Ten years ago, literary critic Harold Bloom wrote an essay in The Wall Street Journal called “Can 35 Million Book Buyers Be Wrong?” in which he outlined his dislike for Harry Potter. Calling elements of the prose “heavy on cliché” and asserting that the status as a New York Times bestseller was emblematic of a “dumbing down” of the culture; Bloom’s essay (now notoriously difficult to find online) was seen as a savage assault on the beloved series. He later followed it up in a Newsweek article in 2007 titled “Harry Potter and the Money Making Machine.”
Now four years after the conclusion of the seven-part novel series, and just a month a way from the final installment of the cinematic adaptations, how ought Potter be regarded on its literary merits? Did Bloom have any legitimate points? Or does Potter endure despite its supposed literary failings?
SPOILERS below for the entire series.
A re-read of Bloom’s essay actually reveals a little bit more introspection and caveat than one might think. Bloom hopes (worries) that his “discontent is not merely a highbrow snobbery.” He clearly disseminates his opinion from a position of not understanding the basic fantasy appeal of the novels. Indeed, as I’ve pointed out previously, sometimes books deemed of serious literary merit seem to have little to do with entertainment and more to do with making sure the reader feels depressed. If one is looking for a downer, Harry Potter, despite all of its “darkness” is probably not the way to go.
First, I’d like to quickly address Bloom’s points about the prose itself; the nuts and bolts of Rowling’s writing. According to someone like Stephen King, she is fantastic, while to Bloom, she’s a terrible prose stylist. I think reality is probably somewhere in-between. True, Rowling’s prose could best described with tired writing cliché of “workman-like”; meaning the sentences are just sort of trudging along without any discernable style and are really just trying to depict the concepts as easily and as quickly as possible. Here, I find myself agreeing with Bloom. I, too, roll my eyes at a lot of the filler sentences in which characters roll their eyes or stretch their legs. However, unlike Bloom, this sort of meta-read of the Potter novels didn’t prevent me from enjoying them or getting through them. In fact, while I do think the prose is generally uncreative, the arrangement of the characters and ideas is very creative. A highly stylized or self-aware literary voice served well the Series of Unfortunate Events novels, which are in every single way better written and have probably higher literary value than Potter.
However, what Rowling gains in having a plain, easy prose style is populism. And that isn’t necessarily a dirty word. When you’re dealing with all the crazy concepts in the Potter-verse, it’s probably best not to take chances with the prose. These are, at least, superficially, kid’s books.
The structure of the Potter novels is a different beast all together and initially with the early three novels, something I admire. The first three books have the structure of a whodunit, with the various heroes all being sorts of Mrs. Marples. (Nina Lourie made a similar observation here) If one wanted to say Rowling had things in common with Agatha Christie, I don’t think they would be too far off. (I’m sure a Harold Bloom type wouldn’t be crazy about Christie either.) The point is, every single one of these first three novels ended in a twist, or a reveal of the “culprit.” In the case of the third book, the supposed villain, Sirius Black turns out not to be the villain at all, giving us another twist rooted firmly in classic mystery writing. In short, when the core of the Potter books was that of an honest-to-goodness mystery, they were structurally at their very best.
But then came everything post–Goblet of Fire in which the length of the books doubled and the structure became more muddled. What is the ultimate point of The Goblet of Fire? Well, in the end, the Goblet itself was nothing but a port-key designed to transport Harry to Voldermort for a blood donation. Was this entire tournament the best sort of ruse to make this happen? This twist is so elaborate and out of left field, that it pales in comparison to the satisfying twist in The Prisoner of Azkaban. After The Goblet of Fire, the Potter novels become more about preparations for a secret war, rather than a series of magical mysteries all part of a larger puzzle. By the time we get to the sixth book, the background mythology of Voldermort is still shrouded in so much mystery that the majority of The Half-Blood Prince is a series of flashbacks. What actually happens in The Half-Blood Prince? Harry wanders through a bunch of memories with Dumbledore, and then at the end a lot of bad stuff happens and Dumbledore dies. This is not the same kind of book as the whodunits that preceded it.
As the series progressed, many praised Rowling for her success at making the books “darker” and “grittier” as the characters aged and the situations grew more dire. For the most part, I’m inclined to agree with this. Had the series retained its whodunit format, the motivation for a reader to continue with the series would have relied upon enjoying that format. But for most, such a format would have grown tiresome. Just how many Sirius Blacks can she pull out of her hat? When the books took on an epic scope after The Goblet of Fire, greater promises were being made to the reader in terms of mortal stakes. Rowling started killing people off, starting with Cedric Diggory, just to make sure all the readers understood that anything could happen to any of the characters, at any time.
I think the idea of killing of characters was handled well by Rowling in the case of Dumbledore, Diggory and a few others, but by the time we get to Deathly Hallows it feels pretty amateurish. Because it’s the big finale, the sheer amount of death feels slavish to the urge of making the final volume truly “epic.” The structure of the series has become a high fantasy, complete with a storming of a castle at the end. As such, these sorts of scenes fall prey to a lot of dull, boring battle tropes the series avoided back when it was a quieter mystery/adventure about teenage wizards. Sure, Harry fights a giant monster at the end of Chamber of Secrets, but there you feel his pluck and lack of preparation. The battles in Deathly Hallows are more rote; complete with Harry double-wanding somebody like a gangsta for effect and nothing more.
Another structure debacle is the notion of horcruxes. This very important plot device is not truly revealed until the 6th book and subsequently the 7th book becomes almost exclusively a hero’s quest to destroy them. Structurally, the other five books didn’t really seem to be leading to this kind of by-the-numbers fantasy quest. The evidence is dubious at best. Sure, it’s all meticulously explained to us, but with all the existing threads in the series, why introduce a brand new concept the protagonists have to deal with so late in the game? Similarly, in The Deathly Hallows the Elder Wand becomes an end-all be-all focal point of the novel. Yes it is very, very cool, and the legend of the Deathly Hallows themselves is chilling. But from a structural point of view, this is another brand new element introduced into already fairly crowded magical world.
Further, with the kids we all know and love absent for Hogwarts, the passage of time and the familiar yearlong structure sort of crumbles apart. Just how long are Harry, Ron and Hermione in the woods? This also always struck me as a massive cliché. We know from fairy tales characters will face a lot of hardship and the narrator will say “they’re not out of the woods yet.” In The Deathly Hallows they are literally “not out of the woods” for like half the book.
However, The Deathly Hallows does return to the roots of the early Potter books by having a fantastic twist in which Snape has been the good guy all along. This chapter was probably my favorite in The Deathly Hallows as it allowed Rowling to sort of play detective with her own plots. This was highly original and really did connect with the spirit and essence of why the books are so fun to read in the first place. That being: you constantly discover new ways of looking at certain plot points based on clues you’ve been given earlier. The fantasy, humanistic and mystery elements blend extremely well here because it all revolves around an interesting well-developed character.
And this is where Rowling wins the Literary Tournament Cup. Nearly all of her characters are fantastic, well drawn, memorable, distinct from one another, relatable, and rich. They also grow and change considerably over the course of seven books. From the bookish Hermione to the classic romantic hero of Ron, to the complicated mess of Malfoy, the nerdy Colin Creavey, tortured Professor Lupin, guilty and rash Sirius Black, and the sad bitter, and ultimately good-hearted Snape. Even Voldemort gets a fantastic well-explained biography, complete with a family tree.
