When I was walking to the movie theatre we were talking about what they would include and one of my friend’s said ‘don’t spoil me’ (and then claimed he was too busy to read the books, but apparently has plenty of time for the movies). Just to be clear that this post has spoilers for the movie, and every book that has been published.
The movie theatre had big stickers on the back of every fourth seat saying “1 in 4 women and children are the victims of domestic violence.” Apart from my dislike of running together ‘women and children’ I thought that was an awesome way of representing the effect of violence within families. This week is refuge appeal week so give money if you can (last year the government gave more money to Clint Rickards than Wellington Women’s Refuge, so it’d be good if other people could pitch in).
That wasn’t the only good thing to happen before Harry Potter started, because they showed a Northern Lights preview (well they’re calling it a Golden Compass preview, but whatever). I’m terribly excited.
I think the Harry Potter books are getting worse, and the movies are getting better, as the series progresses. I think this might be related. In the later books J K Rowling has no page limit, and doesn’t have to listen to an editor so they just sprawl. She’s particularly prone too over-foreshadowing, and overlengthy explanations by Dumbledore at the end of each book. I think all the unnecessary bits in the books make it easier to make a movie (even as the books are getting longer), as the movie can tailor itself to the essential story (which I think J K Rowling has been two drafts away from in every book after the third).
I’m not suggesting that Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix is the greatest movie playing, but it is very engaging. David Yates was previously a TV director, and I think in some ways this services . In TV you are servicing characters and a story first and foremost. Previously directors (particularly Chris Columbus who directed the first two) were far too interested in set pieces to do either of those. Alfonso Curon, is a brilliant director, but in Prisoner of Azkaban he was more interested in creating mood and atmosphere than characters and story.
The casting directors did very good jobs and were very lucky, because the actors’ physicality continues to work for the parts. Ginny was a walk-on part in the first movie, and would have been 9 when she was cast and that the actress has grown up in roughly the way the character in the book did.
Imelda Staunton was brilliant as Dolores Umbridge, and everything about her costumes, and design of her room emphasised her character, and made the movie. To underscore the banality of evil isn’t a particularly new point, but it was incredibly well done. The movie is worth seeing just for Dolores Umbridge’s room alone (you’ll know what I mean when you see it).
While I have an affection for J K Rowling, it’s next too impossible to put a radical reading on the Harry Potter books.* But I feel this book, in particular, has a good heart. The students getting together to fight authority is a theme that works for me, and the movie really emphasised this angle. The simple scene of Fred and George sympathising with the first year who had had the (creepy and totally sadistic) crazy cutting lines thing underscored that nicely (and their departure was spectacular. And the ending is a reiteration of ‘we’re stronger together than we are alone’, which always makes me happy.
And just to go on the record with my (rather boring) predictions for the final book: Snape isn’t evil, Dumbledore was telling him to kill him, Snape was in love with Lily and the reason Dumbledore trusts him will be something to do with that love. More than one Weasley will die in the final book. The love stories will annoy me.
Feel free to add your own thoughts about Harry Potter in general and predictions (but no spoilers, although I don’t suppose there are any).
*And don’t even get me started on the gender politics – which are made worse in the movies by upping the ways Mrs Weasley conforms to a stereotype (which is quite an accomplishment in itself).
Pingback: Harry Potter News | Harry Potter Movie | Harry Potter Trivia | Harry Potter Books » Blog Archive » Review: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Movie
“Snape was in love with Lily and the reason Dumbledore trusts him will be something to do with that love.”
I hope not. I’d rather something a bit more complicated and unique.
“The love stories will annoy me.”
Well, if the movie’s any indication, the next book will see Luna and Neville coupled. This frustrates me. Must everyone be in a pair? Grumble. The presence of male genitals and female genitals does not necessarily mean that they should be pressed together in romantic goopiness as soon as possible. ;-)
I rather liked the movie. I thought the latter half was too rapidly condensed, but I don’t know how they’d have avoided it without just making the movie longer (which sounds like an adequate solution to me, but). Some of their condenses on plot points were really deftly done, though, and instructive to watch.
I agree that Rowling’s later books have sprawled. The first time I read 5 and 6, that made me grumpy. I just reread them, though, and I find my perspective switching. Rather than looking at them as individual artifacts, I’m taking them as a mass together that exists outside the typical novel structure. I think they work very well in that way.
One of my instructors at the IWW, Sam Chang, taught us a novel class last year. She believes that it’s impossible to write a long novel that maintains structural perfection at the same time as it services character development and language, whereas it is possible to acheive simultaneous “perfection” in all these things within short story writing. She suggests that short story writers often have to be in perfect control of everything that’s going on in the work, whereas novelists have to relax that control.
Personally, I’m a super-control person, and as a consequence I tend toward very short forms — poetry and stories under about 5,000 words. For me, personally, it’s instructive to read something like Rowling where she just sprawls all over the place, because she is able to create a successful text even when all the elements aren’t working correctly, or working together. That’s not to exempt it from criticism. It just interests me from a craft perspective.
Well, if the movie’s any indication, the next book will see Luna and Neville coupled
I believe that Rowling specifically denied this.
My prediction re Snape: Snape is evil (predicted partly to be contrary as most people are predicting good), but he does not want Voldemort to win. Or Harry to win. He wants them to destroy each other and as much of the wizarding world as possible, because he hates it for rejecting him. That’s why he can so sincerely play his part both with both sides: he really is helping both of them, just to a limited extent and not with the motives they believe. In short, he is as the US was in the Iran-Iraq war.
Alternate, possibly not mutually contradictory theory: Draco is Snape’s son and the real “chosen one” described in the prophecy. Which is why Snape is so willing to protect Draco. Perhaps Dumbledore knew this and that was why he was so willing to trust Snape.
I don’t think the books are getting worse. I agree with Dianne, that re-reading them is an enlightening and fun experience.
JKR DID specifically deny the Luna/Neville thing.
My only complaint about the movie was that they lost some parts for comic relief in some of the editing.
Oh, and Kreacher should have been better explained since he’s gonna be important in book 7 (they were going to completely cut him out, but JKR told him that if they did they might have some issues with movie 7).
I LIKE Dumbledore’s rambly explanations at the end. (another complaint about the movie I guess).
For interesting theories and editorials, check out http://www.mugglenet.com. I’ve been impressed with the editorials.
“JKR DID specifically deny the Luna/Neville thing.”
Yay! Go JKR.
The movie was pushing it hard, though, IMO.
Hey, I like my novels extra-long. They don’t run out as fast, that way.
I only got half-way through the last book (the sixth), and I don’t intend to buy the next. But I do like the movies. And I’m thrilled that they’re still up to snuff. This movie is the last one I’ll know the plot to before I arrive. I kind of like the idea of it being new to me for the next too. I’m really hoping they’ll maintain the quality right to the end. That’s beating incredible odds as far as sequels go.
