World Building And The Potterverse

[Neri]

No: HPFGUIDX 167565

> 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.

Neri:
This is not what I meant. I never wrote that the HP series was a
parody. It most certainly isn't. What I did write was that the *WW* is
a parody. That is, the plot itself and the characters aren't parodies
and JKR has never meant them to be. James and Lily dying isn't parody
and Harry looking at their images in a magic mirror isn't parody.
However, Hogwarts *is* a parody of British public school and schools
in general, the Ministry of Magic *is* a parody of RL politics and
bureaucracy, and many kinds of magic, mainly those that are not
critical for the plot, are parodies of modern technology and science.
And of course, all the above are also parodies of stereotypes in the
fairytale and fantasy genres. IOW, the HP series is a
realistic/fantasy plot superimposed over a parody *background*. 

This paradoxical combination naturally results in a few clashes, but
mostly it works surprisingly well. The readers usually know
immediately what was intended as parody, and therefore should not be
taken seriously, and what was intended as realism. For example, I
encountered very few attempts by readers to figure out how come Remus
Lupin ended up with his name (did his parents change his names after
he was bitten? Or do werewolves in the WW only bite people with names
that have a connection with wolves?). I don't think even those few
attempts were actually serious. It was very obviously just the Author
having fun over Lupin's head. And I can't remember any discussion at
all about how the Founders had managed to come up with a wonderfully
silly name like "Hogwarts". In any standard world-building fantasy
such obvious winks from the Author would instantly kill any
believability.  

The interesting thing is that, for me at least (and I think for many
other readers) JKR's parody successfully generates a *more* believable
world than if she was deliberately attempting serious world building.
I think it is in large part the message that "magic isn't what it's
cracked up to be" that seems real to us. The very fact that wizard
kids need to worry about future careers feels realistic even when the
*details* of the available careers are obviously parodies. The WW
feels real because it is not "to good to be true", as are many
world-building fantasies including the venerable LotR. This in itself
is a brilliant achievement of JKR, but we should not mistake it for
world building. Sure, it's fun to play world building in the
Potterverse and I do it a lot myself, but I don't see much point in
blaming the Author for not doing well something she has never intended
to do.


Neri