Quidditch? This is the least of the HP franchise's faults!
Firstly, let me say that I have read the first one since my last rant on the subject here in OT.
Secondly...Bravo, bravo, bravo.
The plain truth about Harry Potter is (and yes, I'm repeating myself from earlier in the year):
- It's poor literature. Doesn't matter that it is for kids, they deserve intelligent, profound, well constructed writing also. (See Kipling's 'The Jungle Book', Roald Dahl's books and next point).
- It's a gross rip off of a classic children's novel called "The Wizard of Earthsea" by Ursula Leguin.
SpoilerSynopsis of The Wizard of Earthsea :
The hero, Ged, born with the name Duny, learns magic tricks from his aunt, the town witch, who sees in him the possibility of great power. When his home island of Gont is attacked by the vicious Kargs, Duny casts a simple fog spell which enshrouds the village, hiding the villagers from the enemies and saving the village from certain massacre. Word of this deed spreads to Ogion, the great mage of Re Albi. Ogion comes to Duny's village, gives Duny his "true" name -- Ged, and takes Ged to be his "prentice." Ged, called Sparrowhawk, learns much about magic, but he wants to learn more -- the fun stuff! Ogion allows his prentice to choose between staying at Re Albi or journeying to the isle of Roke. Ged opts for the opportunity of the Isle of Mages and goes to Roke with a message from Ogion dubbing Ged "one who will be greatest of the wizards of Gont" (p. 36).
Ged learns much and proves to have great power. As all of the students do, Ged travels to the Master Namer where he lives for a year learning the names of everything. Though bored, Ged knows the importance of learning the names, the true names of everything. For when one has knowledge of the true name, the name of making of a person or an object, he has power over it.
After Ged returns to the Great House, he challenges his arch-rival Jasper to a forbidden and ill-advised duel of magery. Ged knows he should not invoke this battle of power, but pride overwhelms reason. Ged uses his power, which he has not learned to control, to call a spirit from the dead. He succeeds in this evil spellweaving, but along with the spirit comes a black mass which attacks Ged, scarring him for life. Ged hovers between life and death while the nameless evil shadow roams Earthsea. Ged finally recovers and receives his yew staff, embodying his achievement of magehood.
The mage Sparrowhawk is sent to Low Torning to prepare for the imminent coming of the brood of dragons newly spawned. Ged becomes friends with a boat-maker named Pechvarry. Pechvarry's son grows ill, and the boy's parents beseech Ged to save the youngster's life. The boy is dying. Ged chases the boy's fleeing spirit into the Land of the Dead. He cannot save the boy. Turning to leave the dark place, Ged encounters the evil shadow that he loosed. It stands on the side of the living while Ged is on the side of the dead. Using his power, Ged is able to return to the land of the living; however, seeing his nemesis, Ged realizes that the shadow means to take over his body and his power.
He knows he cannot stay, but, before leaving, he feels he must fulfill his duty of ridding the island of the threat of dragons. Ged sails to the island of Pendor, kills some of the dragons, and bargains with the old dragon. Ged guesses the name of the old dragon and thus has power over him. Under duress the dragon agrees that he and his brood will not attack the islands to the east. This done, Ged, now a dragonlord because he has spoken with dragons, begins his journey to escape the un-named terror of the shadow. After many narrow escapes, Ged flees wearily to Ogion, his mentor on Gont. Ogion advises Ged to turn the tables on the shadow: he must be the hunter, not the hunted. Ged and Vetch, an old friend from Roke, sail to find the shadow. Ged, who has realized the responsibility he has acquired by loosing the evil, "It is my creature" (p. 160), finds it; and able to name it with his own name, Ged, comes to terms with it -- with himself. For the shadow was merely him, his own dark side. This journey was necessary because without it he was incomplete. Without his shadow, he lacked the Balance, the Equilibrium. He was not whole.