Mandolin – I like J K Rowling, but I’m not sure complexity is where she’s going. Ginny and Harry, for example, was completely obvious well advance. I thought that the relationship forshadowing (Ginny/Harry, Ron/Hermione) was really enjoyable in the movie.
It’s not the length I object to, it’s the unnecessary length. They could be a lot sharper if the length was used for other subplots that underlied the theme or brought out minor characters, rather than to repeat stuff and over-forshadow.
I just saw it with my son yesterday – my other son had seen it on Wednesday. We are dedicated Harry Potter fans and we did not like book 5 much. Too long, I agree. We all 3 agreed (and we agree on practically nothing entertainment-wise) that the movie was the best so far, though the book was our least favorite of the six. Also somehow in the book Harry’s constant state of rage seemed irritating and annoying, whereas in the movie it really worked. I am a book person who has NEVER said this before: The movie was better than the book. I am still kind of in awe of this as it has never happened in my experience before!
I love all the speculation about what will happen in book 7. I enjoy it as much as eventually finding out what “really” happens. Too bad once we know, the speculation will stop.
Neville will find his courage and become an auror. It may be he – and not Harry – who has the final showdown with Voldemort.
Well she has had quite and incredible run with this series. We are down to the final weeks before the last book comes out. Lets hope she has a good conclusion and not a groaner.
I think Snape is both good and evil. He is conflicted and this conflict will be a focal point of the final book. Voldemort has significant control of him because of his dark mark, but in the end he will die on the good side.
Yes, Dumbledore was telling him to kill him. Ultimately, Snape has to fall on the good side (perhaps while dying), because Dumbledore was too great a wizard to have messed up on that analysis of Snape.
There is still the conflict between Neville Longbottom and Harry Potter as to who is the actual nemesis for Voldemort. Perhaps that prophecy really was meant for Neville.
It remains to be seen which side of the line Draco falls on. We know his father is evil, but the son balked when he had to choose.
For people to be happy with the outcome, Ginny and Harry must not only survive but become a couple. Ditto for Ron and Hermione.
Ahh, Potter-mania… takes me back to my early high school days.
Maybe I’m overestimating Rowling’s gall on this, but I suspect that only one of the two central romances will remain intact by the end. One of the main four characters – and I think by the end of the sixth book we can say Ginny has become the fourth most important character – is going to die. At least, I hope so. It would make for a more interesting story.
The Neville/Harry conundrum will be a major focus.
Lupin and Pettigrew will both die, so that every member of James Potter’s old crew will be gone by the end of the series. Many of the characters associated with the old crowd, even unimportant ones such as Mundungus Fletcher (though I suspect he will play a bigger role; they keep mentioning him, yet he doesn’t do anything), will die too. As a bloody rite, this will end Harry’s parents’ world, paralleling the severance of the hold that it had on Harry (at least, in the negative sense; his having to grow up as an orphan, for example). Harry’s scar will disappear.
Then again, I was dead wrong on book 6.
As for the Order of the Phoenix, I must be the only one for whom it was actually my *favourite* of the series. I don’t judge series novels by the same standards as I would a stand alone, and I welcome sprawl and endless detail – so long as it draws me more into the world. In particular, I liked the myriad of new characters and the showcasing of Harry’s flaws as the main driver of the plot.
Maia, Harry Potter isn’t much for radicalism, but it betrays a number of left leaning sentiments that I’m sure weren’t lost on any of us. The ‘lesser races’ are oppressed, and those who deny it are the villains. Criminals are often misunderstood, and the major ‘get Tuff on Crime’ law enforcement type turns out to be a bad guy, albeit a sympathetic one. Dumbledore is one of this decade’s leading literary liberals.
Dumbledore is one of this decade’s leading literary liberals.
that very fact now has my crying in my proverbial beer.
My own theory: Ron dies, Harry dies, Neville dies, Voldy dies, Snape was a badguy all along, and despite the heroes of the story dying, the second tier female characters aren’t really allowed to step up and become heroic.
I read comics. I learned long ago to expect sloth and hackery to overwhelm ever the best narrative instinct of even the most fantastic writers.
The ‘lesser races’ are oppressed, and those who deny it are the villains.
Yet some of the “lesser races” (house elves) are shown as happy in their oppression and attempts to lessen the oppression (SPEW) are treated as comic relief. Or could Rowling be making a subtle point about how well intentioned liberals sometimes barge into a foriegn culture and try to “liberate” oppressed members of that culture without understanding anything about either the culture or the oppressed group and therefore make a complete botch of it? I’d like to think so.
Criminals are often misunderstood, and the major ‘get Tuff on Crime’ law enforcement type turns out to be a bad guy, albeit a sympathetic one.
Yeah, I had my first vague doubts about Sirius’ guilt when Vernon said that he should be hanged (I think the quote was something like, “When are they going to realize that hanging is the only way to deal with these people?”)
Well, yes, about the house elves. But there are races that have committed undeniable wrongs, such as giants, who are still portrayed as victims to be understood by the good guys (Dumbledore, Lupin, etc.). There’s also Umbridge’s hatred of ‘half-breeds’, the Slytherin preoccupation with proper breeding (not a preoccupation of modern conservatives, though I suspect a good many just don’t say so out loud), etc.
And how did I miss the Dursleys? The Dursleys can be considered a vicious caricature of conservative American suburban values – their being British notwithstanding, of course.
Ehh, karpad, liberals aren’t interesting when they win. Atticus Finch loses his case, Guy Montag watches his world incinerate, and Dumbledore is hit with a killing curse.
I don’t know that Rowling stereotypes women more so than men. The Ron=emotion/Hermione=reason dichotomy is an interesting reversal, particularly since reason is so often considered, when all’s said and done, the greater of the two. (Yes, I haven’t missed that the hero himself is white and male.) Aside from Dumbledore, Hermione is the wisest and most insightful of the characters, and I expect her to take a Dumbledorean role for Harry in the 7th book.
None of what I mentioned would be out of place in any work of juvenile fiction. Things get hazier for maturer works; why is anyone’s guess. Personally, I think there’s a desire, both on part of authors and readers, for a clearer cut, less ambiguous morality in works for younger readers – and that the liberal way of looking at the world is something the majority of us intuit on some level to be the ‘good’ one. But I realize that’s a contentious position.
Sylphhead – I agree that JK Rowling’s heart is the right place. Although I think as an author she puts the conventions of the genres she’s writing in ahead of her politics (see Mrs Weasley).
I’m coming round to the view that Ginny will die, but that’s partly because I don’t think she’ll kill Hermione or Ron. Actually now I think she’ll kill Ron or Ginny, but not both (and I expect half the Weasley family to be dead by the end of the book).
