[the_old_crowd] Internal logic and standard criticism (Re: lit. crit. and Potter)

[Sean Dwyer]

On Sun, Feb 13, 2005 at 01:28:27AM -0000, iris_ft wrote:

> Hi all,
> I don't know if my reply really follows the original thread, but the 
> two posts I've quoted remind me of something I noticed when I 
> started lurking through the HP fandom: it was like a "literary 
> closet". Tell me I'm biased, that what I write is a caricature, but 
> that's the way it appeared to me: there was the Potterworld and 
> nothing else, it was as if it had come from a literary big bang, as 
> if it was born from a "Fiat lux".

Ahem. Both were my fault, actually, don't blame Carolyn for my weak sense of
humour :)

> If you wanted to analyze the books, you needed to remain exclusively 
> into "the canon database", and to use your own experience, nothing 
> more. External considerations sounded like attacks.
> By "external considerations", I mean any attempt to analyze the 
> series from an academic point of view, with references to other 
> works, for example.
> As if being a fan meant being locked up in an exclusive, hermetic 
> system, without any contact with what was around
> I remember several discussions on HPfGU about what people 
> called "Metathinking". It generally came after someone had come 
> aboard with some analyze based upon references to previous literary 
> or artistic or philosophic or psychoanalytic sources "It's too far 
> fetched, this is Metathinking" 
> Vade retro Metathinking Vade retro standard critcism

People who rally behind someone's work tend to be defensive when criticised.
You have to understand the shock at the success of a _children's book_, and
the apparent witchhunting DNA of certain Christian organizations. Given these
factors, it's not surprising the baby sailed out with the bathwater
(wheeeee!), and metathinking was frowned upon, particularly as it tended to
generalize off-topic to the main list (cf. the canon rule). I don't think
that's so bad a thing. But the overenthusiastic panning by some quarters seems
to have had a chilling effect on general criticism, which IS a Bad Thing,
regardless of whether that seeps onto HPfGU lists. There are other reasons,
see below.

> I agree with  the interest of questioning the internal logic of the 
> characters and situations; as JKR writes about human kind, it's 
> quite normal if we tend to analyze the series according to what we 
> feel, what we remember, etc, when we read the books.
> But there's something we can't deny (it wouldn't be very wise, IMO): 
> every work of art comes from other ones, and it also applies to the 
> Harry Potter series. 

Nothing will be allowed to descend from Potter sadly, unless they're licensed
by the copyright owners.

> I don't see any contradiction between reacting with my own 
> experience to what I read in these books (let's say that's the 
> emotional level of the series, to simplify), or trying to guess 
> what's coming next, and analyzing what JKR writes from a cultural 
> perspective (let's call it the intellectual level).

Indeed I'll make a wild generalization with Dickens here: key to the influence
he had was the serialization of his novels in cheap newspapers. If JKR wanted
to make some social points she garnered the widest platform of any author
since Dickens, not least of which is the influence on children which tends to
knock-on to parents. Of course this spells Gravy Train in flaming letters a
thousand feet high over the Forbidden Forest to some people. But does the HP
series yet claim to make a cultural impact? My argument here is that it might
have done much more, but I fear unlikely because of the dogged commercialism
the whole package is wrapped in. It doesn't stop me from enjoying the books,
or from commenting on them here. But like another consumer item, it stops when
it's consumed. It's not unique in the literary world, but it's the most
alarming development. I don't want to be misunderstood here: I'm not claiming
that artistic merit is extinguished necessarily by commercial success. But the
nature of the control over the works is unprecedented; the only parallel I can
draw is with the music industry, and even there, their contracts are always
renegotiable. This is not a small issue for the media, it makes them very
wary. Dickens policed attempts to take over his successful franchise too. But
his basic ideas and plots were never quarantined as JKR's are now.

> I don't believe that trying to recognize the influences that gave 
> birth to the series is despising JKR's work and originality, on the 
> very contrary. I consider it's like a tribute to her vast knowledge 
> and sharp mind, to her ability to create something new from a pre-
> existent material. This ability is the mark of the true artist, IMO. 
> We all are able to acquire knowledge and culture, but the capacity 
> of creating something from what we know isn't given to everyone. 
> That's why I'm glad every time I think I recognize a sparkle of 
> Harry's magic in a book, a movie or an encyclopaedia, in whatever 
> makes what I call culture.
> I'm glad to see where it might come from. I think it's a comforting 
> idea: it gives the books a kind of lineage, and puts them in the 
> position of potential seeds for other creations.

One teeny tiny problem with that: you don't _ever_ want to cross Bloomsbury,
Scholastic or Warner Bros. There will be no potential seeds from this creation
if it can at all be proved in a court of law, fanfic notwithstanding. The
media response to the book 6 promotion efforts will be *fascinating*, given
their fury at the constraints placed upon them the last time the machine was
in action. And here you can guess at another reason why we don't see a lot of
lit. crit. about the Potterverse. Noone wants their dissertation vetted by the
publisher.

> So what? Does it make the magic vanish? I don't think so. And it 
> doesn't split either our "fandom". Harry's magic is also his 
> capacity to be a private interlocutor for million people, whatever 
> they know about him. That's why analyzing the books from "an 
> exterior perspective" is IMO necessary, and doesn't spoil JKR's 
> original creation. It simply makes us enter a wider place, and gives 
> us the true magnitude of her work.

A fair question, whatever exterior perspective is chosen, is whether the point
is meaningful. I just made an artificial connection between Dickens and JKR,
was it meaningful or necessary? Both were exceedingly commercially successful,
Dickens, Shakespeare and the Bible are JKR's only rivals, does that mean we
should make such connections? There have been a fair number of Tolkien
connections (noone seems to have gotten my Tolkienisation pun, oh well), and
look how eager lit. crit. is to embrace his work! Is it a problem with the
fantasy genre? It probably has something to do with it, but I'd argue that
Potterverse has become too big for one genre, it has ascended to that holy of
holies, general literature, even more reason why it should be analysed as
such. 

Let's take an example or two, which so far haven't been deemed verboten: say
the creation of fanciful animals. This enduring pastime of Europe since time
immemorial cannot be claimed as invention by any one artist, so it's probably
safe to make comparisons with JKR's menagerie. Funny pseudo-botanical latin is
perfectly free too. Ricky Gervais' Flanimals is probably familiar to British
readers (we poor Aussies only heard about it last night on a long-delayed
Parky), and follows much the same formula. No problem there.

Silly invented or rewritten histories, well Tolkien is the obvious reference,
but it's been a popular though obscure technique used often by caricaturists
(I'm thinking here of 1066 And All That for example).

Much children's literature has always used fantasy intermixed with the familiar
reality to entertain or inform, so that's not a problem either.

There are any number of universal themes addressed in the Potterverse which
aren't exclusive either, and this is pure lit. crit. territory so you'd think
they'd jump right in.

So does anyone have an answer for me and Iris? Are we 'just not qualified' to
make these criticisms, or is it too early to tell?

-- 
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."