This first book of the series exemplifies the beliefs of the Taoist philosophy around which Earthsea revolves. At the end of the novel, Ged embodies the Taoist way. The first principle of the Tao Te Ching is the theory of inactivity which means that people should only act when necessary. Ged learns through his mistakes and the teachings of the Masters that magic should not be used for fun. It serves a purpose and should only be used when it is needed, not because someone wants to see a trick. Ged did not learn this lesson from his master Ogion, who rarely used his magic. Instead of realizing that Ogion was concerned about the Balance, the Equilibrium, Ged found himself irritated that Ogion would let it rain on them rather than turning the storm aside (p. 18). The second principle, the relativity of opposites, is the basis of the stability of Earthsea. In Taoist thought this principle, that opposites are dependent upon each other (light and dark, good and evil) is symbolized by yin and yang, the circle containing black and white swirls which originate from each other and then end in each other. This is the Equilibrium that Ogion as well as the Masters of Roke try to teach Ged. The Master Hand explains the concept of balance: "To light a candle is to cast a shadow..." (p. 44).
By the end of the book, Ged has come of age. Through the choices he makes, Ged proves that he is gaining maturity. Twice, individuals give Ged quick-fix solutions to his problem of the shadow. The first time he is tempted with the name of the shadow is when he finds the dragon. Yevaud, the dragon, informs Ged that he will give Ged the name of the shadow if Ged will release him to be free to attack the islands of the east at will. Ged, rather than endanger the inhabitants of those islands, refuses the enticing offer. Another time, the Lady Serret presents him with the opportunity to ask the Stone of Terrenon for the name of the shadow. Once again, Ged declines an opportunity to learn the name of his nemesis, showing that he is becoming more mature.
If you have ever read this book by Leguin you will be very hard pushed to find any respect for J.K.Rowling. In fact I challenge any big HP fan to read this book and maintain their love of the series.
- It's a very shoddy example of how to do pastiche in literature. It's postmodern literature at a particularly low point. She wantonly and gratuitously picks out mythic elements from around the world, particularly Greek mythology, and just slaps it all together to suit as she wishes. Quite out of context and depriving them of meaning (See Cerberus in the dungeons). She does it a way which neither leads the young reader to the original meaning of such creatures, nor does she make them any greater for it. She is not even paying homage to these sources, a common element of pastiche.
- It's introducing kids to the whole 'falling for the hype' experience. This means an encouraged appetite for merchandise, following of the movies according to marketeers wishes and generally consuming physical (not intellectual) objects more. Hoorah for capitalism and youth consumerism!!
I can almost hear the HP rabble crying out now "But they are encouraging kids to read". Great. But what kind of literature??????
You are free to rant more when it is of this quality, my friend!
Funnily enough, Rowling has also been accused to plagiarize Diana Wynne Jones:
My first impression was that Rowling was a plagiarist, who borrowed almost everything in her fictional world from the work of a much better English children's writer, Diana Wynne Jones. If you haven't read Jones's books, you should. She's been around for a long time, writing very well in a genre which, until Harry came along, got no respect at all. Jones's books mix a magical world with the world of the middle-class English suburbs. This of course is the whole premise of the Potter books. But there are resemblances in the details of plot and character as well. Consider Jones's 1975 novel, Eight Days of Luke. The story here is that a lonely English schoolboy accidentally releases Loki, Norse god of mischief, from eternal torment. The grateful Loki becomes the hero's friend, which is a bit of a mixed blessing, since Loki (one of Jones' most delightful characters) is a wholly amoral pyromaniac who favors radical solutions to banal problems, as when he sets a shopping mall on fire to relieve the hero's boredom.
Eight Days of Luke begins when David, the hero, returns from boarding school. David is an orphan being raised by his Great Aunt and Uncle, who are despicable, whining, begrudging, dimwitted hypocrites. (Like many British women writers, Jones is at her best depicting the everyday horribleness of respectable people.) David's relations ignore him while fawning over their fat, spoiled whingeing son, who bullies David with their full support. This regrettable state of affairs changes, as you might imagine, with the arrival of Loki. At the end of the novel, with David saved by his magical new friend, we learn that his relations have been keeping his inheritance from him and embezzling its income for their own ends. They flee, and David comes into his own.