Non-political prediction: Characters with color names are in big trouble. Two (Albus and Black) are already dead. I’m almost certain that Rubeus Hagrid is not going to make it through the book, which makes me sad since he’s one of my favorite characters. Lavender Brown? A distinctly minor character, comic relief in the last book, but maybe she’ll get a chance to do something heroic and noble, probably resulting in her death.
Petunia will get to do something useful and possibly heroic. I’m hoping it will be something critical and utterly non-magical, thus demonstrating to the magical population that muggles aren’t in fact, useless or helpless. And demonstrating to Harry that not all people he finds obnoxious are evil (he’s got to be wondering by now…)
Malfoy and Percy will leave their own particular versions of the dark side. But they’ll still both be insufferable.
It will take me several weeks to read the books because of little interferences like life and work, but I’ll be unable to resist reading posts with spoilers and will therefore know much of the plot in advance. Sigh.
Hi there. I usually lurk but don’t comment, but Harry Potter brings people, as we know, out of the woodwork.
I like the books and have my copy reserved for the next release, tend not to see the movies. I did see the last movie, and I thought it was pretty decent as a film, but that I preferred the story as I’d imagined it.
But…I really have trouble with Rowling’s politics.
I think her politics are almost accidental–she seems to be some kind of under-theorized liberal in real life, and her books reflect the received wisdom of liberalism rather than any kind of actual polical intentions. So the main character is a white boy, but we have a “spunky” (but attractive!) girl as a sidekick. And she throws in some very minor characters of color to remind us that the wizarding world is “multicultural”. Of course, that doesn’t mean that the characters of color actually get to do anything. It bugs me more, honestly, that she tosses in Kingsley Shacklebolt to do almost nothing much except be brown than it would if she’d just left the matter alone. It’s these feeble gestures that really annoy me, like she feels that she ought to include characters of color but she doesn’t want to be bothered to give them anything to do.
And the house elves! And the giants! Seriously, they’re like the West’s stereotypes of the Other–either cunning/loyal/small/stupid/comic or big/brutish/dangerous/stupid. Seriously–isn’t it just like the portrayal of Indian and Asian “houseboys” in early twentieth-century British fiction, or else the portrayal of the wild “tribal” peoples in the same? It’s like the Raj rides on in the wizarding world. It’s difficult to take seriously an anti-interventionist message that boils down to “These creatures are naturally stupid and ridiculous and so we shouldn’t interfere”.
I don’t think Rowling is some kind of crypto-colonialist. I’m sure that if you actually asked her what she thought about any particular political question of the day she’d have a tolerable viewpoint. But her books are a mustering and redeployment of stereotypes/archetypes of UK kids’ fiction and very often the underlying bad politics of those books speak through her, because she doesn’t have the, I don’t know, mastery? skill? will? theoretical understanding? writing chops? to make the politics into something else.
In fact, I avoid the movies precisely because I can only read her books in a retro-kitsch spirit. When I read them as “topical” (or when I see the movies, with their fashions and gestures toward the contemporary) I can’t bear their politics. Harry Potter as retro-kitsch is fun; Harry Potter as Serious Moral Lesson About Today’s Issues is terrible.
My predictions:
Snape will not be evil. His argument with Dumbledore about “being taken for granted,” or however Hagrid rephrased it, will have been Snape trying to talk Dumbledore out of his plan to have Snape fulfill the Unbreakable Vow.
The Neville/Harry thing will be inadequately played for tension, and then we’ll find out what was inevitable through all the books: Harry, the one we’ve been following, is actually The One! (I deeply in my heart wish for it to be Neville.)
Predictions of Ron’s death sound accurate to me.
Aberforth Dumbledore will become an important character.
The key to the novel’s solution will be Draco collaborating with Harry and some combination of other characters, based on the Sorting Hat’s song about solidarity as the only option. I would say that the solution would involve characters from all the houses, but the only Hufflepuff with any prominence (IIRC) is Zacharias Smith, and I’m having trouble seeing main action come from a team of Harry, Zacharias, Luna, and Draco. Too few established characters.
Oh, Mrs. Weasley will die, and so will either Fred or George. Mrs. Weaselly because it will be a tear-jerker and because she’s disposable (that’s another problem I have with the books–Mrs. Weaselly is always shown as weak, “womanish”, dithering, worrying excessively, etc…and she’s the only mother we actually see mothering. The only good biological parents we see in the series are James and Lily–and it’s no coincidence that they’re dead. Mr. Weaselly either “conspires” with his sons against his wife or else doesn’t parent much at all.)
Fred and George, for real, because it will be all shocking and sad, and because the logic of the books is to break up all non-heterosexual, non-“singles going steady” relationships. A lot of kids’ books reconstitute the patriarchal family at the expense of all other relationships (like Diana Wynne Jones’s Howl’s Moving Castle, which I love, but which has crap politics); the Harry Potter books actually break up the patriarchal family (which is shown as weak and flawed) but in favor of (heterosexual) couplehood rather than anything else.
I don’t especially have a problem with Mrs. Weasly or how she is portrayed. I don’t think she’s weak at all. I think she’s stressed out at the prospect of her family being murdered and I don’t blame her. And yet, she is offering up herself and her family for the cause that is right and not what is easy. She is a matriarch and I’m ok with that and the fact that she’s able to keep her kids under control (and the evidence that the only thing Hermione can threaten Fred and George with is a letter to their mum is certainly an example of the authority she does have), and help to raise a rather large brood of exceptional people that says something.
And I think she’s exceptionally important to Harry. She is the only person who has ever mothered him at all and the fact that she began doing so almost instantaneously and fiercely says a lot about her and her importance to Harry.
But then, I don’t especially have a problem with the politics of the books in general… I’m not terribly concerned about radical politics in children’s stories. I think these books do a service in other ways – it got kids reading again, that’s pretty good. I think it does an exceptional job of demonstrating some of the real trials and tribulations of childhood/preteen/teen stuff and reminds everyone that there is good and evil in almost all of us and it’s the choices we make that make us who we are – not our history. But, the paths we choose along every given interchange. She spends a lot of time setting up the similarities and differences between Vold. and Harry. They have very similar backgrounds. They are both powerful wizards (one who always knew it and worked it to his advantage, one who doesn’t quite fully appreciate his capabilities and still worries about his abilities), grew up without parents, found a home in hogwarts, etc. But, as Rowling points out, it’s the differences between them that matter – the fact that Harry relies on his friends a great deal and considers himself stronger with them is what makes him “better” than Vold. Vold chooses solitude and to seek power as his ultimate goal. Harry chooses friendship and companionship and seeks peace as his ultimate goal – it’s the choices they have made throughout the stories that create a character wholly evil and one who is mostly good, but still flawed.
I like the books for what they are and just don’t expect them to have liberal politics. I suppose if I expected it of them it would be different. Does she rely on some stereotypical roles and descriptions? yeah, but I also think she provides more detail than just the stereotype. I don’t have a problem with Mrs. Weasley, because that’s how my mom would have been, and in a lot of ways, I can see my future self in her as well – I guess I don’t see her as only a stereotype because I know women/mothers who are like that – and I don’t think that’s bad.