Throughout the series J.K. Rowling approaches One Hundred Years of Solitude territory regarding the complexity of her characters’ family trees. Occasionally, I wished I had a couple of family tree charts just to keep it all straight in my head. Which is nothing but a complete compliment. The real reason everyone kept reading these books had a lot to do with the cool magic and epic scale, and certainly not the convoluted plots. By at the end of all of it, they wanted to know what was going to happen to their favorite characters. Would they rise to the occasion? Would they turn evil? Would they change? Do we want them to? Will it be painful watching them grow older? Many have said that the epilogue at the end of The Deathly Hallows was a little corny and unnecessary. I’d agree as a critic, but disagree as a fan of the characters. The epilogue at the end of The Deathly Hallows was character-porn. It was a total indulgence in fan curiosity and allowed J.K. Rowling to tie up her story as a fairy tale for children. Which is arguably what she set out to do in the first place.
There is one final note about characters, which I think is illustrative of Rowling’s real talent: Luna Lovegood. Though introduced late in the series, my favorite character was Luna Lovegood, if only for the demonstration of Rowlings literary acrobatics. Luna and her nutjob father believe in all sorts of “wacky” magical creatures that the “regular” wizards think is absolutely ridiculous. When Luna talks about Crumple-Horn Snorkacks, you know she’s off her rocker. Even though the narrative and characters are already steeped in a world of broomstick games, ghosts, deadly spells, dragons, shape shifters, and countless other off-the-wall concepts! How could a writer possibly introduce a character that is on the fringe of all of that? How did Rowling do it? How did she create Luna and her wacky sensibilities? Even without the strange names the characters bandies about, we know that Luna’s off. From her roaring lion hat, to the cadence of her speech, she is an alien among wizards. It’s wonderful, but we do understand that the strange creatures she references are silly, while the creatures we’re familiar with are “serious.”
I wish I could explain how Luna and all of Rowling’s other characters were crafted so effectively. I wish I could do it with some serious literary anyalsis. But I can’t. Instead, I’ll just call it what it is. Magic.
Ryan Britt is a staff writer for Tor.com. His favorite Harry Potter thing, other than Luna, is the Patronus.
Part of it is the names. However workmanlike here prose in general is, Rowling has a gift for creating character names that is very, very rare.
@@@@@ Jeff Couldn’t agree more
I agree with most of your analysis, but I have to disagree on the parts about Deathly Hallows and Horcruxes. We get Harry’s Invisibility Cloak really early… and Hermione questions its powers several times. Also, the Diary is a horcrux and we understand why Tom Riddle was able to interact through it once we get the explanation of how horcruxes work. As you said, the early novels give a lot of clues to the Final Showdown, and these are just more examples of this foreshadowing occuring.
Now that’s a good lede! Made me want to click right through…
@sweetlilflower Fair enough. Though I always felt most of the horcrux and deathly hallows stuff was sort of retroactive.
I’m not the biggest Harry Potter fan or anything. I enjoyed the books in general and was impressed in a number of ways by choices Rowling made throughout the series.
What basically makes the entire series work for me, however, is how effectively it captured almost everyone who read it. There are a number of people (including at least one Tor blogger) who grew up with Harry Potter. There are adults who read them to their children. There are adults who never had children who read them. There are still children reading them today and becoming new fans.
I’ve always said that anything that gets people to read is okay by me. Then the Twilight series came along and ruined the whole statement for me. But I think that no matter how unliterary (which, in my mind, is the crux of Bloom’s complaint) the series may be, they effectively grew with their audience and with their characters and that’s no easy thing to pull off.
On a separate note, I saw the Horcruxes coming from book 2 (though they didn’t have a name at the time) and I don’t think they were remotely retroactive. There were just too many clues along the way.
Personally the reason I only read the first second and last book was I Found the whole universe a downer. Non-magic people are “muggles” and the people who run magic all have so many secret adgendas the universe has to be saved by little kids. That’s REALLY DARK.
@7 roblewmac Good point! I never really looked at it that way. Wonderful.
Bloom’s problem is that modern literary criticism has eaten itself, a phrase which here means “has become so pompously obsessed with staring at its own navel that it has consumed all of its actual value as a tool to analyze literature.”
This is not to say that the act of criticizing literature is inherently without merit, indeed, it is incredibly valuable. Unfortunately the focus of much modern literary critics is on things like which tropes the author uses and whether they have been used before, or whether the author’s prose is “workmanlike” or stylized. And of course, that’s neat and amusing so far as it goes, certainly one of the things most of his fans enjoy about Snicket/Handler is the unique literary voice. BUT…
The core of literature, what distinguishes literature from pulp, is not the style of the prose or the frequency of well-worn tropes. It is how well one, as a reader, can get invested in three dimensional characters or become enamored of exploring ideas contained within the story. The rest is no more than a tool to get you there.
For example, Asimov has a very workmanlike style, some would even call it soporific. But is there anyone that doubts his impact on science fiction, on world-building, on the ideas explored by thousands of authors and millions of readers?
Too much modern literary criticism misses the characters and the ideas in favor of demanding authors jump through the requisite stylisitic hoops. To use some philosophical criticism to criticize literary criticism, its insistance on form isn’t just foolish, it is a tyranny of language, just another iteration of privilege.
In answer to Mr. Bloom’s question, I would say that no, 35 million readers aren’t wrong, they are just answering a different question from yours. The question is not “Are the Harry Potter books great literature on the order of Shakespeare, Dante, Austen, etc?” The question is, “Are these books worth twenty bucks of my money and 5 hours of my time?” to which the answer is an overwhelming, “Yes.”
Are they great literature? Who knows? Who cares? Probably they shouldn’t be taught in English class, but that isn’t a knock on them. Really, what’s going to happen as far as the “literary merit” debate goes is that we’ll see in 50 years if people are still entertained by them, in which case, they will become “Classics of genre literature.” And then we’ll see if people are still reading them 100 years after that. If they are, Harry Potter will become a classic work, an excellent example of the magic realism school, and symbolic of all kinds of things that English PhD students will dig out of them.
I agree with Ryan that the horcruxes and hallowses were retroactive. There are plenty of mentions of other “invisibility cloaks” other than Harry’s throughout the early novels and the reader is not inclined to notice that anything is out of the ordinary with Harry’s. The most glaring example is how Ron immediately knew what it is in Philosopher’s Stone. If I recall correctly he stated that the such cloaks are “really rare” (implying that they are not unheard of and certainly not that Harry’s is unique in any way).
I did enjoy how Rowling tied together elements from previous books to form the horcruxes concept. However, it seemed that she didn’t have a clear picture of it until Goblet at the very earliest. I don’t believe there is any indication of hallowses until the final book, as well, and this gave our fearless heroes not just one but two sets of McGuffins to hunt down.
Ryan, I’d be interested on hearing your take on Harry Potter himself as a character. I’ve always felt that the adults of the series were the most fleshed-out characters (as you stated – Lupin, Snape, Dumbledore, Voldemort himself) and that the kids and especially Harry were rather flat, serving as the reader-as-proxy for children especially to identify with.
