Why no Harry Potter, eh?

[sweettalkeress.livejournal.com]

So I looked at ONTD's "Ten of the most Epidemically Overrated Books," and was incensed to find that books like On the Road and The Great Gatsby made the list but the Harry Potter series didn't (though at least the Twilight series did). I mean really, Harry Potter is the epitome of an overrated book series, given that there are people seriously making the point that it's so deep and meaningful and needs to be read in AP English classes. Never mind that it's a children's book series!

Well, these were the people who said that a bunch of authors besides Rowling disliked the idea of fanfiction without bothering to consider WHY they might feel that way (specifically, that Rowling is the only one who's all that fandom savvy because she's modern in a way that the others aren't). Maybe they just think Rowling is their darling author too, and you can't say anything bad about her.

Comments

[eviltracey.livejournal.com]

I think if someone dared to criticize the Great Goddess JK Rowling, LJ would collapse from the weight of posts from her number one fans.

(I actually liked the series - except for books 5 & 6 - the books are fun and entertaining. But they're not great literature.)

[harpsi-fizz.livejournal.com]

I think if someone dared to criticize the Great Goddess JK Rowling, LJ would collapse from the weight of posts from her number one fans.

Which is sad really. It's exactly the reason our community inspires so much rage in Rabids. You can like a series, you can love a series and acknowledge its faults. In my opinion, that's all we're doing here- saying "I had fun reading the books and I enjoy them, but these were things that were a little silly/made no sense/I would have changed/I did not care for". How that translates into "I hate all the books forever and ever" makes no sense. Saying the books are overrated isn't a critique of the books in this case. It's a critique of the behavior of the fans.

And even that isn't as dumb as when people accuse Slytherin/Voldemort/Malfoy fans of being JK-Haters. Did she not create those characters? Are those people not fans of characters in the series?

There's entirely too much "one way to like it" mentality in this fandom, and that's why the fandom is now an apocalyptic wasteland. Nobody wants to come out with fanfic or art or anything new for fear that someone will be nasty to them for "not doing it right". The fandom did this to itself, and it's a damn shame nobody realized until it was too late that fandom needs happy fan activity to survive in the long run. In fact, I think that's what happened. At a certain point, the fandom stopped being fueled by fun and connections and started being fueled purely by rage, hate, and ship wars. Once the final book came out, there was no more fuel.

[eviltracey.livejournal.com]

JKR (I think) played a big part in the "one way to like it" mentality - she ridiculed fans who interpreted her text differently than she in her infamous interview with Melissa and Emerson, and she gave the post-DH interview in which she said "Dumbledore was gay; Luna married this guy; and Draco married someone else."

I wonder, though, if her words would be considered gospel by the next generation of Potter fans (I'm pretty sure that the people who enjoyed the series when it came out will be buying the books for their kids).

Also: people think Slytherin/Voldemort/ Malfoy fans are JK haters? The mind boggles....

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

That's one of the things that bothers me most about the HP fandom. If one so much as mentions that they are less than thrilled by the books, suddenly even people one knows well and likes start making humorous threats rather than actually engaging the points the unbeliever brings up. I think this might be what shifted me from being a somewhat disillusioned fan to full-on disliking the series. No dissent is allowed, even among otherwise intelligent and rational people.

[darth-eldritch.livejournal.com]

They are greatly overrated.

It doesn't take great literature to show blatant favoritism, and showing favoritism as being the right way is not great literature.

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

Well said.

[darth-eldritch.livejournal.com]

Thank you!

[hwyla.livejournal.com]

I actually had hopes that it might all turn out to be 'great literature' in the end - and then we got bk7. I saw hints for a upcoming bk7 that stressed how the prejudices against Slytherin and the allowances of unforgivables by aurors cornered young men like Severus into rebellion. I was TRULY expecting signs of JKRs interest in Amnesty International to surface in the last book. I suppose in some ways it did with the Muggleborn Registration Act - but it wasn't to the extent I expected AND it wasn't the 'true' Ministry. And I was expecting more of a real Sidney Carton connection for Snape. She had whispers of it, but then chose to not go to it fully. Overall, it was a great disappointment in the end.

That said, there are still parts that really intrigue me - especially some of the hidden symbolisms that some people still don't accept. Again - I think she dropped so many of them in the end. The alternative is that she never actually intended them and they were all subconscious. As an artist, I can accept that this is possible - and they are still wonderfully interesting to discuss and discover - hence the reason I'm still in the fandom and why I can still see real merit in discussing the works - even in AP lit. But in the end, the reason they didn't come to be what they could have been is also a needed part of that discussion - as is questioning the choices she DID make and just why they resonate for many. -- Hwyla

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

So I looked at ONTD's "Ten of the most Epidemically Overrated Books," and was incensed to find that books like On the Road and The Great Gatsby made the list but the Harry Potter series didn't -

Damn. This is really quite saddening.