I wrote an essay recently on how womens’ roles got WAY beefed up in Book 5. I understand the quibbles with Mrs. Weasley, but at least she gets more complex with the advent of Book 5.
Well, if the movie’s any indication, the next book will see Luna and Neville coupled. This frustrates me.
What made you think this? I just saw the movie and I can’t recall them even exchanging a look. Unless you count the ‘keep-away-from-me-psycho’ stare he gave her in the coach.
Yeah, they stay pretty closely together in the scene in the department of mysteries, including a moment of Neville tugging her upright (or was it the other way round? damn memory) that had that “hello, young lovers” look. And then at the end, when they’re being all iconic, Neville and Luna were walking side by side with the same kind of look.
In defense of Rowling: I don’t think it’s entirely accurate to say that her minor characters of color are tokens who don’t actually do anything. To use the example of Kingsley Shacklebolt, he does have a clear function in the OotP plot. He’s working as a spy for the Order within the Ministry for the entire book and helps to ensure that Sirius doesn’t actually get caught. (Granted most of this takes place off-page, but it’s still a clear purpose.) Moreover, in the scene where Dumbledore saves Harry by taking the blame for “Dumbledore’s Army,” Kingsley ensures that this can happen by modifying Marietta Edgecombe’s memory. Clearly he’s not anything more than a rather minor character. But he does have a purpose in the plot and he does do a few important things when he appears. He doesn’t (IMO) just “stand around and be black.” His function in the larger plot is quite limited, but still clearly present. The Harry Potter universe is full of such minor characters–do all of them need to be white in order to avoid charges of tokenism?
I also think it’s important, when considering the politics of the books, to keep in mind that while the wizarding world takes place within the “real” world, it also has its own set of social issues which parallel “real” social issues. The issue of “blood purity” vs. acceptance of Muggle-borns parallels issues of racism. While I didn’t love the GoF movie, I appreciated that the film chose to present the Death Eaters as very similar in appearance to the KKK. IMO the books address disability issues in a similar “parallel” way. Rowling has said that she intended for there to be parallels between how people in her universe treat Lupin and how her mother (who had MS) was treated. “Real world” social issues are addressed through these parallel issues in the wizarding world.
I don’t know if JKR intended S.P.E.W. as a parody of uninformed meddling with other cultures. But you almost have to read it that way, since our introduction to house-elves showed us the dark side of the current system and it hasn’t gone away. I really don’t see how anyone could think “we shouldn’t interfere” with the elf heads on the wall.
But what if the elf heads want to be on the wall, so to speak? Isn’t the implication of the books that “we” should treat the house elves well, as servants? I really dislike the way Rowling’s other races have genetic/inborn/”natural” culture that determines virtually everything about their societies. Rowling, being liberal, provides us with exceptions in the shape of Hagrid and the major house elf character–rather like someone writing a story where all the women naturally want to get married right away except one who is strong and crafty and professional, or something–of course giants are naturally stupid, but if we ever encounter one who isn’t naturally stupid, then of course good, enlightened wizards will accept him/her, and we must all smash the evil prejudiced wizards who can’t accept that one giant in five hundred is fit for human society. In fact, you could argue that the political tussle in Rowling’s books is between the “good” liberals (who want the house elves to be happy as servants, the giants to be peacefully stupid, “everyone” to pull together because “we” have common interests, etc) and a set of straw fascists who are evil, essentially, because they…bwah hah hah….like being evil.
Really, what do we know about Voldemort? That he’s been mean and cruel from tiny childhood, even when good old Dumbledore bent every effort into helping him. We know that he comes from an unholy mixture of cliche trashy poor folks and cliche thoughtless aristos–he’s really almost depicted as having “bad blood”. And he kills lots of people! For fun! Cartoonish, really.
My bet is that the story will fulfill most of the required cliches of mainstream publishing. I’ll be disappointed if it doesn’t, sort of, since I like to be right…but I’ll also be rather enthused if Rowling steers clear of at least a few. Of course, the Whole Crew will need to Pull Together to save the wizarding world; the houses at Hogwarts will Overcome Their Differences. Harry, Hermione, Ginny and Ron will all survive and all be in Exceedingly-Unlikely True Love at the age of seventeen. I don’t know whether Snape will be good or evil, but he won’t have even half the depth that he’s given in even the most badly-written piece of fanfic.
This is an author, mind you, who has to pair everyone up in proper little romantic couples–Lupin and Tonks for no reason, for example, and with mighty little character development and a hell of an age difference. (Lupin, recollect, is the same age as Harry’s father would be; Tonks is (AFAIK) in her early/mid-twenties)
And while we’re talking about race and characters–the thing is, Kingsley Shacklebolt is a very minor character with no distinguishing characteristics beyond being a Good Fellow. He does something germane to the plot, yes, but he’s a total cipher. Compare some other minor characters who might have been POC without any violence to the plot: what if Tonks were black? What if Mad-Eye Moody were black? Hell, why do all the veela have to be blond, for that matter? Why can’t Boring French Girl have an Algerian grandmother? The thing is, if you want to throw in a few POC characters in order to indicate that your world isn’t entirely white, you can do it a lot more completely than Rowling does.
I don’t buy the idea that white authors and white audiences can talk seriously about race through metaphor alone, especially when the work in question includes actual non-metaphorical characters of color who are woefully inadequate.
To sum up, although I’ve been complaining for months about how sad I feel that we’re at the end of the series and how I wish it could go on for at least a few more books, I think that the Harry Potter books are really, totally about the inadequacies of white liberalism.
If Moody were black people would complain that the only major POC was mentally unstable, violent, thugish, and at one point seemed like a villain.
If you want to focus on the illiberal ideas in the Potterverse how about the need to be born special? You can’t earn it, you have to be born with it.
[redacted]. Let me just say I just read the last chapter of the book (It’s leaked online) and [redacted].
[edited by Charles, who can only say, “spoiler much?”]
I don’t think the potter books are a great social model for a wonderful society. I must have missed the memo where JKR said that she was attempting to write a perfect liberal manifesto through fiction . Beacuse if that’s not what she set out to do, you are expecting more from her than is fair.
I agree with your points about liberal aspects of the books, but I also see the books as very mildly libertarian–the bank is one of the two honest major institutions (ok, the other is the exams and I consider them to be implausibly reliable) and I don’t see any mistrust of commerce.
More generally, they’re pre- or anti-political. Big institutions aren’t solutions to anything. All that can be trusted is individual intelligence, courage, decency, and loyalty as expressed in small groups.
The government and the press have shown themselves to be so incompetent in dealing with Voldemort that I’m hoping there will be the beginnings of some institutional changes in book 7, but I’m not counting on it.
