Voldemort and Sauron and Others

[sigurd at eclipse.net]

No: HPFGUIDX 191488

Dear List

Continuing on a bit, I have been working on and off on a novel of my own, basically a novel about our own, real, 18th century, only with magic in it. The problem is that the magic cannot destroy the 18th century. That is, magic must be taken into and under the 18th century under the "rules" of the 18th century. Thatis, the persons in the century must see it as a normal part of the century not an aberration and it must be in some sense rationally explainable (even if the explanation is totally absurd. Thus there are no "dragons" or at least dragons anyone would recognize, and some of the magical races (elves, trolls, giants)are quite unlike those seen in other works. But the main intent is also to create a narrative that intertwines the "competing narrative" from the start. I'd go into the organization of the book but that would be too much OT. Suffice it to say it's difficult-- damn difficult to write and it explains why so few fiction has been done that way.

But the problem underwrites the general problem with fiction is that you are not really allowed the liberty of disbelief. You can criticise a work as being unrealistic, but that's hardly the point in a fantasy novel like Harry Potter. You CAN criticise the book when the characters act out of character but you must make allowances for the fact that people can do extraordinary things, and extraordinaryness is a part of humans as well as irrationality. Thus, Rowlings has Harry and others define themselves- the "Magiks and Muggles" as "human" and even at the end the absolutely dreadful Dudley exercises some large degree of humanity. (By the way an interesting book would be Dudley in adult hood, married, and the father of two "Magik" children. Another interesting book would be the life story of the Graingers, two muggle parents dealing with a magical daughter.

But to return.

The problem that the author in no sense has to bother with a "real subject" means she can do what she wants. Therefore any quibbling with plot line or characterization is simply to insert our own prejudices into the story. That's not the same as making a "competing narrative" but it is in a real (and worst) sense, writing "victim history." We see the person as Rowling portrayed them as
"the victim" and dealt with unjustly and we wish a competing narrative for them.

But as I said that's simply writing, or rewriting the book. I might LIKE an account privaleged more toward the Hufflepuffs, and that
s nice, but people in hell want ice-water and if we had ham, we could have ham with our eggs,--  if we had eggs. All you can do is make comparisons between the items the author puts in and find inconcsistanceis in action and plot line, and make comparisons of the book to other works in the same or even different genres to enumerate and explore the "tropes" or subjects dealt with. Thus the point I made about snakes, or one could compare the characters of Voldemort and Sauron, or the similarity between a character in this story to one in another by a very different author. For example, Ron Weasley, Sam Gamgee in Lord of the Rings, Sancho Panza in Don Quixote, or even Panco in the Sisco kid.

Another subject is cooking or teasing out of the text things that are not dealt with. For example-- What is the political structure of "The Magik Kingdom?" There seems to be no political structure whatsoever to the whole tale? Are the Magics merely content to be part of the Muggle political system? We know there's a ministry of magic, but what does it do politically? We know it has certain judicial functions, we know it has certain legal legislative procedures, and we even know it has its own little prison, Absakan.  But what else does it do? Who selects the minister of magic? Who operates Hogwarts? Do gnomes infest Muggle gardens as well?

Some other questions for example- Within the "Magick" part of humanity, what is the critical population. While we can all accept the idea that constant inbreeding will produce less robust humans, how close inbreeding is possible? Genetic variation occurs enough in human society such that inbreeding between second and third cousins is not likely to produce degenerative traits? It seems that the numbers of pure-bloods should be large enough to allow endless genetic mutation to occur such that intensive inbreeding is not a problem. Further, since we know that Muggles and produce Magics, and Wizzards can produce squibs, the rules of genetic variation do not mandate character in either. Would not squibs be valuable because they carry the magic gene even though it is not dominant in them?

Let's take the Weasleys. I'm fascinated by the problem of the Ford Anglia. Arthur Weasley is fascinated by Muggle Artifacts, but seems to view simple automotives as a mystery as great as transformation. I can undrstand not being concerned about science or technology if one has Magic, but that would imply a lack of knowledge about such things as medicine and machine guns. (A half dozen of the latter would have come in right handy at the battle of Hogwards wouldn't they.) Does not Harry  and Hermione then have better knowledge simply because they have been raised in the Muggle World? Do Harry and Hermione have greater patience because, having been raised as muggles they have to figure things out and it's not a simple presto-changeo, or wiggling your nose and the house is clean?

All of these are fun food for speculation.

Otto