I mean really, Harry Potter is the epitome of an overrated book series, given that there are people seriously making the point that it's so deep and meaningful and needs to be read in AP English classes.

Ugh. You are so right.

Maybe one day I'll take one of those HP literature classes (are we talking high school or university?) and criticise the books to the max. I suppose the trick in these course is by examining the HP books *piecemeal* (like hwyla's comment about some of the 'hidden symbolism'). Because the humongous errors and huge failure of the series is mostly apparent when the books are examined as a whole, as an overall story that is supposed to make sense. That's where Rowling was totally useless.

[sweettalkeress.livejournal.com]

This was a high-school project where we had to convince our English teacher why a new book would be worth using in summer reading. And one of my friends said Harry Potter and backed it up with reasons like "You could get so much more out of these books as an adult than as a kid!"

Of course, that's preposterous because it could be true of any media aimed at children that wants wide demographic appeal. You might as well say that the Pokemon games are great works of art deserving of study because, see, only as an ADULT could you truly appreciate the references Cyrus made to things like war in the fourth generation. She also argued for the importance of the "message," that you can choose to stay away from bad things (like Harry chose not to be in Slytherin!), which, my mind just boggles.

The irony is that Pokemon has aged and expanded its demographic far more gracefully and successfully than Harry Potter ever has, but I digress.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

It drives me crazy to see some over-the-top pro-Jo fans desperately try to attach 'deep and meaningful themes' to Rowling's work, using any possible hook they can. The veil is a doorway to death? WHAT A BRILLIANT METAPHOR OUR JO IS BRILLIANT. Stuff like that.

The boss of The Leaky Cauldron web site and author of 'Harry, A History' - one of the two sycophant interviewers of the Interview o' Doom - 'Melissa Anelli' I think is the name? - is the worst example of this I've ever come across. Her fawning adoration of Rowling and manic attempts to glean DEEP AND MEANINGFUL themes out of Rowling's work - with Rowling nodding uh ha, hmmm, yes, okay as Anelli went further and further down the garden path. If you've ever come across Anelli's web site you'll know what I mean as you laugh along.

(Rowling did it too, of course; maybe she started it. I think some of her infinite interviews after DH were about the 'symbolism' of Harry being 'good', women not being as brave as men/Harry, and so forth. Bah.)

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Well, the Potter books were on our high school reading list for the lower grades, and I could (and can) see it. Because, although I've come to believe they are the most overrated books of all time, they are overrated for some particular reasons. And those reasons are worth discussing on a high school level - maybe even on an adult level. The problem is, I don't think the books have been analyzed at all critically anywhere but in places like this one. And they should be.

The reasons I see for their massive popularity:
1. They reflect the present Zeitgeist - including some nasty things in it - really, really well. That needs analyzing,
2. Rowling's surface energy and brilliance - what fans call her "worldbuilding".
3. The echoes of other, greater, books to be found in her works.
4. Clever marketing and good timing. These were series books that seemed, at first, to be more than that. But, because the first three were all ready to go when the first one came out, they could be published within months of each other, so that their popularity could build quickly. And the first three were relatively well written, clever and engaging - unlike the last two!

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

... although I've come to believe they are the most overrated books of all time -

It's so *easy* to say that, isn't it? I quite totally agree.

There are no doubt other books that have been published that are as bad - plot holes, absolute reliance on dei ex machina, passive boring storyline, artificial story structure (the Dark Lord Mental Broadcast Network) and so on and so on, but the sheer magnitude of commercial success that Rowling's series enjoyed puts it in a class of its own. "Absolute worst book ever"? Maybe not. "Absolutely worst book ever, when normalised against its commercial success"? YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES.

Re your reasons, I don't see #1, I didn't pick up on any great reflection of society's values/movements in Rowling's work. Rather, she drew heavily on the old 'British Public School' trope, brought in Nazis and called them Death Eaters (at least in DH) and so forth. I.e. viz your #3.

Goodness I hate that old 'worldbuilding', often seen in this sentence - "it doesn't matter if she failed in the rest of her writing, we'll give her a free pass because of her WORLDBUILDING". Well, that sort of sentiment. I didn't see much originality in her 'world building'. 'Energy and brilliance' makes it easier to accept I suppose. I know it's impossible to look back and objectively access the true 'brilliance' that went into it though ... still, I can think of other contemporary work equally as 'brilliant'.

How much weight would you put on these reasons? Do you think a lot of her success, most of it, is due to #4? The HP phenomenon became something that, once it reached a 'critical mass', just kept on rolling, regardless of the quality of the consequent books. So I see something like 'clever marketing and good timing' as something that very well might 'luck into' enough kick at the start to get things rolling and build up that momentum. Is there anything in the HP marketing that was new, unique to HP?