Offhand, I can’t think of any other books (especially for children) which are so cynical about big institutions while being so respectful of individuals and small groups. I don’t know if this will have a cultural effect, but it might.
I don’t have a lot of predictions I’m sure of. Voldemort will be dead. Just for the hell of it, I’m betting on Arthur Weasley to die. It would be poignant, and he’s not an obvious target. I’m hoping to see Fleur go into harpy mode, and the twins to do something wonderfully inventive in the final fight. I expect Dumbledore to make a brief, non-living appearance to say “Well done”. I also expect to find out just what happened to his hand. There might be some resolution to the house elf sub-plot, but I’m not counting on it. IIRC, Dumbledore said something about house elves being a great wrong done by the wizards–maybe a spell to make them submissive? Hogwarts will survive, but the House system might not, and good riddance to it.
Considering couples: I had briefly hoped in book 4 that the couple out of the Hermione-Ron-Harry triangle would be Harry and Ron. Remember, Harry and Ron were both notably indifferent to their dates at the dance and that Ron was the thing that Harry valued most in the second test (where at least two of the other victims were the love interests of the other contestants). I suppose Rowling, if she ever considered doing a Harry-Ron couple, which I of course have no idea whether she did or didn’t, dropped the idea when she realized how many heads would explode if her main characters turned out to be gay. I do wish she would include at least a few minor character gay couples, though. Tokenism or not, at least it would be acknowledgement of their existence.
Concerning giants and elves, I don’t think we’re supposed to think that the giants are just stupid and the elves happy servents. The giants are clearly aware and resentful of their treatment by the human wizards. They are siding with Voldy because they hope he will give them more rights and freedoms. I postulate that they seem stupid because their language is quite different from human language, different on a chomsky level, that is, as different as any human language might be from that of a hypothetical alien species’ languages and therefore only the real geniuses can learn human language at all, muchless get the subtleties of language that make people sound intelligent.
I also don’t think that it’s a coincidence that the two characters presented as the smartest and the wisest are the only ones who have anything negative to say about the way the house elves are treated. I will be quite disappointed if some resolution to that problem doesn’t occur. Also Kreacher is the perfect example of false conciousness. He wants to end up a head nailed to the wall, about as deep an identification with the oppressor as you can get.
Fundamental flaw in the HP world that bothers me: Why is progress in the wizarding world so slow? For example, consider the spell making Hogwarts unplottable. It is hundreds of years old. Yet no one has found a way around it in all that time. Can you think of any real world 500 year old technology that current technology couldn’t beat handily? And why is Voldy sending his followers out in little gangs to kill his enemies in hand-to-hand combat, risking their lives as well? Hasn’t he ever heard of ranged weapons? He also doesn’t seem to have weapons of mass destruction of any sort. I suppose that’s because Rowling didn’t want to make the world TOO grim-it is a kid’s book, after all-but it seems implausible.
Kate L:
I think it’s legitimate to criticize the liberal politics of the book. It’s legitimate to criticize the book about basically anything, IMO. I mean, Rowling’s intent wasn’t to build a functional economy, probably, but I still have to say that I’m not seeing how she’s engineered scarcity to work in the books so that the Weasleys would be kept poor.
The book is successful on several levels; that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have other failings. Rowling’s intent with the book is interesting to a certain extent (I’ve read a couple interviews with her, for instance, that ameliorate my annoyance with the gender issues), but ultimately the books have to stand on their own as artifacts and interact with the individual concerns each reader brings to them.
Dianne:
“Concerning giants and elves, I don’t think we’re supposed to think that the giants are just stupid and the elves happy servents.”
Ditto. For instance, we see negative things resulting when wizards mistreat house elves.
I read an interview with Rowling where she mentioned what Sirius had said about Winky: that Hermione was right to use her treatment as a way to understand Crouch, and that how one treated one’s inferiors was a better measure of a man than how one treated one’s equals. Rowling then pointed out that Sirius was a hypocrite, since he was awful to his own inferior, Kreacher.
apologies, I didn’t think it was much of a spoiler since JKR has said as much in interviews, but I’m cool with the edit. apologies to anyone that it ruined anything for.
I really dislike the way Rowling’s other races have genetic/inborn/”natural” culture that determines virtually everything about their societies….
Really, what do we know about Voldemort? That he’s been mean and cruel from tiny childhood, even when good old Dumbledore bent every effort into helping him. We know that he comes from an unholy mixture of cliche trashy poor folks and cliche thoughtless aristos–he’s really almost depicted as having “bad blood”.
This is one of the odd challenges of the book. While Dumbledore drones on about how it is the kind of life we lead, not our fate, that determines the kind of people we become, we observe something rather different. Harry has the worst upbringing in the world, yet somehow turns out miraculously skilled and virtuous. Why? Because of his parentage! All nature/no nurture.
In re why progress in the wizarding world is so slow: the outside-the-book explanation is probably just that if wizards were reasonably inventive, the world would be unmanageably complex and strange.
Other than that, the wizards just don’t seem to have much in the way of institutions that support inventiveness. There are no patents, little or no teaching of theory, and there isn’t even decent indexing and bibliographies.
Also, the population seems to be pretty low, which would mean fewer inventors. However, I think the other factors are more important. Wizards are pretty happy with what they’ve got and they don’t seem to have a concept of progress.
Well, if we’re going to stoop to outside-the-book explanations, then we can tackle the race issue, too.
The standard outside-the-book explanation is that fantasy stories, Ivy League campuses, country clubs, etc., reflect a yearning for an idealized agrarian life of the pre-Industrial Revolution European (typically English) country squire. So, to some extent, everyone working in the fantasy genre must accommodate some of the genre’s conventions: castles, cottages, wands, carriages, countrysides, torches, candles, feasts, monsters. Even the putatively modern Star Wars had cloaks, swords and magic. Don’t know why I love the fantasy genre so — truly, I’m baffled by this — but I do. And apparently lots of other people love it, too.
And what else do you find in an idealized agrarian fantasy of a pre-Industrial Revolution country squire? White people!
Of course, part of the genius of the Potter books is how well they blend the modern “muggle” world with the parallel wizarding world. Harry lives out common fantasies: discovering that you are rich and famous, wildly talented, descended from beautiful, popular and noble parentage, and the central actor is the salvation of the world. Through Harry, we nerds get to be brave, magical, powerful, and a sports hero. We get to wreak revenge on bullies, oppressive teachers, and scary monsters.
And if that weren’t enough, we get to do it in a fantasy setting!
But to in order to make it easy for modern readers to identify with Harry, Rowling first makes Harry very contemporary. Readers identify with the mundane details of Harry’s life outside of Hogwarts and Harry’s initial bewilderment at being initiated into the wizarding world. But in order to tap into whatever it is that we love about fantasy settings, Rowling must then transition into using some measure of fantasy conventions. We want the wizarding world to look like a pre-Industrial Revolution country squire’s estate. That rules out a lot of modern conveniences a/k/a “progress.” And it rules out a lot of people of color.
