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

[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/

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

... 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!

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES.

:-)

That's what I detest about Rowling and those slavish fans who rapture over her 'worldbuilding'. She just threw things in willy-nilly, without any thought (her "oh, maths!" personality probably made it difficult for her to see how 'internal consistency' was knocked for a loop). And then when she had to tie things together and make things work, in her series' endgame ... she FAILED. Horribly.

It's the fans who attempt to give her a free pass on that which vex me. It's *easy* to build something, anything - a book, a car, a bridge, a house - if you're not going to be held accountable for the end result. Who cares if the car doesn't start? IT LOOKS PRETTY!!.

Bah. The real world shouldn't work that way. A travesty that it did, for Rowling.

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.

Yes. They've put so much *thought* into their work, so much more than Rowling. The satisfaction from reading their material is sometimes an order of magnitude greater than that which is obtained in reading the HP books.

[oryx_leucoryx]

Before DH I read so many fan essays on how the spells work, how are spells invented, what the Dark Arts are. Or how wizarding economy works. But now it is clear Rowling never thought that far. As usual, much of the praise for 'world-building' is for things readers put into the world in attempt to make sense of the snippets Rowling tossed here and there with little thought. People like Jodel or pharnabazus did more Potterverse world-building than Rowling.

[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."

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

Got it, thanks!

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

I certainly don't agree with everything in that article - not by a long shot - but here is an interesting quote:

Quidditch, which is like soccer played on broomsticks, is narcissistic sports. Narcissistic sports is a contradiction in terms, but then again so is narcissistic education. Sports, by definition, pit desire against reality, and out of that conflict character is formed in the souls of the young people who participate in sports. Reality in this instance means the laws of the physical universe�gravity, inertia, etc.�as they affect the human body�s ability to move through space. By repeated effort and perseverance, which are moral traits, the young person who plays sports acquires skill, which allows him to overcome the laws of nature in ways which seem magical to those who lack the skills but are not. Anyone who has watched an upperclassman sail over the highjump bar knows what I mean. Anyone who has watched an upperclassman push off from the dock on a 18 inch-wide racing shell without tipping over and later learned to do the same thing himself knows that what seems to be magic is really a skill that can be mastered through perseverance and patience. The lesson that the young man learns is that I can be out in reality and I can learn how to deal with reality. I can run ten miles. I can row there and back without tipping over. I am not a god who makes things so by wishing they were so, but if I learn certain skills, reality can accommodate my desires. I can row across the lake without tipping over.

That is one of the lessons of sport. The other is learned in competition with other people. The same character building lessons that were learned in confrontation with nature get applied to the sportsman�s relations with other people. This means that winning, which is based on acquired skills, is a good thing, but not the only good thing.� In fact, the social collaboration which allows the game to take place in the first place is more important than winning and should always be treated that way. That means that sports should teach one how to be gracious in defeat, which means accepting the fact that, no matter how great our level of skill, our desires do not have hegemony over reality.

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

That's really well said and sort of exemplifies one of the main problem with Quidditch. I mean, what's the point of all the other players when apparently the seeker is the only one who can decisively win the game?

[oryx_leucoryx]

And what is the point of skill if the player with the more expensive broom wins (almost always)?

One could argue Ginny was the best Seeker in the series (yes, something she is actually good at), because from what we can see she caught those 2 snitches while riding a school broom.

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

I forgot about that. It seems like there would be no way to have a fair game when everything depended on the amount of money that was spent on the team rather than on their actual skill.

[sweettalkeress.livejournal.com]

And now I'm wondering what sorts of games the friendly neighborhood adults in the inner city put together to give the downtrodden kids friends and team spirit.

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

Do you think that there are people in the WW who are that selfless? ;-)

Maybe they can jury-rig together a homemade version with common household brooms and some clever enchanting.

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

I googled the article. Um, regardless of the author's stance on Harry Potter, I don't feel like he's a very credible source. Some of his understanding of psychology appears to be about 60 years out-of-date, and it's hard to take seriously someone who claims that homosexuality is the ultimate expression of narcissism.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Yes - It's a weird article, and, as I said, I certainly do not agree with it entirely. Unfortunately, someone who spouts prejudice the way this man does (he's not only homophobic, but also extremely anti-Catholic and anti-Irish - or at least, he quotes people who are) cannot be taken seriously. And yet - when he explains, as above, exactly why Quidditch is the anti-sport and an expression of narcissism, he makes an awful lot of sense. I wish there were a calm, coherent analysis of the narcissism in these books, but I haven't been able to find one, and have neither the knowledge of psychology nor the heart to attempt it myself.

[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!

[darth-eldritch.livejournal.com]

They certainly are fun to read, and the first four books were fun to read for me until I hit OOTP where Harry was screaming at everyone, being a total self centered brat, even taking it out on poor Hedwig. I had to put it down, because that kind of abuse was almost triggering to me. So I didn't finish the series until a couple of years later.

With that the flaws became very clear. I was a little bothered by how Snape and Slytherin were treated, now I got really irked over it. And it got worst. The part where Harry "dies" and is in the train station and the crying child was ignored, was almost too much. And so many examples.

Now if Rowling had portrayed all of this as an impartial writer, allowing for readers to draw their own conclusions, the story would have been absolutely fantastically great in spite of the poor writing style.

But Rowling is so biased. She assumes that we are going to condemn Draco for some of his actions, or think it's hunkey dorey that Snape is so beholden to Dumbledore. It's like these things aren't up for questioning. It's almost as if Rowling is oblivious to it, or doesn't care.

The effects of her bias cancel out any Zeitgeist effect that she may have evoked, at least for me.

It's true the books can be complete fun if they are taken at face value without any deeper reading. And the story does have a lot of atmosphere, for instance the Legos HP vidieo games is fun because of that atmosphere. Highly recommend if you're inclined to play video games.

Length is cool! Thank you for thoughtful response! Cool on the band Gringotts Girls!

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

The effects of her bias cancel out any Zeitgeist effect that she may have evoked, at least for me.

No, really? To me, the obvious bias and double standards - which are somehow quite clear in the books as well as in the interviews - that crying child, and Harry's uncritical worship of Dumbledore - ugh! Well, those things are exactly what I see reflected in the Zeitgeist. I hope I'm not being really arrogant here, but I think some of the people who read these books uncritically are also uncritical of our own culture. And the books reflect aspects of our culture really, really well. Aspects that ought to be criticized.

And yes, I just hated the way Snape and Slytherin were treated in the last book.

The Gringotts Grrls - we were up at our parents' place, weeding the driveway, when my sister said, "The Goblins control the whole Wizard monetary system. Why are there no bands about Goblins?" She came up with two songs that day!

[darth-eldritch.livejournal.com]

I certainly do agree with that view, you are right about the uncritical judgement.

I'm looking at it from the in-story perspective, if that makes sense.

That is so awesome, and great inspiration!

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

I hope I'm not being really arrogant here, but I think some of the people who read these books uncritically are also uncritical of our own culture. And the books reflect aspects of our culture really, really well. Aspects that ought to be criticized.

I can definitely see that.

[aikaterini.livejournal.com]

/They certainly are fun to read, and the first four books were fun to read for me until I hit OOTP where Harry was screaming at everyone, being a total self centered brat, even taking it out on poor Hedwig./

Same here. :(

That's why OotP is my least favorite HP book.

[darth-eldritch.livejournal.com]

It took me a couple of years before I could start reading them again. Harry's behavior and the evident okayness with it in the book turned me off that much.