HP7--the Laz Review
It should go without saying that if you haven't yet read HP7, you might not want to read any further--I'm not going to spare the details. Also, if your passion for the series is so deep-rooted that you cannot be at all objective (that is to say, if my perspective will risk wounding you--nay, even offending you!) then this post is not for you.
I reiterate: While I think Rowling's HP series is very good as children's literature, the difference between it and "Great Literature" that will stand the test of time and find equal meaning for both child and adult audiences is pretty huge--in fact, I'd go so far as to say insurmountable.
If the crowd in attendance at the midnight premiere was any indication, I'd hazard a guess that the primary readership demographic is middle-school aged (preteen/young teen) girls. That does not mean others cannot find value and meaning in HP--but I'm hard pressed to identify what the series can do for an adult audience that other books (read: better developed, more complicated, greater depth) can't. Possibilities? Recapturing youth, for one--Rowling does understand the essentials of the adolescent dilemma. HP is about coming to maturity--the magic and mystery are just the window dressing for this core archetypal challenge. Minus the wands and robes and house-elves and life-or-death battles, it's the same old song we've been singing for thousands of years. And of course there's nothing wrong with that! We'll keep telling that story--and others like it--for as long as we need to, for as long as they still prove instructive. Adults may want to immerse themselves in a world where the decisions the characters face are ones the readers have already mastered--there's a certain reaffirmation value there. It renews the sense that the current generation of young people are not so very far removed after all. Or to create a feeling of belonging--in a world where society is becoming increasingly fragmented, and the individuals increasingly isolated, cultural bombshells like this become touchstones by which disenchanted adults can shake off their disconnectedness for a while. Remember Hawyakawa's principles on the value of language as social cohesion! For a week or so, HP fans felt drawn together--united by their common bond. They had something new to talk about, an excuse to be something other than their daily selves.
HOWEVER...
I don't think this final volume was particularly brilliant, even accounting for my overall opinion of the series. But as you might expect, there were a number of elements that disappointed me with this volume as a work of literature. Here are some of my key points (I won't try to be comprehensive):
1. I have always been a little bit bothered by the narrative style. Is it a valid choice? Certainly--nothing technically wrong with third-person limited (or the fact that Rowling chooses calculated moments--see the first chapter in each book!--to deliberately violate it in order to extend our understanding of events). Her reasoning is also sound--if his is a journey toward maturity that recapitulates our own, then we are likewise restricted in our perspectives. We cannot know what anyone else is doing if we can't see them, or thinking if they don't tell us. Quite frankly, however, I simply got tired of it after 7 volumes. I hazard that Rowling did as well--thus the gradual inclusion of the two-way link between HP and Voldemort, which provided a more 3rd-person omniscient perspective that relieved some of the tedium.
2. The Battle of Hogwarts--disappointing. I do not think that strategic battle-writing is Rowling's skill area. Admittedly, such writing is quite difficult to do, and there are few who can present such chaotic action in a way that truly defines the moment well--consider as counterpoint Tolkien's writing of the Moria, Helm's Deep, or the Pelennor Fields (a completely fair comparison, BTW--I first read The Hobbit in 5th grade, and LOTR in middle school). But more than just the quality of those chapters--there was a philosophical edge noticeably missing. I remember the Sorting Hat scene from one of the early volumes, when the Hat recited a poem about how the time would come when each of the Houses would have to set aside their rivalries and join together for the common good, making use of the individual skills, traits and characteristics that prompted their placement to begin with. So while they school did come together (for the most part) to defend against the Death Eaters, that total unity, with full philosophical understanding--we are at our strongest when all 4 of these innately human values work together--did not occur. I wanted someone--Harry? Minerva? Neville! Anyone!--to look at the assemblage and say "We are more than our Houses--the things that tie us together are stronger than the things that separate us--in fact, we need to recognize our differences in order to find our bond together!" Instead--we got three houses of Griffs, with bravery triumphant as the highest virtue. And Slytherin, which represents values no less human and no less significant, became the cast-out stepchild. There was no growth! No change! No reaching across the aisle, to bring the school together! And no recognition from Slytherin's side to say, wait, we know this is wrong, no matter who founded the House. Instead, a reluctant Slughorn relents to the demands of his colleagues, and Pansy Parkinson is utterly unrepentant. There are no Slytherin students named during the final battle, and no recognition that any of them perished in Hogwart's defense. I find this to be a grave mistake...