@sweetlilflower,
Hermione questioned the powers of the cloak? Do you have citations on that? It’s not that I doubt you, but I don’t remember anyone suggesting anything unusual about Harry’s cloak until after the discussion with Xenophilius.
I thought what DID work is by the end Harry is shown to like Werewoloves and trolls and things like that. He’s a nice kid
@11 Aging Computer.
@You know I’d have to think about Harry himself a bit. I suppose my knee-jerk reaction would be to agree withy you. He’s sort of a surrogate you’re supposed to insert yourself into in order to understand the story.
However, I’d say he’s a pretty realistic character in terms of what he wants and how he feels throughout the series. My biggest issues with Harry are sort of his crumby attempts at romance. I always wished he was a little bit more of a heartbreaker. But, then again, these are kids books. Overall, you’ve given me something to think about though!
@AgingComputer. I don’ t know how retroactive the hallows are, but the horcruxes are not. There are interviews indicating that elements of the horcrux storyline from Half-Blood Prince were going to be in Chamber of Secrets, but Rowling put it off until later.
@Lsana. As to the special-ness of the cloak, there is a reference to the fact that other cloaks exist but the magic eventually wears out. We discover Harry’s does not. I don’t recall where the first mention of that was.
@10 Lsana I love your 5 hours of my time and 20 bucks argument. I think you’re totally right. But, for me, it’s fun to talk about this literary stuff.
@9 Goldsteinlives
Nice Snicket homage there. Well done.
Also, well said.
@GoldsteinLives (and others),
The closest I remember to a “other invisibility cloaks wear out” is a brief reference to Moody having two of them, which could be interpreted as he was afraid one of them would wear out before he could make a new one, but could also be interpreted as “Moody’s afraid one will get lost or stolen or just misplaced at a critical time.”
With all the Potter fans out there, someone has to be able to give me chapter and verse on this. Please?
@ryancbritt,
I quite agree. It is fun. I’m just pointing out that for the vast majority of the Potter fans, it isn’t what they are about. They aren’t asking if it is great literature, or even the most fun book that was ever written. Just is it sufficient fun to be worth the investment.
1.roblewmac: world save by little kids? I believe the main characters are adults by the world saving time.
2. Lsana: teach in English class. As an English teacher (retired) yes, I did and would use them to teach characterization, plot elements, conflict.
Are they great literature, time is the real test. We must always remember that Shakespeare himself was writing “popular” entertainment.
@1 Jeff R., I love Rowling’s knack for names as well. She exhibit’s that rare talent for picking out the perfect name for a character, main or side, that you don’t see much today. She reminds me of PG Wodehouse in this regard whose character names were always so evocative to me.
As to whether or not the series has ‘literary merit’ I don’t know. I’m not a literary critic and I was never very good at that sort of thing in school. I enjoyed the series thoroughly. I loved the first three books for their light-heartedness & the final four for their ‘seriousness.’
Is Rowling on the same level as Tolstoy, Harding, Melville, Austin, etc… – God if I know. To cite her works as proof of the ‘dumbing down’ of today’s literature, however, is a foolish assertion.
My mother, one of the most well read people I have ever met, read each book to my nephews during summer vacation (school hols) as they grew up; they were lucky to grow up with the books. She loved the series. My parents have all the books on cd for their trips. It is primarily a children’s book series, despite how dark it gets in the end. Comparing Rowling’s works to the literary ‘giants’ of the english language seems to be disingenious at best.
Also, I didn’t have a problem with the horcruxes coming out when they did in the series. It showed how dark & dangerous things were for the world – wizarding & muggle alike. If it took Dumbledore all his time, effort, & considerable power to dig things up then that added weight to what was coming.
Finally, as I fan, I did like the epilogue. It ended the series well and let Harry ‘end’ as he wanted to; just as a regular person finally and no longer ‘the boy who lived.’
@19Radagastslady, good points & I like the name. ;-)
Kato
Unfortunately the focus of much modern literary critics is on things
like which tropes the author uses and whether they have been used
before, or whether the author’s prose is “workmanlike” or stylized.
Greetings, time traveler from 1929!
@Lsana
I agree. I actually think fun is often lost in assessment of serious literature. If all art is entertainment first, we should be allowed to have fun, right?
@Lsana:
It’s in chapter nine of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, the scene where Mad-Eye shows Harry the old group photo:
There’s a later mention of the spare cloak having been lost when Podmore was sent to Azkaban. I’m certain, though, that the fact that Harry’s cloak was more durable than others was first mentioned in Deathly Hallows, after the visit to Xenophilius.
@ALL Invisibility Cloak Stuff:
This is very interesting. So Harry’s cloak is not unique? Or maybe the other ones are just kind of poser invisiblity cloaks, and Harry’s the like the original? I’d totaly forgotten about the mentions of other cloaks! Nice wokr people.
@24 ryancbritt, Harry’s is unique in that it works too well. Hemoine commented on how great it was since the ‘typical’ cloak doesn’t last as long. Definitely a hint early that the cloak wasn’t a ‘normal’ invisibility cloak.
The other cloaks could have been inspired from the story of the three borthers & therefore pale immitations of the original.
Kato
The Potter books were great fun, and I really appreciated that they opened kids up to books in general. It’s sad how often I hear of kids complaining about having to read books, having to listen to books being read to them, and thinking books in general are stupid. No, HP will not be known for it’s great prose, but they books were brilliant in producing a lovely magical world, appealing to all ages, and actually getting kids excited about reading. If anything, the books should be given honors for getting kids excited about reading.
That being said, as much as I enjoyed the books and am happy to see them flourish, there were some pretty big flaws I felt.
1. Harry never changes. He’s the same angry, rash, and somewhat self-centered boy in book seven that he is in book one. I see almost no change in how he approaches the world. After all that he has been though, when you look at his character, one would think it would have changed him- for better or for worse-at least a little. I can’t tell you how annoying his “I don’t want you to die for me” lines got! My dear Harry, the whole world-muggle and wizarding- is under threat because of Voldemort. People are not dying just for you. They are dying to protect the world they know and love.
2. The whole elder wand stunk of a cheesy deus ex machina to me. I loved the horcruxes because for me it made sense. It answered the question of how Voldemort kept coming back despite constantly killing him, and gave greater purpose/meaning to those strange objects (Tom’s diary)other than a simple cool factor; however, the deathly hallows popped out of the blue (unless I’m missing some previous foreshadowing, and if so please correct me). I love how the Deathly Hallows was a children’s story that was relatively well known, but the first time we hear about it is seven books in. I felt like she could have alluded to them more, maybe mentioning them more, or throwing that line-circle-triangle symbol around earlier. Also, the previous books seemed to all rely on the characters’ cunning and ingenuity, and suddenly stopping that in the last book and switching to primarily a “quest for the holy grail!” plot felt cheap.
@24 & 25
I remember Hermione mentioning that Harry’s cloak wasn’t like the others (lasting too long, working too well. Others weren’t good at making you that invisible, or something like that. I think there was something about the cloaks strength besides longevity, but I’d have to look it up.) I agree with Kato in thinking that the other invisibility cloaks were poor copies of the original.
But back to my comment on the DH, this seemed to be the only foreshadowing of them before the seventh book. Am I just not remembering correctly?