Do you think the internet had much to do with it? Was HP the first big successful work which built on - and encouraged - internet participation? Rowling was ignorant of the fan sites for a long time, but then she got into it, at least in terms of working with the largest (and most sycophantic) of them.

(I have to remind myself that the online fandom is a minute part of the HP readership overall.)

I've been wondering off and on for the last few years just why such a bad series was so successful. Maybe you're right; there *was* 'brilliance' ... in the EARLY books. Being more for the kids they didn't click with me as much as #4 or #5, which is where I saw the drama/tension rack up and get 'serious'. Were books 1-3 really that good?

Sigh.

[malic-ba.livejournal.com]

'Worldbuilding'? I, too, really hate hearing this applied to HP. Because to me this is one of the series' real weaknesses. JKR did throw together lots of interesting elements, but for it to be worldbuilding, you have to put some thought into how the world would actually function away from your story. You have to set up the 'laws of nature' for your world, not throw in extra random things when you need to get out of a plot hole. Internal consistency!

Speculative fiction is my favourite kind, and 'worldbuilding' is probably the main reason why. How could the universe be different? What would the consequences be? I love books where it takes time to decipher what these context rules are. (It's probably the roleplaying background :) ) To hear JKR praised for this when she just fundamentally hasn't done the work makes me crazy. Not only has she not done the work, she looks down and dismisses the whole genres of people who do. ('Oh, maths' ?!?)

There are some brillant essayists and writers in fandom who find / create / retcon a WW which hangs together from the fragments JKR has (intentionally or unintentionally) given us, and it is an intriguing and mythical place. They are the real worldbuilders of the WW, to my mind, and I really wish my slice of the millons JKR has made could go to them.

/end rant/

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

That makes a lot of sense.

1. They reflect the present Zeitgeist - including some nasty things in it - really, really well. That needs analyzing,

I concur. I would love to see a critical analysis of the series from this standpoint.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't say this was the definitive analysis - I don't think it's simply the case that the narcissism in the books reflects our society's narcissism. But there are some interesting ideas here.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/696992/posts

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Tried to reply below, and my comment got marked as spam because I included a link. The link was to a discussion of an article that appeared in "Culture Wars", entitled "Education as Magic: Harry Potter and the Cult of Narcissism."

[darth-eldritch.livejournal.com]

The appeal of Harry Potter is that Rowling can write an engaging story. She can get you interested in what happens next. And some of her characters are unforgettable.

I don't see Zeitgeist so much in her books. There honestly isn't a theme in her books that can't be found on other books of better writing. She tries to write from the POV of the kids and kids of that age in her books, which makes them somewhat relatable.

"Worldbuilding" is more like Tolkein, or GRRM. Rowling has sketches of a greater world in her story, Cairo, etc, but it's never really clearly defined.

She really isn't that great a writer. Sometimes I've had to stop and marvel at how clumsy her syntax is and think of how a particular passage could have been written better. I've seen wizard or hex school themed stories as a kid that had been written better.

No 4. is the biggest part. Marketing, marketing, marketing. Just like Stephanie Meyer.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Well, I agree that it is, and was, mostly clever marketing. But I also agree that Rowling is a gifted storyteller, though not (especially in her later books) a particularly good writer. As to the "worldbuilding" - notice, I said "what fans call worldbuilding". She gave people a lot of fun things to play with, and, in my corner of the fandom (wizard rock), the fans simply had a ball. My sister (founder of our band, the Gringotts Grrls) explained that the wizarding monetary system, to give just one example, was very amusing. I'd give you a link to our song "Prime Numbers", but I'd be blocked as spam again!

I can remember exactly what I thought of these books when they first came out. A colleague read the sorting hat scene as part of a booktalk for 5th graders. She was really, really enthusiastic about the book. So was another colleague. So I read it - and wasn't that taken with it until Harry got on to the train to Hogwarts. Then I reconsidered. They seemed good, old-fashioned stories such as we hadn't had in awhile, and I thought (at that time) that we might be dealing with classics on the level of Lloyd Alexander, or even Lewis. It was clear to me, even then, that the books weren't quite on the level even of Alexander, but I thought they might come close, if Rowling could sustain her story and her tone. I just thought they were good, fun kids' books with enough cleverness and energy to interest adults. Then we hit OOTP, and I was really pleased - Harry was growing up! The characters were acquiring some backstory and depth! Alas! How wrong I was! But some adult fans who analyzed the books deeply - say, the people on John Granger's board between HBP and DH - are still hanging on to their theories, completely unwilling to admit that they were wrong about these books.