I think that the non-human magical races will play a major role in the last book. Hermione has been fighting for house elf rights for three books now- that subplot has been going on for so long that it’s begging for a resolution. The underestimation of the other magical races has been a consistent theme in the series- Umbridge’s being attacked by the centaurs, as well as the betrayals of two of the major house elves, especially Kreacher, who basically indirectly killed a master he disliked and who mistreated him. Rowling would not have introduced Grawp unless he had some role to play. I’m among the ones that think that Hagrid is going to die in this book- possibly trying to protect his half-brother?
I think that the “Snape-loved-Lily” plot is way too simplistic and kind of obnoxious, but I do think that they had some kind of relationship. Rowling spent the entire last book throwing them into proximity (having Slughorn say repeatedly that Lily was excellent at Potions). I think that their connection will be one of the big revelations of this book. I also think that this revelation might be connected to the fact that Voldemort chose Harry as his rival and not Neville. Harry is undoubtedly the chosen one (having been “marked” by Voldemort), but the fact that it could have just as easily been Neville is significant, and there has to be a reason why Voldy went after the Potters’ child and not the Longbottoms’.
As for the other deaths, I think that the Weasley parents are safe, since they’re Harry’s parent figures. I think Ron and Ginny are safe, too, but I think one other Weasley will bite the dust, and I’m thinking it’ll be Percy or one of the twins (I would LOVE for there to be a death eater fight in Weasley’s Wizard Wheezes. How fun would that be??) I just don’t think that we’ve seen enough of Charlie for his death to have any impact, so it would be pointless bloodshed, which we don’t really see from Rowling (on the good side.) And I really want to see what happens with Percy, and if he ever gets a clue and stops being a ministry shill.
Of course, Voldemort will die too. I think Harry’s going to stay alive. Dumbledore’s definitely dead, and his death was staged with Snape’s help. Snape is a good guy (really, if he were evil, Dumbledore could’ve easily gotten rid of him by giving him the cursed DADA position he’s been asking for. The curse always has the worst effects on Voldy’s henchmen, after all), and Harry will have to get over his bias and work with him to stop Voldy. I don’t see Snape making it out of the series alive.
Umm.. yeah, that’s all I got. :) So excited for the book!
still have to say that I’m not seeing how she’s engineered scarcity to work in the books so that the Weasleys would be kept poor.
It’s not very well explained. How can anyone who manipulates magic be materially poor? Ron is unhappy because he’s got an old girl’s gown for a school robe? Huh?!? Didn’t he learn how to turn rats into teacups in book 1? Wave your wand! But Rowling, without explaining it definitively, seems to have suggested that magic is not free limitless power, it’s an exchange of energy, so somewhere, if you turn a low value item into a high value item you get billed for it on some other level, maybe karmic, like if you turn your rags into a tuxedo your roof caves in. Even in Hogwarts the food isn’t created out of thin air. At least that’s the only way I can explain why they need to make do with crap so much of the time.
“At least that’s the only way I can explain why…”
I suspect it’s just a failure in world-building. Which I’m cool with.
” And it rules out a lot of people of color.”
The white people limitation on fantasy novels is imposed by the standard European-default setting (and often it’s not even so much imposed there, as lazed into). Certainly writers who move outside that setting can use people of color if they’re inclined to. It’s true that there’s a subconscious and conventional barrier, but there’s certainly no mechanical barrier.
“I don’t know whether Snape will be good or evil, but he won’t have even half the depth that he’s given in even the most badly-written piece of fanfic.”
Speaking as someone who has read a LOT of HP fanfic, including many of the most popular works, I find this hyperbole rather puzzling, not to mention laughable. I note that most fanfic with secondary character “depth” doesn’t use the Harry-viewpoint of the books at all, so it’s not even a legitimate comparison. HP isn’t like a TV show where secondary characters might sometimes be the stars of a given episode. Secondary characters exist only in relation to Harry (and to Ron and Hermione to a much lesser extent). I find it odd to criticize an author for not writing different books.
Ann, #39:
Snape is not a good guy. He will never be a good guy. His teaching methods are atrociously abusive. I do not understand why people do warm and fuzzy Snape fic, though it’s possible they feel Rowling is being unfair to him.
He very well might be pro-Dumbledore/anti-Voldemort. He’s not an absolutely evil guy, and I’ll grant that Umbridge makes his teaching look less awful. I think he can be reasonably interpreted as a person who loves potions and hates teaching, but he’s still causing real damage. I’ve tried to come up with a theory that making a large proportion of his students bad at potions is part of a larger plot (and his indulging Draco probably doesn’t do any more good than his savaging Harry), but it hasn’t congealed.
I rather like the idea of Snape maneuvering Dumbledore into telling Snape to kill him, with the longrun goal of defeating Voldemort as well and taking over, but I’m not sure it’s supported in the books.
42: I guess I should clarify that I wanted to contrast “badly-written fanfic” with “well-written fanfic”…I think one of the most interesting (and moving) things about the Harry Potter books is how much fanfic they’ve generated, of such a wide variety and with so many stories which are, really, “as good as” the book. I was thinking, literally, that Snape is always better-done-by in fanfic than in the books.
A side point: what’s wrong with talking about “books Rowling didn’t write”? Isn’t that what fanfic does? And plenty of fanfic is corrective–in particular, of course, the ones where, say, Lupin is gay or Snape is “really” a complex character. If I were writing fanfic, perhaps I could write a story where the constant emphasis on Hermione’s “bushy” hair is a (sort of problematic) marker for being biracial (which I’d initially hoped it was).
Books are symptoms. How to read them is debateable, but to say that we shouldn’t talk about or criticize an author’s intentions is silly. How many people who post here would hesitate to criticize Heart of Darkness for its depiction of Africa? Or would people just tell Fanon that unless Conrad set out to write an explicitly anti-racist book we can’t really expect him to write in an anti-racist manner?
Debating the politics of a book isn’t the same thing as saying “let’s ban this book” or “this book has no redeeming qualities” or “if you like this book, there’s something wrong with you”.
Books refract our culture and our assumptions; they aren’t written in a vacuum by magical politically-neutral creatures known only as “authors”. We can certainly debate whether Harry Potter is “about” liberalism in the age of globalization; I mean, I can’t prove that it is. All I can do is submit an argument that’s as well-constructed as I can manage. (In fact, even if Rowling said she thought I was right, that still wouldn’t prove anything; authorial intent is notoriously slippery). But it seems really weird to get all reverent about a work of pop fiction and to say that it–and it alone, unlike our government, our movies, pornography, fashion magazines, great literary works of the past, etc–should be beyond the reach of political debate.
