the story, or rather, she's intentionally
> creating a tension between your desire to lose yourself
> in the story and your desire to understand what's
> going on.
> <snip>
> Consider an architect's model compared to the dollhouse.
> <snip>
> Imagine the dollhouse (I'm thinking of the stamped metal kind I
> played with as a child.) It has two stories but no staircase
> to connect them -- you have to pretend that it's there.
> <snip>
> Now it's not certain what the missing staircase means. Did the      
> architect hide it? Did the dollhouse maker leave it to your
> imagination? Is it some kind of mistake?
> <snip>
> See, I think the confusion is inherent in the genre-bending
> and it's part of the fun, but also part of the message. We
> rely on convention and stereotype far more than we think,
> just like the characters in the books.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I had a hard time snipping this because I didn't want to mangle your 
idea.  And I *think* I get it.  Basically JKR *wants* us to see the 
holes in order to sort of jump start our thinking about why we want 
those holes filled in?  Or maybe allow us to write in our own reasons?

The issue I have with that is, IMO, encapsulated by Ken's response to 
my rant on Draco's hand of glory:

> >>Ken:
> I think this aside from Besty illustrates perfectly why            
> Rowling's "maths" errors are serious enough to spawn, and then     
> sustain way beyond anything I could have expected, this thread. If 
> Rowling had taken the time to work out how many students and       
> teachers Hogwarts really needed to have, when full moons really     
> occur, what days of the week that months really start on, and all   
> the rest; if she then skillfully wove her story into this framework 
> that has real, satisfying heft; what would we think of the Hand of 
> Glory?
> Most likely we would think that here is a careful story planner who
> makes as few mistakes as is humanly possible.
> <snip>
> Even though we only saw the first and last steps in this
> progression we would confidently fill in the details and think     
> nothing of the omission of the intermediate steps.
> As it is we can't be sure with this author. Do we give her the     
> benefit of the doubt, or is this just more sloppy story planning?

Betsy Hp:
I've stopped giving JKR the benefit of the doubt.  So rather than 
think JKR has purposefully set forth an exercise to get us to rethink 
*our* dependence on "convention and stereotype", I think *JKR* relied 
a bit too much on "convention and stereotype" instead of story 
planning or world building.

It's interesting, your analogy got me thinking about Japanese 
literature.  I've read and enjoyed some classic and well thought of 
novels from that country.  And they definitely push anyone used to 
Western story-telling out of their comfort zone (at least they did me 
<g>).  Large amount of meaning in say the fall of a petal that was 
easy to miss, an ending that just seems to... stop, really, rather 
than tie things up, leaving much to the reader to discern for 
themselves.  But it was all very deliberate on the part of the 
author.  The meaning was there, the ending was there.  You figured 
out where the stairs were (or weren't) for yourself.

I don't get that same sense from JKR.  It's not that JKR has chosen 
not to show stairs for an aesthetic reason or in an attempt to 
examine or push reader expectations.  I think it's more that she just 
forgot that there needed to be link between two floors.  Or maybe 
didn't realize she was building a two story house.

Or that's how I see it anyway.  Honestly, I'd love it if you were 
right, Pippin.

Betsy Hp