HP 7, ch. 21
An enjoyable and thoughtful essay. I’m glad to see someone argue for Harry Potter in a literary sense.
From my observations and education in English and literary criticism, there appears to be a divide between those who appreciate genre fiction and those who condemn it as a lesser from of written baby food, suitable only for the unenlightened and unsophisticated. This prejudice against genre fiction often blinds literary critics to some wonderful examples of the very things they admire in literature. Genre fiction often contains symbolism, character journeys, and more stylistic elements such as analogy, alliteration, or other literary devices. Harry Potter is full of symbolism and character journeys even if it’s lacking in literary devices, but, hey, it’s a children’s book series. Few kids will appreciate irony or metaphor.
To those literary critics who are willing to apply their brilliant analysis across genres without prejudice, thank you.
Besides all this, I will always remember and appreciate what Brandon Sanderson said at this year’s DFWCon. To paraphrase: We can say we don’t like something like Harry Potter or Twilight, but someone out there did, and in these two cases, many adored them. It is inappropriate for us to condemn these people as wrong or unintelligent. Rather, it is better to acknowledge our different opinions. Not everyone has to like the same thing and especially not for the same reasons. Respect must be an element of how we treat each other as readers.
Mr. Britt, thank you for such an engaging and insightful analysis.
ok granting Harry’s a late teen by the time he does his final world save. But still between the the nasty muggels and generations of Wizards saying “Go to it kid! you’re the chosen one. Oh yeah Professor Snape REALLY does’nt like you. Have a good year” was just unpleasent.
The invisibility cloak was a retcon. The way it’s described in book 7 is way more powerful than it was in previous books.
But the horcruxes made sense to me. I mean there had to be some explanation for how Voldemort was still sort of alive. It just took 6 books for us to learn how.
I always wondered what it was that made me love that book, and now I know. It’s all those begats Mister Marquez threw in.
Excellent article! Couldn’t agree more with Laura Lee @29 about the disagreements regarding genre fiction, too, and how “literary” is almost always “not genre”, and vice versa. It’s a mark of my utter enchantment with the characters and plot construction that I never would have considered the merits of her prose, or thought about it as “workmanlike”, until I began seeing more and more articles like this one. Actually though, when the books were first released, I didn’t want to read them because I thought they were “too kiddie”, her cliches too much for the sophisticated ten-year-old I apparently thought I was.
Completely valid point about the Hallows, certainly, though like most people I agree that the Horcruxes, while introduced formally at a very late stage, were there from the start. However, I kind of thought about the Hallows as a return to the “whodunnit” stage of the books, a full circle. In each of the first three books, Harry and co are introduced to an element, usually the one in the title, and throughout the novel learn more about it, eventually hitting a climax by interacting with said element. The Hallows were on par with that, in my opinion, but of course by then we had so many other things at stake that the effect was a bit spoiled.
And regarding the cloak, I love Ron’s comment that birgit quoted @28, because that is EXACTLY how we as readers have been for years. We’re back in Harry’s shoes just as we were in book one, asking all of Harry’s questions and getting answers from Hagrid. Ultimately, Harry is a bit outside the wizarding world, so much so that things that SHOULD be odd are not, and we have totally taken the wonderful cloak for granted because we don’t know any better. The reveal was fantastic, because all along Harry has had this super amazing thing that, to him, was just how everything always was. I don’t know, I thought it was really well done.
It’s pretty clear to me that the horcruxes got at least some attention from JKR before Book 6, because she had to have had some kind of idea where the story was going and how it had to end. I don’t think she did a great job seeding the clues for the horcruxes, myself, but I’m willing to believe she had them in mind and was building to that climax.
What I don’t believe is that she had even thought of the Hallows before she was mostly done writing Book 6. I just reread the entire series in the last couple of months, and there’s no indication at all about anything like the Hallows prior to Book 7. If she’d had them in mind, I have to believe she would at least have included more about Grindelwald (instead of a couple of passing references), and would have mentioned the fairy tale a couple of times.
My opinion is that when she started writing Book 7, she realized she didn’t have enough plot to fill the entire school year (after all, there’s only so much to be said about camping), and had to invent something quick to add another layer of difficulty. (Why she felt obligated to stretch it out over the whole school year is beyond me, although a friend pointed out that that would have given Tonks time to have the baby, but I fail to see why that was in any way necessary, myself.)
So the Hallows were invented on the spur of the moment, complete with the whole “Master-of-the-Wand” shell-game, which is why we needed three enormous info-dumps in the end of the book to understand the plot. (Snape’s memories, Dumbledore’s lecture in the train station, and Harry’s speech when he’s confronting Voldemort.) I didn’t follow the wand business at all the first time I read the book, because in the previous six books, I’d never been given any particular instructions indicating that who took what wand from whom was of any importance. And I cannot for the life of me figure out how they will film it and have people follow that plot without changing a great deal in the way the information is released to the characters.
Harold Bloom is a tool. From everything I’ve read about (or from) the man, he would consider being called a pretentious blowhard not just a compliment, but a double compliment.
Rowling’s prose may not reach the dizzying heights of literary acclaim, but I think it’s a little uncharitable to call it workman-like. Her command of the schoolyard lexicon and atmospherics is masterful. Her playful and onomatopoeic nomenclature is ingenious in its simplicity and consistency. And her dialogue creates sufficient flashes of brilliance and comedy that it grabs you and keeps you engaged throughout the story.
The invisibility cloak, and the Hallows generally, are possibly retconned into the story. But I don’t think it matters. Perhaps some firm precursory anchors for the Hallows would have created a tighter link between the final arc and the earlier books, but it’s hardly necessary to enjoy the conclusion of the story.
When you compare something like the Harry Potter series or The Hunger Games series to something like Twilight, it’s clear to see that “literary merit” has nothing to do with genre, and everything to do with the writer weilding the words. Twilight appeals mostly to teenage girls, because it appeals to them emotionally. Harry Potter appeals on the level of story, which is why kids were able to grow up reading it, and why parents read Harry Potter to their kids. No one is going to read Twilight to their kids, because it doesn’t hold up.
“Workman-like” prose is certainly not a bad thing. Hemmingway was all about simple sentences, and he’s all up in the literary canon.
Have to make a point about Luna Lovegood, though. Like many of the “fools” in literature, she wasn’t “crazy.” She seemed crazy, but was, in fact, the most insightful of the bunch. She talked about thestrals, and while no one else could see them, or believed in them, Harry could see them because he’d lost his parents. To anyone else, she’d sound like a raving loon – but to those with the sense to really listen to what she had to say, she was a font of useful information and wisdom. I, too, love me some Luna Lovegood! :)
The Horcruxes were there from the beginning when they kept Voldemort alive. Then the diary appeared in the second book.
The Hallows aren’t directly mentioned before the last book, but there are some hints that they were planned early. Grindlewald is mentioned in the first book on a Chocolate Frog card. The connection between Harry’s and Voldemort’s wand is there from the beginning and it makes sense that Voldemort has to search for some way around that. The Mirror of Erised foreshadows the Ressurection Stone (Dumbledore saw Ariana, not socks). Dumbledore borrowed the Cloak but can be invisible without it.
@29 Laure Lee Nutt
Thanks! It’s sort of one of my missions to break down the walls that are certainly erected on both sides of the genre divide.
