Posted by Robert Hill on September 29, 2003 at 01:59:50 from 195.92.168.165 user eclrh.
In Reply to: Re: Harry Potter posted by Jonathan Labaree on September 28, 2003 at 11:54:15:
As a Potter fan (Harry, not Beatrix), I'd like to comment on some of the points that have been made about the series. I'll post a separate message later on the changes between the UK and US editions.
First of all, the Harold Bloom allegation about characters being frequently described as stretching their legs is not true. I've read all the books several times and I have no particular recollection of the phrase being used at all. An authoritative Potter website, The Leaky Cauldron, checked and found that it occurs just once in the first book, in which Bloom claimed to have found it numerous times.
It's certainly true that Rowling is not a great prose stylist, or at least, if she has that capacity, she has so far shown it in relatively few places in each book. But many books that last, and give entertainment to generations, do not rate high on style. Consider Agatha Christie, say, or Sherlock Holmes (with the possible exception of The Hound of the Baskervilles, which according to one theory was largely written by a friend of Conan Doyle).
Rowling doesn't create a sense of place as Ransome does. But there are other things she does that he doesn't attempt. The Potter series is a very elaborate structure in a way not visible to casual readers, or to those who have only read one or two books of the series. What seems to be a throwaway line in an earlier book often turns out in a later book to have been a vital clue. There are allusions between one book and another that you only spot when you read the series carefully for the third or fourth time.
Take for example the character of Ron. His serious attempts to guess what is going on are usually wrong, but his jokes often turn out to contain a glimpse of the truth.
There's a Dickens-like range of characters with a Dickens-like range of names. One of the many ways in which the series can be educational for youngsters (or adults) is by investigating the origins of the names, which often tell you something about the character.
As the series progresses the language becomes more complex. Maybe that happens with Ransome; it happens far more strongly with Rowling. The moral universe that the characters inhabit also becomes more complex. The first two books have largely straightforward endings with good achieving at least an interim triumph over evil. The third book ends with justice not done but at least the characters surviving and the hope of justice in the future. The fourth book ends with a death and a climate of fear and foreboding. In the fifth book Harry's world is turned upside down: many people he looked up to turn out to have feet of clay, and a much-loved character dies. The thoughtful reader is left pondering some of the actions of the "good" characters - will they seem less admirable in the next book?
Many of the characters seem like mere caricatures when first introduced, but they are developed in later books. There are inconsistencies over dates and numbers, but characterisation is always consistent and expressed by seemingly small clues in speech and behaviour (Rowling's favourite author is Jane Austen).
I'll be generous and not pursue the idea that some of the denigration of the series arises from jealousy over its commercial success. A related aspect is an understandable distaste for the commercialisation. But the first two books at least made their name by word of mouth before there was any hype. At the time Rowling signed the film deal, she felt she did not have the power to prevent the merchandising.
The worst feature of all about the merchandising and hype is that it is aimed at smallish children, blinding adults to the virtues of the books.
The allegations of grammatical errors are much overblown. For example, the first paragraph of the latest book contains the clause "the use of hosepipes had been banned due to drought". Within a few days of publication, a letter appeared appeared in the Guardian complaining that it should have been "owing to drought". What I find much more interesting about the quoted words is that they are probably a hidden allusion to events later in the book, when Harry describes a character prone to bursting into tears as a "human hosepipe".
The books also make me laugh a lot.
Sorry this is so long.