Storytelling in Harry Potter (long)

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 170904

> >>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.
> > <snip>

> >>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.

Betsy Hp:
Ooh, I'm not understanding your definition then.  I figured that, for 
example, the original "Star Wars" trilogy would be considered plot 
driven, in that Luke moves the plot forward by making choices that 
cause the "one thing happening after another" to occur.  He's not 
passive.  But on the same token, I'd label the Sherlock Holmes 
mysteries as plot driven in that Holmes makes choices that again 
create or cause the plot.  Yes, the villain may set things in motion, 
but it's the protaganist that creates the story, I figure.  Where 
have I gone astray? <g>

> >>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.)

Betsy Hp:
Hmm, but see, I *would* say that "Emma" for example is plot driven, 
in that Emma sets things in motion by doing certain things that start 
the story and keep it going.  Yes, Emma is constrained in some ways, 
but then the story sticks to the world she's constrained to, so no 
problem.

On the other hand, I can see how "Pride and Prejudice" might not be 
plot driven because Elizabeth more reacts to other people's plotting 
rather than causing stuff to happen herself.  (Except for how she 
manages to creep under Mr. Darcy's radar. <bg>)

With Harry Potter, he doesn't really do much to figure out the 
various mysteries.  The answers tend to drop into his lap.  And 
there's a lot of Harry moving through his world experiencing things, 
rather than Harry taking actions to cause stuff.  Like Elizabeth, 
Harry reacts to other people's plots.

Am I in a ballpark here?
 
> >>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.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I totally agree.  I think much of his reviews are a reaction to 
having so many people tell him that he'd personally enjoy the books 
*because* he's into comics and the like.  (I'm not sure about the not 
liking prose though.  He compared the Potter books to a classic 
western he was reading at one point, but I don't know him personally, 
so I cannot say.)

> >>Ann:
> 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.

Betsy Hp:
Total agreement here. <g>

> >>Ann:
> And Draco's even wetter than they are. I've *never* understood     
> what people see in him.

Betsy Hp:
For me it's that Draco is a total spaz and he's *seen* as a total 
spaz.  No one ever tries to talk me into agreeing that Draco behaving 
badly is Draco behaving well. Which happens too often with the Trio, 
IMO.

(An example: I *love* the part in OotP where Draco is randomly taking 
points from the Trio because Umbridge is crazy and so he can.  He 
doesn't try and pretend he's being fair and moral.  He's allowed to 
misuse his power so he blatently and with obvious relish misuses his 
power.  It's refreshing, IMO, compared to the Trio's shenanigans 
where they say their wrong-doing is okay because their victims are 
evil.  They can tell. Or so I'm told.)
 
> >>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.

> >>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:
Oh, I'm positive the fanfic is out there. <g>  But I'm thinking more 
from a view-point of someone *outside* the Voldemort/Dumbledore show. 
You know, where the protaganist is thinking about the need for a job 
after Hogwarts, etc., and has little to do with the war.

> >>Ann:
> <snip>
> 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.

Betsy Hp:
Oh, I totally agree that we won't be seeing a WW utopia or even a 
hint thereof.  But I do suspect that by bringing Hogwarts together 
(which I think Harry will have to do) there will be a suggestion that 
this new generation of wizard will reshape the British WW.  Not that 
we'll *see* it happen, but we'll see that it *will* happen, if that 
makes sense.  IOWs, the "healthy" students will be too healthy for 
the WW to infect.

> >>Witherwing wrote in email:
> > What, in your opinion, is the effect of JKR's plotlessness?
> > <snip>

> >>Ann:
> <snip>
> 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.

Betsy Hp:
I think this is why I think of JKR as better at character than I 
think she usually gets credit for.  Think about how much information 
is packed into Snape's worst memory.  Or Draco's interaction with his 
father in CoS.  Blaise *springs* to life in the train scene in HBP in 
a magnificent way especially considering we didn't even know if he 
were a boy or girl for several books.  With one tiny little scene, 
JKR is able to breath life into characters that seem like they should 
be stuck in flat caricature or be nameless red-shirts of no 
significance.

(Total needless aside: The Mirror of Erised is one of the few 
chapters in PS/SS that Mike Smith liked.  Just fyi.)

But on the flip side, I think JKR is really weak with plotting.  
(Which is why I love your post, even though I apparently didn't fully 
understand it. <g>)  Think of all the things you have to ignore for 
GoF to make sense (Fake!Moody not handing Harry a port-key, no one 
looking into *who* entered Harry into the contest, etc.), or need 
neat-o explanations JKR doesn't provide.  And then there's PoA which 
includes both enough exposition to choke a horse *and* fun with time-
travel.  I love PoA for the introduction of the Marauders (character, 
again) I'm not a fan of the plot.

I'm not too knowledgable when it comes to the mystery genre but it 
seems to me that JKR isn't too strong in that area either.  She's 
more about the twist (she's *amazing* with the twist, IMO), which I 
think is something different.  Pippin? <bg>

And I've already joined in with those taking pot-shots at her world-
building abilities.  (Though honestly, I think it comes down to an 
issue with details.  Broad strokes that give you a quick impression 
of a rich world is another place JKR shines, IMO. See Diagon Alley 
versus Knockturn Alley and the type of world their existence 
suggests.)

> >>Ann:
> <snip>
> 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.

Betsy Hp:
In trying to wrap my brain around plot vs. plotlessness I hit 
on "Star Wars" as example of plot and "Breakfast Club" as an example 
of not so much plot.  I'd say "The Charioteer" by Mary Renault is an 
example of an excellent non-plot novel. (Generally, Mary Renault 
isn't much about the plot, I think.)  "The Secret Garden" is more 
plot.  Um, does that work with your definition?

I love all of the above, plot or no plot.  So I agree that lack of 
plot is not always a bad thing.

> >>Ann:
> <snip>
> 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.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Well, I'm certainly enjoying myself! <bg>

Betsy Hp