I think I have a tendency to read “straight” literature like it’s genre and read genre like it’s straight. At a certain point, all of this stuff is made up, which makes it all fantasy of a kind. I know that’s a broad stroke, and it’s all a little more complicated than that, but I think most types of writers could learn something from a genre that is totally alien to them.
Thanks again!
@39 ryancbritt
I’m so glad to hear that you’re seeking to break down this divide. It’s been something I’ve wanted since I was in college and had to put up with teachers constantly telling me that genre fiction wasn’t real literature. It was so hard to bite my tongue and avoid massive arguments in class and even harder not to get offended since they attacked the very genres I write. I managed all this and still have a great respect for those teachers, but it was a point I could never swallow easily with them.
Good luck in your crusade, and I’ll try to do my part to help out in tearing down those walls. :)
I agree with what was said about the crafting of the characters, and Luna Lovegood is a great example. It was beyond literary and something like magic.
http://www.dominsions.com
I’m not so sure about your horcrux/hallows speculation, but I think that’s for Rowling to know and for us to never find out… ever. In regard to the “whodunit” nature of the books, I think the Goblet of Fire is the perfect transition into the later books. While it still retains the mystery of the first three, it portrays that mystery in a much darker way (up to and including Cedric’s death).
Couldn’t agree more about the characters. If there is one thing I wish I was better at as a writer, it’s providing such depth to characters as Rowling does hers. While Luna is a fine example of this, my favorite is actually Neville. His development follows the formula of the series and practically parallels Harry’s. He’s introduced as a bumbling boy walking around in shoes that are too big for him. As the series develops, so does Neville. His story becomes darker when Harry sees his parents’ trial in Goblet of Fire. By Deathly Hallows, Neville is a roughish hero who has quietly filled out those shoes I mentioned earlier. Rowling introduced all the catalysts that make Neville what he becomes and final mashes them together in Deathly Hallows… brilliantly done in my opinion.
Thanks to everyone for a fascinating and thought-provoking discussion! I have just 2 points:
1) It is not at all uncommon for an author working on a series to “discover” things – plot elements, important characters that weren’t important in earlier books, etc., as they go. That’s part of the fun of writing. So if the Deathly Hallows weren’t really on Rowling’s mind in the earlier books, I don’t have a problem with that.
2) I can’t remember where I read this but it was a really interesting angle: the *literary* reason for the Deathly Hallows was to present Harry with a real hard choice: the three DH items, if he could get them all together, would be an easier way to defeat Voldemort than slogging through getting all the Horcruxes – or at least they would appear to be. And indeed it seems to me that this aspect of them was pretty heavily emphasized in the books, with Hermione nagging constantly that Harry needed to focus on the Horcruxes. So the DH were like a big fat red herring, trying to lure harry away from his destined path. And he did almost fall for it, which would have no doubt been catastrophic. (It was for Voldie, wasn’t it?) But Harry passed the test.
Though this is a side-thread and not really pertinent to the article, no one has mentioned that Harry’s cloak wasn’t really as perfect as the Hallowed Cloak was described to be. Moody’s mad eye could see through it (GoF, pg 471), and Malfoy cursed Harry while he was wearing it in the beginning of the Half -Blood Prince.
I don’t know if you will believe it or find it a reasonable thing to do, but I almost had tears in my eyes after reading this review / literary analysis of yours. It made me feel very nostalgic as it reminded me of my childhood. It has been a while I last
I more-or-less agree with everything you have penned down, especially about her ability to creae life-like characters, and give them the characteristics of real-life people.
I too can’t explain the impact Harry Potter has had on my life, or what it means to me. As you put it, it’s just magic. :)
I think perhaps part of the problem (besides as someone already mentioned literary/worthy are really two different questions), is the conflation as well of “literary” and “well-written.” Literary I’d say, along with being well-written, brings with it certain expectations, such as starkly original uses of metaphor and simile, startling use of language (the “I never would have thought of putting it that way but that’s exactly right”) and so forth. I’d say one couldn’t have poorly written “literary” fiction—that would just be the attempt at literary fiction that failed. But you could have literary genre/popular fiction and you can also have well-written genre/popular fiction. Harry Potter is clearly not the former.
As to whether it is the latter, as Tim O’Brien once said (roughly) how does one generalize about war? It’s too big. War is ugly. War is beautiful. War is thrilling. War is tedious. There’s just so much of HP that it’s difficult to generalize about it. If you focus on prose as a requisite for “well-written”, while I’d personally agree with “workmanlike” or “adequate”, one could certainly in all those pages find some beautiful passages and some roll-one’s-eyes passages. If you focus on character, I’d agree again, it’s very well-written. If you focus on structure and tightness, you’d give her a well-written on the first three (especially book three which I’d argue is far and away the best crafted one in the series) but it’s really hard to argue any of the following ones deserved their length (I recall watching her publisher get asked “How do you edit J.K. Rowling” and his response was “You don’t.” From a monetary standard, he was absolutely right. From a writing as craft standard, he was absolutely wrong).
Literary? Not at all. Well-written? Sporadically (I’d lean toward less so than more so). Good? It brought utter joy to countless numbers and made books news—so yes, absolutely wondrously, fantastically good.
“But from a structural point of view, this is another brand new element introduced into already fairly crowded magical world.” Of course there are brand new elements sometimes. Is YOUR life a well planned, straight line towards a set goal? If it is, I feel really sorry for you.
What a wonderful, wonderful article. It is writing such as this that I can read. A great fan of the Potter novels, I have no objection to criticism and anaylsis, but do love when the author employs a kind tone. Bloom’s writing was condescending. Yours is most amiable. Thank you.
Do I think that the Harry Potter was an entertaining rollercoaster of a read? Hell yes. Can Ms. Rowling spin a magical yarn? Well… duh!
Are they the hallmark of originality? : Well, not exactly ….. apart from Greek and Roman mythology… the concepts of the bildungsroman, that of magical education ( predecessors like The Earthsea Series, The Worst Witch trilogy, Wizard Hall ) existed as did the idea of a parallel world hidden behind mundane things like a wardrobe or even a station …. which were skillfully depicted by C. S Lewis and Ms Ibbotsen. So Harry Potter while not the touchstone of originality is no less enjoyable. Derivative she may be but the woman does know how to tell a story… like a magician.
But, its an anomaly to compare the undoubtedly talented Ms . Rowling with Dame Agatha Christie. Sure the Harry Potter novels has an aura of a satisfatory and efficient who dunnit. But its a bit much to put Rowling on the same pedestal as Christie who had almost singlehandedly revolutionalized the genre of mystery. The tropes of the unreliable narrator, of the red herring, Mcguffins, so popular and DDT ( Done To Death) came from her. The Sherlock Holmes series while an absolute classic most assuredly did not have these enjoyable tropes nor did it have an dark and sinister often haunted atmosphere of Christie’s novels. As for literary quality of Christie’s novels…. well they are quite sophisticated and high brow….. her audience did not consist of children or pre teens … so she had no obligations to simplify her prose.
Do I think that the Harry Potter was an entertaining rollercoaster of a read? Hell yes. Can Ms. Rowling spin a magical yarn? Well… duh!
