Storytelling in Harry Potter (long)

[or.phan_ann]

No: HPFGUIDX 170897

> Pippin:
> According to your definition, if I understand it correctly, almost
> no mystery or detective fiction would have a plot. The action is
> usually driven by the villain. He always controls events
> and knows more about what is going on than the main 
> character does, at least until the villain is revealed and his 
> plots are foiled. 
> 
> The mystery plots of the Potter books certainly follow this
> pattern. However, the books are also bildungsroman, and
> the bildungsroman plot is character driven. Each book
> begins with Harry feeling some weakness or lack in
> himself, which he through his actions remedies by the end. 

Ann:
Good distinction. While I'm not very knowledgeable about mystery
fiction, I do think that any villain-driven novel does not have a
plot, and I planned my definition especially to exclude them. Ditto
for "one thing happening after another" or character development pure
and simple.

It's true that the series is a bildungsroman, but I don't think all
bildungsromane have plots; some focus on no more than the protagonist
growing up, so can be plotless and discursive. Some, including HP, do
have a plot, and the growing-up aspects are a means to an end, i.e.
Harry defeating Voldemort. Not that that's the only plot in the series. 

> Pippin:
> Stated so baldly it sounds trite. Plots usually do.

Ann:
I agree completely. Removing a story's "meaning" to analyse it is like
dissecting someone to see where her soul was.

> Neri adds [to what Pippin wrote above]:
> Not only that, but by the above definition all of Jane Austen's
> romans, for example, have even less of a plot than the HP series,
> since all of Austen's heroines are extremely "passive" by Ann's
> standards, and of course Austen herself is The Master of carefully
> "programmed" events.

Ann:
Ooh, even better. I'd completely forgotten. And I do think Austen's
heroines are passive, but that comes with writing about women in
Regency England. They have to be very constrained, unable to ride off
to London at the drop of a hat or see off scoundrels like Wickham. 
(Or at least without terrible, utterly plot- and life-derailing
consequences.)

Children are also, by definition, constrained. It's part of the deal
when children are part of an adult plot: they're weaker magically and
emotionally, have smaller social groups (so have nothing like the
Order), don't have great maturity, etc., compared to most adults. On
that last point, remember the difficulty Harry had getting anyone to
suspect Draco? If Arthur Weasley thought he was worth investigating,
the Aurors would be sure to listen. 

> Betsy Hp:
> It actually brought to mind Mike Smith's readings of various Potter
> books http://mike-smith.livejournal.com/

Ann:
Thanks for the link. I've read these, and I think he makes some good
points. On the other hand, I don't think he enjoys reading prose per
se, which is fair enough, and you have to bear in mind he prefers
comics, where something pretty much has to happen every 22 pages. And
in HP, it's not always obvious when something important is happening.
(Not to imply that comics are for the subliterate. I like them too.)

Regarding the Trio's passivity, I agree totally. They aren't anything
special as wizards - Hermione's talented but not outstandingly - and 
I'm not that fond of them as people. Even given what I said above, I
think they're pretty lily-livered compared to the Marauders. And
Draco's even wetter than they are. I've *never* understood what people
see in him.

> Betsy Hp: 
> I'm rather looking forward to a sort of subversive take on the story
> coming out in the future. The story from Zach Smith's view point,  
> for example. And really, it would take only one book to do so, in  
> the end.

Ann:
I'm sure, back when HP was just hitting the mainstream, I read about
someone who'd rewritten PS/SS from Neville's point of view. Very
astute. But it makes the Voldemort/Dumbledore overplot even harder to
see, and for little payoff. Might make an interesting fanfiction, though.

> Betsy Hp:
> Personally, I'm kind of glad that JKR's set up a structure for     
> herself with the horcrux hunt. As you've pointed out in your       
> previous post, she's not much of a plot builder at least in an
> organic way. But if she's got a structure to hang some of her
> character things on, she can concentrate on those bits. 

Ann:
Well, I just don't want DH to turn into "one Horcrux, another Horcrux,
showdown at Godric's Hollow". Which is what plot coupons can do. It's
not much of a structure. Anyway, I think JKR is more of an untried
plotter than an incompetent one and having large amounts of exciting
stuff to put in DH can't hurt.

> Ann:
> I think DH will be a fantasy novel above other genres

Ann:
Let me just correct myself here. I meant to say "epic fantasy novel",
with Goodies vs. Dark Lord showdown. "Fantasy" is a very broad term.

> Betsy Hp:
> I strongly suspect (based on stuff others, like Sydney, have said
> over the years <g>) that DH is going to end with Harry healing the
> wounds of Hogwarts, and possibly the WW. (Though I imagine that a
> healed Hogwarts will actually *mean* a healed WW.)

Ann:
I think Harry will change the WW for the better - if nothing else,
defeating a powerful, ambitious psychopath will do some good. And I
think he'll sort out something at Hogwarts involving the House System,
and maybe the Sorting Hat, so the Houses come together again at last.
But I don't think Harry'll sort everything out; it's far too big a
job. And even if he does "heal" Hogwarts, the "healthy" students will
still be vulnerable to "infection" from the rest of the WW.

> Witherwing wrote in email:
> What, in your opinion, is the effect of JKR's plotlessness? She    
> certainly doesn't seem to need plot to tell a marvelous story! Is  
> this unique, or does it follow a pattern in other literature?

Ann:
Here's where I disagree with Mike Smith. I don't think the books need
to have something happen all the time. I think they run off a
different power source. Not plot, but story. I've said I don't think
narration without action, antagonists running the show, or one thing
after another are part of a plot, but that doesn't mean they can't be
full of Story, hanging around in the subconscious giving us a reason
to live. Which HP is. It's set in a huge edifice, both castle and
school, with wise old men, Dark Lords, mythological beasts and names,
teachers with weird backstories, magic, nation-shattering warfare, and
so on everywhere. In a setting like this, JKR doesn't need a
mile-a-minute plot. The Mirror of Erised chapter in PS/SS adds nothing
to the plot, but it's an amazingly moving scene; for my money, the
best in the series. That's the most important reason most of us read
HP, in my opinion.

I don't think the narrative genre of the series as a whole (by which I
mean the genre that governs the plot) is precisely bildungsroman. This
may look like nitpicking, but I think it's the Hero's Journey:
bildungsroman with a plot to it, and built of Story.

Something I think most people inferred is that I think plotlessness is
a bad thing. That's not necessarily so. Plot is a surface thing, as
far as I'm concerned, and if there's something else going on I'll
happily stick around. I've enjoyed plenty of novels without plots (the
best example of a novel without a plot is probably "Gulliver's
Travels", which I actually hated) but in those cases it tends to be
planned. Accidental absence of a good plot is a bad thing. I think
it's a shame HP is so climax-driven, but I'll gladly stick around for
the story.

I should also say that I know my definition of plot is eccentric, and
not for everyone, but I hope it's an interesting way of looking at the
series. Thanks to everyone who said they liked my posts, by the way.

Ann