43: To post too much, I want to add: there’s definitely a troubling realpolitik at Hogwarts. Like, Snape is abusive. Really abusive! And everyone knows it. I’ve never attended or taught at a school where Snape-level abusiveness would be tolerated by “good” teachers or administrators like Dumbledore or McGonagall once they knew about it. But at Hogwarts there’s just this sense that cruelty and favoritism are inevitable and uncorrectable, a part of the “not Voldemort, just ordinary human badness”.
Now, I think (again) that this is because Rowling’s politics are sort of ventriloquized through her; I don’t think she’s worked all this stuff out. I think it’s all received wisdom that she sort of believes without thinking it through, just like (for example) many Americans reflexively believe that before the 1960s women didn’t work outside the home. They haven’t really thought it through, they haven’t read any significant history on the subject, but they’ve picked up a little mainstream right-wing nostalgia, and–we only know what we know.
Snapes abuses make more sense if you adopt a view of wizards as aristocrats. You must be born into the wizard world. Brains and hard work can only take you so far. If you really want to succeed you need to be powerful, and that’s inborn.
Also, rowling wants snape to be a bad guy so she has to show him doing bad things. It’s a kids book, much of it is over done and only partly worked out.
“I was thinking, literally, that Snape is always better-done-by in fanfic than in the books.”
If you were to be more specific about what kind of fanfic, I could agree with you. But there’s far too many badly-written works in which Snape bears little resemblance to any reasonable interpretation of the books for me to agree. And yes, all fanfic is “different books” in the sense that it explores issues/characters/ideas which aren’t addressed in the books because JKR is writing a coming-of-age tale which centers on Harry and features an interesting but less important supporting cast. That’s all well and good, but I don’t think any of this means that book-Snape is flat or poorly developed. As someone who’s been in the HP fandom for years, I question why Snape has probably been the most-analyzed character in the series if he’s as flat as you say in the books. There’s saying “more could have been done with this” and then there’s criticizing the author for not making a secondary character the main protagonist.
“SPOILER ALERT” ALERT:
No, no real spoilers here, only conjecture. But allegedly the text of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows is now available (illegally) via Bitstorm. While I’ve been an active trader in HP 7 speculation here and elsewhere, for me the betting window is now closed. Here is my final wager (most of which were previously posted on Amptoons):
A. While the book will be called HP and the Deathly Hollows, Hewlett-Packard products will play only a minor role in the plot. By all that is good and right and true, the book should have been released on 07/07/07. By all that is bad and petty and lucrative, Warner Bros. decided to release the next HP movie around that time, so commercial concerns dictate the book release date had to change. Purgatory will provide CEO Barry Meyer ample time to ponder the wisdom of this decision.
B. Harry returns to Privet Drive for his last summer, but the Dursleys are so totally pissed with him that they turn the place into a virtual prison. Death Eaters attack, but facing a combination of debilitating magic and “Home Alone”-style booby-traps designed for Harry’s benefit, they will be routed. But when it appears that Dudley is in peril, Petunia will fire off a magical blast or two, finally revealing the long-suppressed secret that Lily was not the only magical person in her family. While Rowling has already nixed the idea that Petunia is magical, Rowling is simply in denial.
C. Harry sneaks into the headmaster’s office and steals the mural of Dumbledore, thereby gaining a means for communicating with him. At some point the mural will be destroyed, leaving Harry (and the rest of the world) guideless.
D. Hagrid and Mde Maxime get at least some giants to side with the good guys. Ditto the centaur. Ditto Lupin and the were-critters. Maybe Bill helps Lupin; maybe he rallies support among dragons. Ditto Hermione (and Dobbie) and the house-elves, who launch into noble acts of betrayal and self-mutilation. And the merpeople don’t need any persuading, although I can’t see what good they can do anyone. (Remember Aquaman’s role in the Justice League of America?)
E. Tonks will permit herself to be bitten by a werewolf, thereby eliminating Lupin’s objection to marrying her. Then it will be revealed that Lupin is gay. Just kidding.
F. Dumbledore has hidden Ollivander to keep him out of Voldemort’s clutches, and to supply wands to the legions of house-elves that currently lack them.
G. Snape is a good guy. Snape broke w/ Voldemort when Voldemort killed the secret love of his life, Lily. Harry’s connection to both Snape’s love, and to Snape’s rival James, has always left Snape conflicted. (Snape is/was also fond of Dumbledore. Dumbledore had to remind Snape that 1) the highest goal is to stop Voldermort, 2) Snape and Harry are the keys to achieving that goal, and 3) if Snape must kill Dumbledore in order to maintain his undercover status, so be it, even if it meant that Snape would expose himself to attack by his fellow members of the Order of the Phoenix. Snape protested that this was expecting too much from him, but Dumbledore would not hear otherwise.)
H. Wormtail will eventually help Harry, or try to. But Voldemort will cause Wormtail’s silver hand to act independent of Wormtail’s will. At that point, Wormtail will splinch (partially Apperate) himself to get away from his hand; he will be rendered helpless, but he will render the silver hand helpless as well.
I. Minister of Magic Scrimgeour will appear occasionally with the reincarnated Dumbledore. This will scare the Death Eaters, confuse Voldermort (“Could love really be the path to eternal life after all…?”) and give heart to the Order of the Phoenix. It will turn out merely to be Dumbledore’s brother, that grungy Hogsmeade bartender who used to be a member of the Order, but who split with the group. In the interest of truth, Harry will disclose the fraud to Rita Skeeter even though he knows that it will dismay his friends and embolden his enemies.
J. Indeed RAB is Sirius’ brother; indeed he took the locket back to 10 Grimald Pl.; indeed Kreature had the locket in his stash of goodies. But since then Mundungus raided 10 Grimald Pl. to pilfer stuff to sell, including that locket. So Harry will go to Azkaban to rescue Mundungus, only to learn that the locket has been sold to Borgin & Burkes.
K. The Sword of Gryffendor is a horcrux; Voldemort covertly enchanted it during his job interview with Dumbledore. This will be a heartrending discovery for Harry. But Harry will then wield the sword in battle, and the Death Eaters will be loathe to take defensive measures that might harm the sword; this will place them at a disadvantage. Eventually the sword must be destroyed.
L. Is Harry a horcrux? He was. But parts of a soul seek to reunite. Consequently, when Harry’s blood was poured into the cauldron that restored Voldemort’s body, the part of Voldy’s soul in Harry passed back to Voldy. This accounts for Dumbledore’s look of triumph upon hearing this news; there’s one less Horcrux to worry about, and Voldy’s death won’t require destroying Harry. Voldy doesn’t realize this, however, and is therefore supremely confident in any combat with Harry.
M. There’s a shoot-out at Weasley’s Wizarding Weezes. Combatants fumble their wands onto a floor strewn with gag wands. They end up grabbing random wands and gadgets, producing random goofy results. Eventually a bunch of muggle-lovers will demonstrate the muggle way of settling conflicts; they’ll use fists (and maybe marshal arts) against a bunch of dumbfounded Death-Eaters.