Are they the hallmark of originality? : Well, not exactly ….. apart from Greek and Roman mythology… the concepts of the bildungsroman, that of magical education ( predecessors like The Earthsea Series, The Worst Witch trilogy, Wizard Hall ) existed as did the idea of a parallel world hidden behind mundane things like a wardrobe or even a station …. which were skillfully depicted by C. S Lewis and Ms Ibbotsen. So Harry Potter while not the touchstone of originality is no less enjoyable. Derivative she may be but the woman does know how to tell a story… like a magician.
But, its an anomaly to compare the undoubtedly talented Ms . Rowling with Dame Agatha Christie. Sure the Harry Potter novels has an aura of a satisfatory and efficient who dunnit. But its a bit much to put Rowling on the same pedestal as Christie who had almost singlehandedly revolutionalized the genre of mystery. The tropes of the unreliable narrator, of the red herring, Mcguffins, so popular and DDT ( Done To Death) came from her. The Sherlock Holmes series while an absolute classic most assuredly did not have these enjoyable tropes nor did it have an dark and sinister often haunted atmosphere of Christie’s novels. As for literary quality of Christie’s novels…. well they are quite sophisticated and high brow….. her audience did not consist of children or pre teens … so she had no obligations to simplify her prose.
Bill Cap….I like your comments; and I love the literary/well written distinction you make. We need it…
Bloom’s examples of fantasy or children’s literature that he loves are definitely JUST the ‘literary’ ones, eg Alice, the Just So Stories etc. Is this really ALL there is to reading? esp for young kids? There is something a little too…sanitized about it for my taste….I would feel sad if my kids missed out on a certain kind of cheaper pleasure that an ‘Alice’, for all its wit and irony, just can’t offer.
Thanks all for a good discussion. Oh and thanks for the original post, I enjoyed that very much as well.
@@@@@ Cloaks
I didn’t read all the comments, but common people, the cloaks are a normal, although a rather rare thing, just like wands are regular, normal things. But the wand and the cloak of the Deathly Hollows are special. Harry’s cloak doesn’t wear out, like regular ones do. It’s a bit lame for a “super power”, but still unique.
I am completely sure that the author intended at least most these kinds of things in the beginning. I heard she spent a lot of time in planning the books and there are a lot of hint-like liks between the books. She just probably could have made some of them more notable, and planned it a bit better.
I don’t know, if you will ever read this comment after so many years, but the Horcruxes are already hinted at back in book 1: Hagrid told Harry, that Voldemort probably wasn’t human enough anymore to die.
In book 4, Voldemort tells his Death eaters at the graveyard, that he went further than everyone else trying to escape death. And in book 5, Dumbledore realized that both Harry and Nagini are Horcruxes, because Harry could see through Nagini’s eyes as well. On rereading, it really is obvious, that the Horcruxes were planned from the beginning.
@53 “I don’t know, if you will ever read this comment after so many years”…. back at ya. quoting a former post, thank you Ryan for an engaging and insightful analysis. Several points. Luna – she was brilliant, because, while the magic world considered us muggles as shortsighted in what there is in the world, she made them look like muggles, as she believed/saw magic where others wouldn’t. Who said there’s no more magic to find. Who said the magic comunity knows all the secrets of the magical world? It was funny that as they looked down on muggles for having no clue, they were also the ones in her opinion who are rather clueless…
and.. Ryan, you forgot Fred and George, I’d like your thoughts on them. Sadly, yes, as a former post stated Harry didn’t change much, I wouldn’t like him to change too much, as it would polarize fans, but any change after all those emotional events, a-n-d after growing up… but still, I don’t think he’s that much of a flat character to be critisized about.
Last point – the anticlimax of who lost the wand to whom? that finale between the hero and the villain was a big let down. Voldemort turned out to be s-t-u-p-i-d. I mean really you tried to avada kadavara Harry 2 times. It always backfired. And now Harry hands you the theory of why it backfires, and that it will again, and you just try it again? really? Also for harry’s sacrafice to leave every one unharmed by Voldemorts spells… it made the most dangerous wizard of all time look like a raging rabbit. Besides the point of why didn’t it work before against him or any terrorist/dark wizard? I mean was Lily or Harry the first ones to love and die to safe your loved ones? Is there no historical records of such currious events, so that some wizard accept all brilliant Dumbledore to come up with this conclussion? And if that would stop those massacres, why not share with the mom and the magical community of this way to safe at least your loved ones lives? Wouldn’t it be easier for Dumbledore to just sacrifice himself for the whole wizarding world (which he actually nearly did confronting Grindelwald) in order to “expelliarm” Voldy for good? So many holes, so many in this theory and it ruined the end, because that was supposed to be the master stroke theory at the climax and it just ruined those wonderful most beloved 7 books… the hallows were just hollows…
I beg of thee, someone release me from my here stated pain and bravely defend what the hell made JK write this ridiculos plot.
54, underdeveloped writing skills. Which is not a bad thing per se, or an exclusive one…
@54/the-schwartz-be-with-you: Agreed that the whole Elder Wand thing could probably have been dropped since it was a new complication in an already long book that really didn’t tell us anything about Voldemort that we already didn’t know. Not sure whether the blame here should lie with the author or the editors.
As for the rest of the plot threads entangling Harry and Voldemort, I think it helps to step back and recall that JKR has clearly stated that she wrote the story partially as a way to deal with her mother’s death and the struggles of her family situation as a child and young adult. Dealing with death and the importance of love are themes that very much inform key plot elements. In my view, Rowling wove those into a key aspect of her world: those who embrace love (of others) and accept death as a natural part of life have access to more powerful magic. You can quibble with how well that was executed, but it’s a conceit that helps resolve some potential plot holes.
Voldemort’s narcissism and fear of death became an obsession that focused on only a few aspects of magic that he felt had the appropriate power. It closed his mind so much that it resulted in reckless stupidity, and from a narrative perspective that was sort of the point. Harry, Snape, and Dumbledore were able to exploit it, because they could see multiple paths to their goal since they were not obsessed with building a particular type of world and were (to varying degrees) less focused on what was in it for them.
As for why Harry’s and Lily’s personal sacrifices seemed to have no historical precedent, well, you can’t ask a dead person to explain what they were thinking at the moment of death so it’s difficult to match up subsequent effects to a particular magical cause—and there are indications that the effects of many spells do not survive the death of the caster. So yes there is potentially a huge plot hole here. What was so special about Lily and Harry? I suggest the key is to take note of what Harry was thinking about at his moment of (apparent) death: Ginny. Not Ron. Not Hermione. Not the DA, the Order, or Hogwarts. Just Ginny, the girl whose future well-being he felt was more important than his own life…which is the exact same mindset that Lily was in when she traded her life for Harry’s. We also know that some of the most powerful spells, e.g. Patronus, draw their power from particularly intense emotional thoughts, so it’s plausbile that sacrificing one’s life while in such an emotionally focused mindset gives the charm more power and persistence than simply sacificing oneself for a broader cause. Now, I’m not sure if this was exactly what JKR intended, and if so I readily concede her execution was perhaps too subtle; however, it is an explanation that draws on elements from the published text and most definitely ties together the plot with her intended themes. YMMV whether you see it as a clever story idea or a retcon to save poor writing.