Certainly--there are unrepentant elements within our own society. Didn't Henry Ford uphold the wisdom of isolationist policies, and decry the US entry into WWII? But HP isn't history--it's fiction, reflecting reality--but as archetype, it is also instructive. Where is the higher virtue of forgiveness and the appeal to solidarity? This is a rift that remains, even to the end--witness the train station +19 years, as Harry and Draco catch each other's eyes. What lesson does this inculcate into the young readers' minds? That there are some people we just refuse to forgive? We'd prefer to ignore them, to bottle up our feelings about them and leave our issues unresolved, to fester inside of us? That sounds an awful lot like a lifetime of psychotherapy bills.
3. Speaking of Draco--I can only hope Rowling at least considered doing this character more justice, before she ruined one of the best opportunities the story had to make a real and elegant point. In the end, the good characters were always good (even when they were in disguise, i.e. Snape) and the evil characters always evil (and I don't see Kreatur counting--he is only loyal to the one he calls Master, and Harry was clever enough to renew his loyalty for Sirius's brother). If there was ONE out of the bunch who should have been allowed to fully realize the error of his ways, it was Draco. He witnessed what he believed was the murder of Dumbledore, saw the unfathomable cruelty of Voldemort, saw the humiliation of his own family--yet was left in limbo, suffering no outward physical or social punishment, but likewise unredeemed. To give that development to Draco would have catapulted the level of the story into profoundly more significant territory--Draco then becomes an archetypal figure as well--the "Vader" character who falls into darkness, but through his own action struggles back up to achieve some level of vindication and redemption for himself. No doubt there are legions of Draco fans out there who are VERY cross with his final portrayal.
4. One more for the road--the epilogue. Perhaps the MOST unsatisfying aspect of all. Could Rowling have left out any MORE critical developmental details? Let's see...in the 2 preceding volumes, much exposition was expended on the subject of everyone's potential future careers--passing the OWLS & NEWTS, deciding on courses, etc. This was perfect--what high school student doesn't spend time thinking (worrying) about where they're headed in life?
THEN HOW IS IT THAT THE BOOK ENDS AND WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHERE THEY'VE ENDED UP? How can you make SUCH a big deal out of academic and career choices, only to ignore them completely at the end? I'm hard pressed to even come up with a logical reason for this omission. Out of the multitude of characters we've known through 7 volumes, only Neville gets mentioned as having a job? (and we can all honestly say we could easily have called that one!) I'ts incredibly bad that we have no idea where Harry's and Ron's lives have taken them--but I think it might even be worse for Ginny, positively atrocious for Hermione, and I'll add Luna on as well (in a way, her insult was the worst of all--she's not even mentioned!) Hermione, and Ginny to a little lesser extent, were profoundly positive female role models--intelligent, dedicated, courageous, and loyal. Yet, even Hermione, touted as the greatest witch of her age, is reduced to Harry's baby-maker! I am personally infuriated by this tragic misdeed--and considering the demographic I mentioned at the top of this post, Rowling should be ashamed to have added such a worthless coda for charcters that have such profound impact.
My son actually brought this last point up, and I agreed with him--why is it that we have no knowledge of how the wizarding community has changed after almost 20 years? Rowling dared to broach matters of real social importance--racial discrimination and power imbalances, for example, with the goblins, centaurs, house-elves, etc.--yet the epilogue does not give us any sense that the wizarding world has changed at all--in fact, we have an affirmation of status quo! We're back at King's Cross, sending another trainload of youngsters to Hogwart's. What stopped Rowling from putting an elf or goblin on that train as well? Another wasted opportunity--what did Rowling fear? After all that development on the subject--since book 2!--she couldn't put a sock on it at last? (a deliberate house-elf reference--my apologies).
What I fear--she's got $$ in her eyes. Some media outlet has made her an offer; my guess is it's the comic industry, which is hot-to-trot with the latest boom in graphic novels. There's room for at least 3 series: pre-Harry "Legends of Hogwarts"...the 19 year gap...and "Hogwarts: The Next Generation." I'm also not ruling out TV (animated half-hour? or hour-long primetime a la "Smallville"?)
