Storytelling in Harry Potter (1 of 2) (long)

[or.phan_ann]

No: HPFGUIDX 170719

Before I begin I warn you that this is long and rather pretentious, so
unless you happen to have been an English major you may wish to skip
it. Nonetheless, I hope someone will enjoy it. Thanks to Zara and Jen
for their help.

There's a fair bit of discussion about how good a writer J. K. Rowling
is, some complimentary, some not. One of the things I hear most
frequently in Rowling's favour (although less than I used to) is that
she's an excellent plotter. Here's an essay from the Lexicon
describing the subplots in PoA: 

http://www.hp-lexicon.org/essays/essay-plotlines-pa.html

Arguments about using foreshadowing and repetition to predict the
contents of DH, of course, implicitly support this idea. But I don't
think this is plotting, nor that Rowling is a good plotter. This isn't
an attack, nor is it meant to make me seem like a rebel. I think what
the Lexicon writer and many other HP fans, including me, agree on is
that the HP books are well constructed. But I don't think any of the
HP books so far has had a plot.

This is because in my opinion a plot is neither "a sequence of events
in a fictional work", nor is it necessary for a work. My personal and
idiosyncratic definition of a plot is "The sequence of events in a
work resulting mainly from the protagonist/s's actions, other
characters' reactions, and the setting – as opposed to events
programmed by the author, the narrator's choice of what to narrate,
and so on – which are visible to the reader and directed towards
reaching the work's most important narrative strand". 

Let me explain that. It's important that the protagonist tends to be
active because this means that her actions are organic; if she tends
to be passive, what happens to her is decided by other characters or
the author, and can appear or even be arbitrary or schematic. Story is
a fundamentally emotional rather than intellectual thing, and it has
to be organic. On the other hand, not all fiction has very much Story
in it. Setting defines what characters' actions and reactions can be.
"Events programmed by the author" are planned and inserted where he
wishes, and which the characters have to react to; the opposite of the
active protagonist. The caveat about the "most important" narrative
strand is crucial – it's the difference between plot and subplot – and
a plot has narrative, it "wants" to reach its end rather than being
discursive.

Given that definition, here's why I don't think the books so far have
had plots. Although the protagonist is Harry, the main action of the
books so far hasn't been due to him. The most important narrative
thread in PS/SS is Quirrelmort trying to steal the Stone, but most of
the book follows Harry coming to Hogwarts, playing Quidditch, and
feuding with Draco. Harry gets a flute from Hagrid and the Trio learn
where the trapdoor is, what the Stone is, and that Hagrid took it from
Gringott's; but those are respectively two instances of other
characters' actions being important and two of authorial programming.
Although Harry is interested in Snape's attempt to steal the Stone
(sic) from Chapter 11, it's not his main interest until the last few
chapters. When they decide to sneak through the trapdoor, the plot
asserts itself as if a catapult has been wound up and suddenly
released. This is the pattern all the books so far follow. In CoS,
Harry isn't that interested in the Monster of Slytherin, and in PoA he
worries about Sirius' trying to murder him; in neither case does he or
could he do much about it. In GoF his main interest is getting to the
end of the Triwizard Tournament and the end of the year, in OotP he
knows Voldemort is up to something but does nothing about it until he
thinks Sirius is in danger, and he has no particular aim in HBP. (More
on this next time.)

The most important narrative strands don't affect his behaviour very
much. For most of the books he goes to lessons, eats, sleeps, and so
on, fitting in interesting activities such as Quidditch or the DA
around this. Alongside various routine activities, the narrative
catapult is wound up all year long as Harry learns spells and
information and other forces manoeuvre, but he is fundamentally a
passive character until catapulted into the climax. At this point the
plot asserts itself retroactively: in OotP, the DA suddenly becomes
crucial to Harry personally when before it had no aim beyond defying
Umbridge.

Fair enough. He's an eleven-to-sixteen year old schoolboy. He can't
spend all his time fighting Dark wizards. Most of his energy is taken
up with lessons, hating Draco, watching Ron and Hermione fight, and so
on, rather than fighting Voldemort. Just as well, really. They'd be
pretty dull books if he spent his whole life in the library, learning
new spells.

The actions and information that set up the climax but are not part of
the plot are also revealed in their true importance when the catapult
is fired. Lupin's medicine and Boggart, for instance, are not part of
the plot but are only revealed for what they are during the first
climax of PoA; more importantly, Harry realises that the Philosopher's
Stone is hidden in Hogwarts, but I would call this authorial fiat
rather than organic action, because it's due to Hermione finding
something in the Library. I'd call this "climax construction" rather
than plotting, although the word construction covers a multitude of
virtues than have nothing necessarily to do with the plot, for
instance symbolism.

To recap, I have a weird idea of what a plot is, and don't think any
of the books so far has one, mainly because Harry's interested in
things that aren't that important and prefers Quidditch rather than
Quirrel. Tune in soon for Part 2 of this thrilling serial, which will
be about what my analysis implies for DH.

Ann