HP Meta/Rebuttal
Apparently there's some question of whether our beloved JKR knows what the hell she's doing.
Avoiding the obvious: "She's the fucking richest woman in the world; she probably has a clue!" I'd like to examine this in my own fragmentary way. Some of the questions raised: Is she a world-builder? Does she have a moral vision? Is her work worthy of in-depth analysis? Do the books hang together? In short, is she a good witch or a bad witch, er ... a good writer or a bad writer?
Before going on to some of the esoterica of morality and writing quality, let's tackle the central question:
1).There's this nasty piece of work out there, who calls himself Lord Voldemort, and he appears to have something of an adversary in the form of a bespeckled young boy named Harry Potter.
This, iirc, is pretty well-established in PS/SS, along with the fact that, although Harry prevents Voldie from returning then and there, we should expect we haven't seen the last of him.
Plot: Check
2). There is a magical world, which largely exists within the interstices of our own world: (e.g. Platform 9 3/4)
Setting: Check
3). Harry is new to the wizarding world, but he's known by all. He has a mentor (Dumbledore) a best friend-guy (Ron) and a best friend-girl (Hermione) a hated foil (Draco) and an ambiguous nemesis (Snape)
Character: Check
4). Ron and Hermione dislike each other rather intensely initially.
Romantic Subplot: Check
5). Harry defeated Voldie the first time through the power of love, and this is key to how he'll defeat Him again.
Another idea introduced in Book One and harped on continuously throughout the series.
Theme: Check
6). It's our choices that show who we truly are.
We get this, I think, in CoS with, again, many repetitions later on, most especially in HbP.
Deepening of theme: Check
It has been suggested that the theme of good vs. evil is somehow rather shallow. But if we take away that, and take away fate vs. free will for good measure, all that will be left are sex and death, and to be honest, if JKR tackled sex what would all us fanfic writers do???
Now, what about this question of world building. I have to say, I'm in the camp that thinks JKR has done a fairly impressive job allowing that, no, she didn't reinvent the wheel. As I said above, the Magical world exists not as a separate universe but as a culture within the fabric of the world as we know it. Hint: Muggles are people. Now, is that a cheap shortcut? Well, hell, even the most-revered Tolkein didn't bother to explain the solar system.
Rowling has given us a social heirarchy of wizards and witches: purebloods, half-bloods, Muggle borns and squibs. She also gives us House-elfs, animagi, crups and kneazles, Dementors, boggarts, and mandrakes -- all her own invention -- as well as the usual assortment of magical creatures – trolls, werewolves, goblins, and ghosts. She provides us with a government: the Ministry for Magic, a law enforcement agency: MLE and agents: Aurors and a court: the Wizengamot.
We have a main wizarding business district: Diagon Alley and a seedy variation Knockturn Alley (and who doesn't credit her for such clever names); a school with an entire magical curriculum and a Magical national pastime, complete with elaborate rule system. Even when she riffs on common culture, as with the OWLS and NEWTS, you have to give her kudos for the clever. And all that's just what comes off the top of my head, which arguably isn't the solidest place around.
What Rowling's magical world seems to have little of and little interest in is art and literature. It's unlikely that she will write a post-series volume of house-elven poetry and she'll probably be satisfied to let the HP Lexicon handle the chronology. But even her vision of wizarding portraiture and photography are fairly fascinating, with the higher art form embodying something of the spirit of its subject while the lower form is mere representation. As for languages, she lets her wizards speak English and falls back on the classical languages for Spells and such. But are spell designations are varied and creative, from Silencio to Imperious to the terrifying Crucio and my personal favorite, Scourgify (I'd give anything never to have to clean my house again). Perhaps these are limitations, perhaps not (which is shorthand for I'm giving lip service to the opposing view, but not very sincerely).
Are there things JKR didn't know at the outset? Well, sure. For instance, she probably knew that Sirius Black would turn out to have a dog as his Animagus form. Either that or it's a helluva nominal coincidence, but she seems to have overlooked his family manse, leaving him to fend for himself in a cave for a year, and then, much to the gratitude of Remus/Sirius shippers world-wide, lie low at Lupin's for a summer. Does she have a little trouble with the ages of some of her characters. Yes she does. Is she a bit uncertain as to the enrollment of Hogwarts. Yes she is. But is she innocent of the tendency of her books to become successively darker? Of Voldemort and the threat of evil growing more ominous as the series progresses? Has she killed off a more meaningful character in each of the last three books merely by accident? Has Harry become more and more alone by mistake?
Is it true that fans are guilty of nothing more than "overthinking?" We are accused of poring over this text in a way typical of the classroom. Well, not incidentally, the classroom is where people study literature. So, yeah, some of us treat this as a literary work. I'm not sure if the observation is meant to denigrate the work or those who are fannishly interested or both, but since essentially we're being accused of acting like educated people, I'll take the insult. If you can ask the questions and someone will debate with you, the work is sufficiently complex to merit the attention. That's my literary standard and I'm sticking to it.
In the end, whether JKR is brilliant omniscient author or some kind of idiot-savant doesn't at all reflect on whether her work is worthy of serious study. The work is the work, meta is meta and fandom is fandom. That her work has spawned thousands of discussions, essays, works of fan fiction, RPGs, not to mention hours and hours of reading pleasure, ought to speak for itself. It ought not be a cause for dismay or disdain either, for that matter.
If I were pressed to say whether Rowling is a great writer, my answer would be an unhesitant "no," (If she were, she'd have written a lot more about Snape and Remus and Sirius instead of those annoyingly boring adolescents.)