So there are a few things going on. It's mostly marketing, yes. But also fans unwilling to admit to the books' flaws, since they have made something of a career of them. And also fans who just don't read all that deeply or critically. If you are just reading for the main plot and the fun little details, you'll probably enjoy the books well enough. Finally, the Zeitgeist thing - these books do a lot of splitting/doubling. A lot of shadow projection, if you will. I see that everywhere I look in the news. People cannot simply have differences; they have to be representatives of "evil empires" and the like. These books show and encourage simplistic, black-and-white thinking. And I do think there's a lot of that about. The moral double standards in the books are also legion in the real world, IMHO.

So that's what I meant. Sorry for the length!

[ladyzenobia.livejournal.com]

Hello!
I'm a lurker. Thought I'd say hi. DH was such a letdown for me that I actually quit the HP fandom for a while when I thought that no one agrees with me and all I could see was this blind adoration for Rowling. So I'm really glad to have found this community. I've never been active on LJ before, but I have a feeling I'm going to be, since I just read most of your posts all the way to 2009 or so in a few days.

I don't mind HP being overrated, nothing wrong with people enjoying a thing. But I do mind the "OMG!!!1 it's such a menaingful series!!" crap. Mostly people use the muggleborns and house-elves as an example and claim how Rowling explains to us through her books that slavery and racism are bad. I mean, do they really need a children's book to tell them that? If it wasn't for Harry Potter, would all these people be thinking that slavery and bigotry are wonderful things, or what.

And then of course there are the attacks. I can't tell you how often I've been personally attacked for liking Percy/Bella/Snape/the Malfoys etc, or supporting the wrong ship. So yeah, I'm glad I found this place :)

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

Muggleborn yes, but the books display an amazing lack of concern for actual muggles. I wouldn't mind this nearly as much if JKR didn't seem to be totally fine with that. Did she forget that everybody reading her books are muggles or something?

Uh, sorry guys. I know that this is something I tend to harp on, but it bugged me even when I was a fan of the series.

[ladyzenobia.livejournal.com]

She probably did forget. And the muggles themselves forgot, too. The whole "if I wish hard enough I will be a witch" thing seems to be a theme with Harry Potter. OMG, Rowling made a generation of kids ashamed of being muggles, rofl xD

[sunnyskywalker]

Actually, I can understand why Gatsby would make the list and not HP: it actually is read in AP English classes. And non-AP English classes. People often reserve a special hatred for books which are not just popular (hey, popularity fades, and at least you can blame it on Other People Who Aren't You being shallow), but are actively forced down their throats by people who are supposed to be experts on what makes a good book.

Which isn't to say English teachers are always wrong about what makes a good book. A lot of times they are. It's just that when you have millions of schoolchildren being told that yes, actually that damn green light is super subtle symbolism and very important, a bunch of them are going to hate the book all the more for being presented as the epitome of literature in English rather than just an awesome fun read with lots of little story legos to play with.

But I totally would have voted for Heart of Darkness above Gatsby. Who decided "the jungle is dark and mysterious and Africa is a symbol of HUMAN SAVAGERY WHICH YOU CANNOT ESCAPE MWAHAHA" was deep? (Chinue Achebe had some things to say about that... Google "An Image of Africa: Racism in Conrad's 'Heart of Darkness.'")

[aikaterini.livejournal.com]

/But I totally would have voted for Heart of Darkness above Gatsby. Who decided "the jungle is dark and mysterious and Africa is a symbol of HUMAN SAVAGERY WHICH YOU CANNOT ESCAPE MWAHAHA" was deep?/

I had to read "Heart of Darkness" for a class and I hated it because it kept smacking me in the face with its blatant racism while I was trying to get through it. My class ended up having a discussion about whether Conrad was racist or if he intentionally made the narrator racist in order to make a point about racism. I don't know, but it really bothered me that the only African in the whole book who got to speak like a human being (and not like an animal - gee, that's not racist, right?) was the guy who announced that Character X (should I give away the ending?) was dead.

And if Conrad wanted to make a point about racism, wouldn't it be better to make the *actual* victims of racism - you know, the *Africans* and not the whining white men who didn't need to go over to Africa in the first place and who had the option of leaving - actual people and characters, instead of symbols and bestial caricatures? Whatever one may say about Harriet Beecher Stowe's "Uncle Tom's Cabin," at least her black characters actually had voices and were clearly intended to be people.

[sunnyskywalker]

That book was such a miserable slog when I had to read it in school.

Didn't one of the Africans get to say he'd like to eat someone? Not that the extra line is a good thing... I think what Achebe says about the "maybe he intentionally made the narrator racist to make a point about racism" defense is a good rebuttal: he doesn't provide an alternate frame of reference to the narrator's even in hints, so it doesn't really work. Besides, I agree with you - if he treats the characters as symbolic props instead of people in the narrative, how seriously could we take any attempt of his to say that it's wrong to treat Africans as, well, props for Europeans?