@56 + @55 that was a nice try to cheer me up, so thanks… a couple of thoughts on that, if Harry was thinking exclusively on Ginny how come it saved the whole school from Voldy? And regarding the “ask a dead person to explain” , well true that it can’t be researched in a lab, but Dumbledore figured it out, and yes he is more wise than most if not all in his generation – his generation – but I’m talking about since the dawn of humanity there is saddly killing, and it is arguable that it is not a once in a generation circumstance that the killer killed someone who tried to save others he loved, if that killer wouldn’t then be able to touch, less harm the other victims, there were surely in some cases witnisses or the fortunate other potential victims as well who would tell everyone how it is wonderous, how the killer couldn’t hurt him… that would be in some newspapers surely, and there are surely those in the mom maybe the “police department” that would hear those happenings firsthand…. so for there to be no other like dumbledore through all history of mankind to reach that decission, is a serious plot hole. sorry. Ian, regarding JKR’s motives, I agree as I wrote in another post here in tor, but I wrote there, that JK did for the sake of not ruining the story write an ending for Hermione which she personally wouldn’t. She personally wanted something else for Hermione, but she still understood that it would ruin somewhat the story… so yes I completely understand, and agree with you about her motives and her need, but she is a capable enough writer to execute it without horribly wrecking it. here’s the link of what I wrote regarding JKR’s motives @32
https://www.tor.com/2017/06/22/women-of-harry-potter-hermione-granger-is-more-than-a-sidekick/#comment-713096
Ohh and Ian you still didn’t adress every dissa-“point”ment I mentioned. To leave the villain completely harmless before he even engaged Harry, that Dumbledore wouldn’t share this understanding of fighting death with love to the ministry to avoid other victims, and if your answer to that would be to reveal Voldy your secret weapon, hey it’s you who said that he was so stupidly blind in that aspect he wouldn’t see it as a threat. But regarding that statement as well, he nearly died, DIED, 2 times, and he knew from the memorys in book 6 that Dumbledore believed in a greater magic (their old-OLD- discussion)… so yes I undestand Voldy for at first not wanting to believe in such strong magic, as love seems harmless, BUT he nearly died 2 times, damn it, he knew Harry is no capable wizard, so even if he would never accept love for being stronger, his own fear of death would make him cautious, not to try avada kadavra again! throw a piano at him, let a minion kill him. But noooo, it’s not enough that he was left a harmless puppy in the middle of the climax, before it all ended, you also made him stupid as Crab and Goyle…. ugghhhh I need chocolate
@57: “if Harry was thinking exclusively on Ginny how come it saved the whole school from Voldy?” Sacrificing oneself while thinking about a loved one you wish to save ensures that the protective charm attaches to the person who cast the Avada Kedavra. Then it doesn’t matter who was present at the time or how far away other people were, the perpetrator is crippled.
There’s no evidence that Dumbledore actually did figure out what actually happened, at any sort of deep level of magical mechanics. He personally knew both Lily and Voldemort (along with their respective magical abilities), and guessed that what she did was somehow special, and that Harry—not only as her biological son but also as someone who generally shared her basic personality and magical skills—could repeat that behavior…but for Dumbledore it was mostly an educated guess, and Snape even called him on it for the risk it entailed.
FWIW, my theory here in comment @56 is headcanon, a conjecture that I accept without any canon proof in order to combine into a coherent narrative not only those events in the published text but also the structural clues in the narrative along with the thematic elements of the series. If you have a better theory, please present it.
@58: “Voldy for at first not wanting to believe in such strong magic, as love seems harmless, BUT he nearly died 2 times, damn it, he knew Harry is no capable wizard, so even if he would never accept love for being stronger, his own fear of death would make him cautious, not to try avada kadavra again! throw a piano at him, let a minion kill him.” Molly had already taken out his most capable minion by that point, but the more important element is that he had already lost the moment that Harry willingly sacrificed himself. Voldemort was too stupid or stubborn to recognize that Harry had tapped into magic that made him invulnerable to Voldy’s spells.
“Sacrificing oneself while thinking about a loved one you wish to save ensures that the protective charm attaches to the person who cast the Avada Kedavra. Then it doesn’t matter who was present at the time or how far away other people were, the perpetrator is crippled.” – ahh, no, Voldemort was not crippled by Lily, he was, only regarding to her sacrifice subject – Harry. Fact is he killed since plenty of people til Harry’s sacrifice in the end – and Harry’s one was NOT just for Ginny. He explicately told us, in his thoughts while entering the wood to die, that he loved that school. that this school was his home, like Voldy and Snape, the hope of the broken families ones. It’s no coincidence that he shared with us those thoughts moments before dying. Voldemort’s threat concerned the whole school to give Harry in, but to Harry the school, meaning – its inhabitants and families, is more important than his life. Harry crippled Voldy only to those people, if Krum for example would show up, Voldy could kill him.
“There’s no evidence that Dumbledore actually did figure out what actually happened, at any sort of deep level of magical mechanics” – How can you say that? Through all those talks with Harry especially in book six, AND through his discussion with Voldemort that love is a more powerful weapon (in their encounter in OotP, and the memory were Voldemort came to Hogwarts last time to ask Dumbledore to become a teacher). Dumbledore knew perfectly well… He knew the limitations about the blood thing, and the limitations about privet drive 4 – if he just did a guess work that something special happened because Lily is special bla bla, then he wouldn’t grasp limits of this wonder. Sorry, not much sense there in my opinion.
and about – “FWIW, my theory here in comment @56 is headcanon, a conjecture that I accept without any canon proof in order to combine into a coherent narrative not only those events in the published text but also the structural clues in the narrative along with the thematic elements of the series. If you have a better theory, please present it.” – if you could explain this part, as I didn’t understand at all what you were refering to and what you were trying to say
@61: Harry’s thoughts of Ginny were his (apparent) final thoughts, and they were much more specific than his musings on Hogwarts and others. Those alone indicate their greater significance. Add to that the intensity of his feelings for her expressed throughout both HBP and DH…and that, on two separate occasions, he expressed that he valued her safety and happiness more than his own…plus the multiple ways in which she embodies/symbolizes the aspects of life he has been seeking since the day he first met Hagrid on that godforsaken rock…well, either we’ve got an amazing set of literary coincidences, or the author was trying to tell us something about Ginny’s significance. I vote for the latter.
Dumbledore knew that loving sacrifice was critical, yes, but he never expressed that he knew how it worked. Did he figure it out? Maybe, but it is ambiguous since the reader never gets a full explanation from him whether it worked via a charm that attached to the attacker, a charm that attaches to the vicitm’s beloved, or some other mechanism.
So, here’s another attempt at my explanation for how it can work. Lily’s willing sacrifice in the context of intense love and hope for her son invoked a charm that crippled her attacker’s magical abilities. This manifested when Voldemort attacked Harry and suffered the terrible blowback. He was stripped of most of his magical powers for years, only regaining them when using Harry’s blood to rebuild a body. The charm manifested again in a milder form when Harry, in deciding to let go while focused on his love and grief for Sirius, successfully repelled Voldemort’s attempt to possess him. When Voldemort later tried to murder Harry when he was making a willing sacrifice in the context of intense love and hope for someone (a girlfriend now rather than a child, but roughly equivalent when you factor in Harry’s and Lily’s relative life stages), the charm was invoked once again; note that Harry only survived this attack due to the combination of the unintended Horcrux and Voldemort’s use of the Elder Wand against its true master, so Harry’s intended sacrifice was enough to invoke the protective charm. The protective effect of the charm on people associated with the victim but not explictly in his/her thoughts at the time is less clear, since Voldemort attacks Harry immediately after murdering Lily—but it is notable that we never again see Voldemort successfully use magic to murder anyone who is not a Death Eater or random stranger. I choose to believe that the charm does in fact cripple the attacker more broadly because (1) nothing in the text contradicts it and (2) it allows a single, unifying explanation for all the aftereffects of Voldemort’s attacks on both Lily and Harry.