So, there's my rant. I've thrown down the gauntlet--who's out there to pick it up?
LAZ
I reiterate: While I think Rowling's HP series is very good as children's literature, the difference between it and "Great Literature" that will stand the test of time and find equal meaning for both child and adult audiences is pretty huge--in fact, I'd go so far as to say insurmountable.
If the crowd in attendance at the midnight premiere was any indication, I'd hazard a guess that the primary readership demographic is middle-school aged (preteen/young teen) girls. That does not mean others cannot find value and meaning in HP--but I'm hard pressed to identify what the series can do for an adult audience that other books (read: better developed, more complicated, greater depth) can't. Possibilities? Recapturing youth, for one--Rowling does understand the essentials of the adolescent dilemma. HP is about coming to maturity--the magic and mystery are just the window dressing for this core archetypal challenge. Minus the wands and robes and house-elves and life-or-death battles, it's the same old song we've been singing for thousands of years. And of course there's nothing wrong with that! We'll keep telling that story--and others like it--for as long as we need to, for as long as they still prove instructive. Adults may want to immerse themselves in a world where the decisions the characters face are ones the readers have already mastered--there's a certain reaffirmation value there. It renews the sense that the current generation of young people are not so very far removed after all. Or to create a feeling of belonging--in a world where society is becoming increasingly fragmented, and the individuals increasingly isolated, cultural bombshells like this become touchstones by which disenchanted adults can shake off their disconnectedness for a while. Remember Hawyakawa's principles on the value of language as social cohesion! For a week or so, HP fans felt drawn together--united by their common bond. They had something new to talk about, an excuse to be something other than their daily selves.
HOWEVER...
I don't think this final volume was particularly brilliant, even accounting for my overall opinion of the series. But as you might expect, there were a number of elements that disappointed me with this volume as a work of literature. Here are some of my key points (I won't try to be comprehensive):
1. I have always been a little bit bothered by the narrative style. Is it a valid choice? Certainly--nothing technically wrong with third-person limited (or the fact that Rowling chooses calculated moments--see the first chapter in each book!--to deliberately violate it in order to extend our understanding of events). Her reasoning is also sound--if his is a journey toward maturity that recapitulates our own, then we are likewise restricted in our perspectives. We cannot know what anyone else is doing if we can't see them, or thinking if they don't tell us. Quite frankly, however, I simply got tired of it after 7 volumes. I hazard that Rowling did as well--thus the gradual inclusion of the two-way link between HP and Voldemort, which provided a more 3rd-person omniscient perspective that relieved some of the tedium.
2. The Battle of Hogwarts--disappointing. I do not think that strategic battle-writing is Rowling's skill area. Admittedly, such writing is quite difficult to do, and there are few who can present such chaotic action in a way that truly defines the moment well--consider as counterpoint Tolkien's writing of the Moria, Helm's Deep, or the Pelennor Fields (a completely fair comparison, BTW--I first read The Hobbit in 5th grade, and LOTR in middle school). But more than just the quality of those chapters--there was a philosophical edge noticeably missing. I remember the Sorting Hat scene from one of the early volumes, when the Hat recited a poem about how the time would come when each of the Houses would have to set aside their rivalries and join together for the common good, making use of the individual skills, traits and characteristics that prompted their placement to begin with. So while they school did come together (for the most part) to defend against the Death Eaters, that total unity, with full philosophical understanding--we are at our strongest when all 4 of these innately human values work together--did not occur. I wanted someone--Harry? Minerva? Neville! Anyone!--to look at the assemblage and say "We are more than our Houses--the things that tie us together are stronger than the things that separate us--in fact, we need to recognize our differences in order to find our bond together!" Instead--we got three houses of Griffs, with bravery triumphant as the highest virtue. And Slytherin, which represents values no less human and no less significant, became the cast-out stepchild. There was no growth! No change! No reaching across the aisle, to bring the school together! And no recognition from Slytherin's side to say, wait, we know this is wrong, no matter who founded the House. Instead, a reluctant Slughorn relents to the demands of his colleagues, and Pansy Parkinson is utterly unrepentant. There are no Slytherin students named during the final battle, and no recognition that any of them perished in Hogwart's defense. I find this to be a grave mistake...