But does she know what she's doing?
Damn straight, she does.
Avoiding the obvious: "She's the fucking richest woman in the world; she probably has a clue!" I'd like to examine this in my own fragmentary way. Some of the questions raised: Is she a world-builder? Does she have a moral vision? Is her work worthy of in-depth analysis? Do the books hang together? In short,
Before going on to some of the esoterica of morality and writing quality, let's tackle the central question:
1).There's this nasty piece of work out there, who calls himself Lord Voldemort, and he appears to have something of an adversary in the form of a bespeckled young boy named Harry Potter.
This, iirc, is pretty well-established in PS/SS, along with the fact that, although Harry prevents Voldie from returning then and there, we should expect we haven't seen the last of him.
Plot: Check
2). There is a magical world, which largely exists within the interstices of our own world: (e.g. Platform 9 3/4)
Setting: Check
3). Harry is new to the wizarding world, but he's known by all. He has a mentor (Dumbledore) a best friend-guy (Ron) and a best friend-girl (Hermione) a hated foil (Draco) and an ambiguous nemesis (Snape)
Character: Check
4). Ron and Hermione dislike each other rather intensely initially.
Romantic Subplot: Check
5). Harry defeated Voldie the first time through the power of love, and this is key to how he'll defeat Him again.
Another idea introduced in Book One and harped on continuously throughout the series.
Theme: Check
6). It's our choices that show who we truly are.
We get this, I think, in CoS with, again, many repetitions later on, most especially in HbP.
Deepening of theme: Check
It has been suggested that the theme of good vs. evil is somehow rather shallow. But if we take away that, and take away fate vs. free will for good measure, all that will be left are sex and death, and to be honest, if JKR tackled sex what would all us fanfic writers do???
Now, what about this question of world building. I have to say, I'm in the camp that thinks JKR has done a fairly impressive job allowing that, no, she didn't reinvent the wheel. As I said above, the Magical world exists not as a separate universe but as a culture within the fabric of the world as we know it. Hint: Muggles are people. Now, is that a cheap shortcut? Well, hell, even the most-revered Tolkein didn't bother to explain the solar system.
Rowling has given us a social heirarchy of wizards and witches: purebloods, half-bloods, Muggle borns and squibs. She also gives us House-elfs, animagi, crups and kneazles, Dementors, boggarts, and mandrakes -- all her own invention -- as well as the usual assortment of magical creatures – trolls, werewolves, goblins, and ghosts. She provides us with a government: the Ministry for Magic, a law enforcement agency: MLE and agents: Aurors and a court: the Wizengamot.
We have a main wizarding business district: Diagon Alley and a seedy variation Knockturn Alley (and who doesn't credit her for such clever names); a school with an entire magical curriculum and a Magical national pastime, complete with elaborate rule system. Even when she riffs on common culture, as with the OWLS and NEWTS, you have to give her kudos for the clever. And all that's just what comes off the top of my head, which arguably isn't the solidest place around.
What Rowling's magical world seems to have little of and little interest in is art and literature. It's unlikely that she will write a post-series volume of house-elven poetry and she'll probably be satisfied to let the HP Lexicon handle the chronology. But even her vision of wizarding portraiture and photography are fairly fascinating, with the higher art form embodying something of the spirit of its subject while the lower form is mere representation. As for languages, she lets her wizards speak English and falls back on the classical languages for Spells and such. But are spell designations are varied and creative, from Silencio to Imperious to the terrifying Crucio and my personal favorite, Scourgify (I'd give anything never to have to clean my house again). Perhaps these are limitations, perhaps not (which is shorthand for I'm giving lip service to the opposing view, but not very sincerely).
Are there things JKR didn't know at the outset? Well, sure. For instance, she probably knew that Sirius Black would turn out to have a dog as his Animagus form. Either that or it's a helluva nominal coincidence, but she seems to have overlooked his family manse, leaving him to fend for himself in a cave for a year, and then, much to the gratitude of Remus/Sirius shippers world-wide, lie low at Lupin's for a summer. Does she have a little trouble with the ages of some of her characters. Yes she does. Is she a bit uncertain as to the enrollment of Hogwarts. Yes she is. But is she innocent of the tendency of her books to become successively darker? Of Voldemort and the threat of evil growing more ominous as the series progresses? Has she killed off a more meaningful character in each of the last three books merely by accident? Has Harry become more and more alone by mistake?
Is it true that fans are guilty of nothing more than "overthinking?" We are accused of poring over this text in a way typical of the classroom. Well, not incidentally, the classroom is where people study literature. So, yeah, some of us treat this as a literary work. I'm not sure if the observation is meant to denigrate the work or those who are fannishly interested or both, but since essentially we're being accused of acting like educated people, I'll take the insult. If you can ask the questions and someone will debate with you, the work is sufficiently complex to merit the attention. That's my literary standard and I'm sticking to it.
In the end, whether JKR is brilliant omniscient author or some kind of idiot-savant doesn't at all reflect on whether her work is worthy of serious study. The work is the work, meta is meta and fandom is fandom. That her work has spawned thousands of discussions, essays, works of fan fiction, RPGs, not to mention hours and hours of reading pleasure, ought to speak for itself. It ought not be a cause for dismay or disdain either, for that matter.
If I were pressed to say whether Rowling is a great writer, my answer would be an unhesitant "no," (If she were, she'd have written a lot more about Snape and Remus and Sirius instead of those annoyingly boring adolescents.)
But does she know what she's doing?
Damn straight, she does.