I also contend that this theory has a literary aspect—in fact, I originally thought it up to resolve what I felt to be a potential structural problem. In the final chapters of DH, all of the people to whom Harry feels closest contribute to his victory in a way befitting their relationship to him; except, at first glance, Ginny. But if his thoughts and feelings about her are the lynchpin to ensure his sacrifice in the forest works, then the narrative symmetry is completed; moreover, it ensures that the symbolic connections between Ginny and Lily that have been developing since PS/SS are referenced and given plot significance. Whatever else you think of her writing, JKR in this series has been quite consistent in her use of both symmetries/parallels and Chekov’s guns, such that if you spot some story elements that seem like they can be linked up there’s a very good chance that it was intentional.
Cheers Ian, thanks for adressing my points, I didn’t convince you, and vica versa, that was not the outcome we wanted, but here it is. I respect you and your opinion, but I’ve nothing more to say (besides half of your last post was unreadable to me, some kind of bug on my pc, so that’s my bad)
@63: Well, the comment is there for when you resolve your technical issues. ;-)
As for the agree-to-disagree aspect…I think that might provide a partial answer to the question raised in the original post. This series has enough detail and internal consistency to provide most people a satisfying story. There are enough ambiguities and unresolved issues to provide space for people to explore, analyze, and argue. And the story, characters, and themes are well-done enough for people to care, even a decade or more after publication. If those don’t add up to “literary merit”, I’m not sure what does!
Literature – books nobody wants to read though everybody says you must.😁
@10 I’ll remind you, and the rest here, that Shakespeare wrote for the lowest common denominator who had to decide if that penny and a couple of hours, often in standing room only, was worth it. We have this understanding of his work as some of the greatest literature of all time – and yes, it is, but – it was written as pulp for the mass just as Rowling’s work is. Come back in a couple of generations and we’ll see if she’s remembered like Shakespeare or more like Marlow – a somewhat talented flash in the pan.
To the extent a book or play is rather pointless without an audience, popularity (whether you consider its peak or its value over time) should be a factor in assessing its literary merit—although it is probably more valuable for relative ranking than in measuring absolute quality. But popular appeal is probably like the Bechdel Test: less useful on its own merits than as a way to assess which works are (and are not) worthy of deeper analysis
Dickens’ works were popular potboilers too. Verbose because he was paid by the word.
ohh, Ian, one last question. Let’s leave the logics aside. It really comes down to this – all the 7 books were building up to one point, we all wanted to know from the get go, how will this little child win the day? How will he meet his destiny? JK was always great for her twists, her surprises specially at the end, as she was (maye even in this post related to Agatha Chritsie.) JK made mostly a huge impact (emotionally as well) at those final chapters every book… So my question for you – were you satisfied with the final confrontation or not? the most skillful and dangerous dark wizard of maybe all times, brought down by Harry. So besides my thoughts I mentioned before about Voldemorts stupidity, so at least, at least before JK shows us again the boomerang effect (again), give us a frightening chase, were Harry is finally backed against the wall, I mean Harry had a tougher time with the triwizard tournament than with Voldy here. Show us the true awe of Voldemort one last time, from what DANGER did Harry save us, a scene were we see the abilities, the danger of one such as Voldemort. I mean except his flying around at the beginning, and splitting his soul, I don’t see his dangerous side, were are his attacking skills? Avada Kadavra? Even Snape showed us in HBP some bloody, actuall bloody spells. As a writer, before you finish the one whom everyone is afraid of to speak his name, give me one final show of him being a badass, before showing us were he is finally flawed, and therefor giving Harry some hope to win. Since the boomerang effect in the woods, I wasn’t eating up my fingernails, there was no tention. Besides my thoughts and torrent56 (on another thread) and Lord vordles here, I was dissapointed. really. If you liked it, then hey, I don’t want to be the one who tries “logically” to convince you otherwise, and we part as friends, but if you were dissapointed too, that THIS was the final final climax for the Potter sries, than why did you give me a hard time? I would prefer an answer combining your feelings, not just your logic
@70: My first read of DH upon its initial release was admittedly more in the context of cultural literacy, and so as light entertainment I found the boy-defeats-villain-and-ends-up-with-girl ending to be satisfactory. However, when I re-read the series last year I was reading more carefully, and I found the ending to be even more satisfying, partially because the resolution of the Harry-Voldemort conflict came about as a result of not some spectacular final confrontation but rather the cumulative effects of who they were and what they had done over the course of years. It reminded me a bit of what makes the manner of Saruon’s downfall in The Lord of the Rings so notable.
(FWIW, I found myself disappointed upon re-watching the HP movies that they lost much of this nuance: the story changed to a more generic hero-directly-defeats-villain plot that is common in action-adventure movies. I believe that most of the characterization issues many people have with Ginny, Ron, and Hermione as portrayed in the films are direct consequences of that change in focus.)
Yet part of my satisfaction was also a more ‘literary’ appreciation: I feel that the final half or so of DH effecitvely weaves together a range of plot, character, thematic, and symbolic elements that had been developing over the course of six-and-a-half books. YMMV, but despite the inevitable problems with particular books, chapters, or story threads, I feel that JKR pulled it all together quite well at the end—especially when the first two novels are sometimes dismissed as “children’s books”. I find the final structure to be quite beautiful.
This is where I have a tendency to tangle with various commenters, as I feel that people sometimes get fixated on problems with a particular interpretation of a plot point or character that can be resolved by stepping back and considering them in the broader context. A work of literature or art should be considered both in its parts and as a whole, since the context of one will often help inform understanding of the other.
Thanks Ian, that was all I wanted to hear.
Interesting discussion about Voldemort’s intelligence in the last.
@schwartz
Besides the random wandlore rule (I think we can all agree even if we can show it doesn’t contradict previous wandlore rules, the way the Elder Wand passed hands was pretty strange), there are a few other things regarding how specific area of magic works that weren’t really specified and it does require pretty extensive reasoning to work out as Ian have shown. However, I do think it’s better for Harry to defeat Voldemort this way rather than becoming an uber-powerful wizard like Dumbledore out of nowhere which is typical of action books/movies.
On this topic, I should add Voldemort has done a lot of very clever things in DH that people just conveniently gloss over. He overthrew the Ministry and instead of taking over directly instilled a sense of terror by installing a puppet in his place which avoided an open rebellion (read Remus’ assessment here). He subtly changed the Ministry policy to start rooting out the Muggle-borns, put a Taboo on his name to track down Order members and the way he understood that Harry will voluntarily hand himself over during the Battle of Hogwarts and will come to Godric’s Hollow etc.
@ian Completely agree with you about the movies and about DH’s ending mostly. I would say that some of the actors said things about their characters that puzzled me as well.