Certainly--there are unrepentant elements within our own society. Didn't Henry Ford uphold the wisdom of isolationist policies, and decry the US entry into WWII? But HP isn't history--it's fiction, reflecting reality--but as archetype, it is also instructive. Where is the higher virtue of forgiveness and the appeal to solidarity? This is a rift that remains, even to the end--witness the train station +19 years, as Harry and Draco catch each other's eyes. What lesson does this inculcate into the young readers' minds? That there are some people we just refuse to forgive? We'd prefer to ignore them, to bottle up our feelings about them and leave our issues unresolved, to fester inside of us? That sounds an awful lot like a lifetime of psychotherapy bills.
3. Speaking of Draco--I can only hope Rowling at least considered doing this character more justice, before she ruined one of the best opportunities the story had to make a real and elegant point. In the end, the good characters were always good (even when they were in disguise, i.e. Snape) and the evil characters always evil (and I don't see Kreatur counting--he is only loyal to the one he calls Master, and Harry was clever enough to renew his loyalty for Sirius's brother). If there was ONE out of the bunch who should have been allowed to fully realize the error of his ways, it was Draco. He witnessed what he believed was the murder of Dumbledore, saw the unfathomable cruelty of Voldemort, saw the humiliation of his own family--yet was left in limbo, suffering no outward physical or social punishment, but likewise unredeemed. To give that development to Draco would have catapulted the level of the story into profoundly more significant territory--Draco then becomes an archetypal figure as well--the "Vader" character who falls into darkness, but through his own action struggles back up to achieve some level of vindication and redemption for himself. No doubt there are legions of Draco fans out there who are VERY cross with his final portrayal.
4. One more for the road--the epilogue. Perhaps the MOST unsatisfying aspect of all. Could Rowling have left out any MORE critical developmental details? Let's see...in the 2 preceding volumes, much exposition was expended on the subject of everyone's potential future careers--passing the OWLS & NEWTS, deciding on courses, etc. This was perfect--what high school student doesn't spend time thinking (worrying) about where they're headed in life?
THEN HOW IS IT THAT THE BOOK ENDS AND WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHERE THEY'VE ENDED UP? How can you make SUCH a big deal out of academic and career choices, only to ignore them completely at the end? I'm hard pressed to even come up with a logical reason for this omission. Out of the multitude of characters we've known through 7 volumes, only Neville gets mentioned as having a job? (and we can all honestly say we could easily have called that one!) I'ts incredibly bad that we have no idea where Harry's and Ron's lives have taken them--but I think it might even be worse for Ginny, positively atrocious for Hermione, and I'll add Luna on as well (in a way, her insult was the worst of all--she's not even mentioned!) Hermione, and Ginny to a little lesser extent, were profoundly positive female role models--intelligent, dedicated, courageous, and loyal. Yet, even Hermione, touted as the greatest witch of her age, is reduced to Harry's baby-maker! I am personally infuriated by this tragic misdeed--and considering the demographic I mentioned at the top of this post, Rowling should be ashamed to have added such a worthless coda for charcters that have such profound impact.
My son actually brought this last point up, and I agreed with him--why is it that we have no knowledge of how the wizarding community has changed after almost 20 years? Rowling dared to broach matters of real social importance--racial discrimination and power imbalances, for example, with the goblins, centaurs, house-elves, etc.--yet the epilogue does not give us any sense that the wizarding world has changed at all--in fact, we have an affirmation of status quo! We're back at King's Cross, sending another trainload of youngsters to Hogwart's. What stopped Rowling from putting an elf or goblin on that train as well? Another wasted opportunity--what did Rowling fear? After all that development on the subject--since book 2!--she couldn't put a sock on it at last? (a deliberate house-elf reference--my apologies).
What I fear--she's got $$ in her eyes. Some media outlet has made her an offer; my guess is it's the comic industry, which is hot-to-trot with the latest boom in graphic novels. There's room for at least 3 series: pre-Harry "Legends of Hogwarts"...the 19 year gap...and "Hogwarts: The Next Generation." I'm also not ruling out TV (animated half-hour? or hour-long primetime a la "Smallville"?)
So, there's my rant. I've thrown down the gauntlet--who's out there to pick it up?
LAZ
posted by L Lazarow | 11:40 AM
|
9 comments