N. Molly Weasley betrays the Order of the Phoenix, taking some action (or inaction) that she thinks will keep her family members away from battle. But she fails to anticipate that the ensuring battle will involve Percy. Defying Scrimgior’s orders, Percy joins the fray against the Death-Eaters and is killed. Molly is devastated. All this foreshadows Narcissa’s defiance of Voldemort (below) in an effort to save Draco.
O. Sirius is keeping up on all developments via the magic mirror he gave to Harry. Harry can’t reach Sirius, but Sirius can see and hear Harry on the odd occasions that Harry opens his trunk. The climactic scene of #7 will again occur at the Ministry, when Voldemort is trying to access a locked room said to contain the greatest power known to wizardom; he little realizes it is Love. Anyway, Sirius will lead a charge of spirits from the underworld back through the arch through which he fell. (Or maybe they just send their patroni?) Either way, all of Voldemort’s prey will join in, including James & Lily. They will join with Nearly-Headless Nick and a newly-sober Peeves to route the Bloody Baron and his ilk. In the process, Nick’s head will be fully severed at last.
P. Draco is embraced by the Death Eaters as the hero who disarmed Dumbledore. Narcissa is dumbfounded and relieved, but Voldemort’s abusive treatment of the Malfoys has irretrievably damaged their loyalties. Voldemort can detect this about Narcissa, but years of Snape’s tutelage in occluemency permits Draco the conceal his feelings.
Q. Draco is “the Chosen One.” Lucius and Narcissa have defied Voldemort many times: Lucius parted with the diary. Lucius failed to come immediately when summonsed. Lucius failed to get the prophesy. Narcissa went to discuss Malfoy’s secret assignment with Snape. And desperate to prove himself to Voldemort, Lucius (broken free from Askaban) will ignore the instruction not to fight when Harry wields the Sword of Gryffindor, resulting in the destruction of the horcrux.
R. The Vault of Love at the Ministry of Magic cannot be opened without someone sacrificing his or her life. Voldemort orders Lucius to do it. When Lucius balks, Voldemort threatens to kill Draco. When Lucius balks again, Voldemort aims the Aveda Kadavra at Draco, but Narcissa leaps in the way, sacrificing herself –– as Voldemort knew she would. This sacrifice is sufficient to open the vault. But it is also sufficient to fill Draco with the Potter-like power of Love –– and a motive to bring down Voldemort. Draco enters the vault, gasps with delight, and calls Voldemort to follow. Once inside, Draco will slam the door and embrace Voldemort with his newly-toxic touch. The rest is dénouement.
S. Ron inherits Percy’ Head Boy badge, prompting Ron to reflect on how petty his old dreams were. He offers it to Hermione, who simply adds it to her collection.
T. The final book with grant independent personalities to Crabbe and Goyle, and to Fred and George, perhaps by killing off one of each pair. The final book will also feature appearances by Dolores Umbridge, Victor Krum, Prof. Lockhart, the Sorting Hat, the phoenix, goblins, Gringotts and the underground railroad.
U. Oh yeah, and in the meantime Harry & Co. will attend a wedding, find and destroy all the horcruxes, have a showdown with Voldemort, and find true love. Ginny, echoing the actions of Lily, sacrifices herself to save Harry. Ok, I’m kidding about the Ginny part, too. But it’s gotta be one fat book.
“At least that’s the only way I can explain why…”
I suspect it’s just a failure in world-building.
A brilliant failure. She retained the link between perseverence and success, the journey over the destination. If magic could make the Weasley’s instantly wealthy why should they have turned out different than the Malfoys?
Dumbledore: (paraphrasing) As much life and gold as you could ever want. The very things most of us would trade anything for. Strange how we tend to want most the things that do us the least good.
Christian,
I agree that she had to maintain the wealth issues in order to create the kinds of moral strains that she wanted to create.
It doesn’t make the use of scarcity any more logical.
It doesn’t make the use of scarcity any more logical.
Completely correct. I can accept that it has no logical basis if I have to, but I like things to be logical, so I find myself pondering what rules magic must go by to allow scarcity to exist.
Perhaps after she frees the House elves (or gives up on them) Hermione will point out how illogical scarcity is to the continuing dismay of the (surviving) Malfoys.
And congrats on your good news.
nobody.really, I don’t think it’s really fair to classify Harry Potter as pre-Industrial Revolution idealized agrarian fantasy, though I agree it does draw on some elements of that. But in any case your argument falls down on the grounds that black people were not invented in the 1960s! There has never been a time when every single person in Europe was white. There are characters of colour in Shakespeare. Julius Caesar wrote about POC, as did many other Roman writers. The Greeks didn’t really have a concept of skin-colour based race, just “Greeks” and “barbarians,” but they still mention people whose national origin indicates to a modern audience that they would have been POC. The “historical” excuse for only writing about white people really doesn’t wash.
True, “black people” was not invented in the 1960s, but they became more prominent as usage of terms such as “Africans,” “Negros,” and “Coloreds” declined in usage. :-) But back to Harry Potter:
Some commentors struggle to reconcile the things they observe in the Harry Potter books with reason. I argue that it is a futile (if sometimes fun) exercise because much of the content of the books are driven not by reason but by a desire to conform to certain literary conventions. To be sure, Rowling is combining a number of conventions. As noted above, she has conformed to many fantasy conventions. But she is also writing in the British boarding school genre, in which children are removed from their parents and left to contend for themselves, forming alliances and rivalries with fellow students and teachers, with occasional guidance from the fatherly headmaster. Because we can’t know which conventions she will adopt at any given moment, or whether she will flout them all, making the books exciting on a number of levels. (Most notably, we can’t know if Rowling is going to follow the “Father knows best” convention.)
Just to clarify: when I talk about “a yearning for an idealized agrarian life of the pre-Industrial Revolution European (typically English) country squire,” I mean a yearning arising after the Industrial Revolution that evokes nostalgia for life in the idealized Middle Ages. While we have records of fantastic stories from pretty much any era, it is not clear whether the authors would expect their audience to believed the stories. But starting as early as the writings of George MacDonald (1824 – 1905), we find the popularization of fantasy stories written for an audience that is not expected to believe in magic or monsters. I think of this as the birth of modern fantasy.
I don’t doubt that Europe has been home to some people of color from time immemorial. In reality, I am aware of Africans in England as early as the 1550s. In reality, I’m aware of gunpowder in Europe dating back to the 1200s. In reality, if we sentenced contemporary prisoners to live the life of medieval royalty, they’d sue for being subjected to cruel and unusual punishment. If fantasy books were based on the reality of life in mediaeval Europe, they’d be scarcely recognizable as fantasy books. Reality has almost nothing to do with it; that’s the nature of nostalgia.
Pingback: Comment on Review: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix … by fashion.ZapiZapi.com