And now, the plot of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. Harry Potter, an orphan, is being raised by his horrible aunt and uncle, who exemplify suburban stodginess and meanness. They force Harry to live in a closet under the stairs (Rowling tends to overdo things a bit), incessantly scold and belittle him, and fawn on their son, a fat, spoiled, whingeing brat who torments Harry with impunity. Harry's salvation comes when he is taken up by magical friends and summoned to a magical boarding school, learning in the process that his relatives have been keeping his fortune from him.
The Potter books borrow heavily from several Jones novels. Harry Potter acquires a hulking, magical biker bodyguard who bears a troubling resemblance to the Goon in Jones' 1965 novel, Archer's Goon. Harry Potter learns of the powers of dragon's blood as an ingredient in magic potionsas did Cat, the hero of Jones's novel Charmed Life. Like the first Potter novel, Charmed Life (1977) deals with a pubescent orphan's adventures at a magical boarding school.
Well, he has to live up to his status as the Bertie Wooster of the board.
It is people like him that makes me realize that the suggestion of obligatory shop classes in high schools is a wise one.
@ Luceafarul: Thank you kindly for telling us about Diana Wynne Jones. Your extract and the further article does indeed lead one to the all too familiar conclusion about JKR: She's a plagiarist and not a very good one at that. Now we have another string to our HP bashing bow.
Except that this isn't a temporary repeal of rights. The Wizarding world has been under the secrecy ban since the 16th-17th century. That ban necessitated the "shoot first ask questions later" system of justice that is so prevalent. Not to mention that the Ministry is trying to uphold order among a heavily armed population. The wizarding "police" such as they are have absolutely no technological advantage over the criminals and the general population.
With that in mind it's easy to see why Crouch Sr. was willing to cut a deal with Malfoy despite his obvious guilt. The Ministry can't afford outright war. Heck, they haven't trained an Auror since Tonks graduated (in other words, since Voldemort fell).
Ah yes, that reminds me: How the bleep has the wizarding world not collapsed in all that time?
And a few more gripes I have, starting from that:
1) Why so ignorant of modern law/justice/policing,
2) why not use guns, which can't be counter-spelled, (yes, wizards do know about guns)
3) why does all technology mysteriously fail around wizards*,
4) why so much archaic stupidity in general, and
5) why has the wizarding world never been revealed in the least? Remember: the Prime Minister is always in the know, magic was well known in the Middle Ages (unless Rowling is quietly altering history in a rather dishonest way), and cameras are commonplace.
In short, Rowling's invocation of "A wizard did it!" breaks the Tooth Fairy Rule a hundred times over.
*My friend Martin, a world-builder DM, has a possible scenario here: Magic and wizards generate flux (fields), while scientists and technology have a high level of precision and therefore generate precision fields. These are opposed to one another.
Thus, advanced technology will go haywire in the presence of magic, but if you cast a spell at Thomas Edison, it would fizzle. Unfortunately, this is not true in the HP setting. Rather, wizards pwnage Muggles for no good reason.
For a much better take on this, read the Coldfire trilogy by CS Friedman.
the fact she has written the same book aventually seven times- its the same damn story every book!
also the fact harry potter looks like such a dork.
and why all kids dressing up as him insist on having brocken glasses, even tho he only has broken glasses for about 5 minutes of film, or 3 chapters of the first book.
I categorically refuse to ever read a Harry Potter book or see any of the movies, because I refuse to be a robot who likes whatever the media orders him to like.
I read 50 pages of a Harry Potter book over the weekend, just in case I was wrong about them. Turned out I was right, I really didn't like it. I did learn that a deatheater wasn't a type of plant, so at least I did gain something.
Well since no-one else is doing it, it looks like I'll have to assume the mantle of Harry Potter fan-boy for this thread.
I read that essay you posted, luceafarul, it is really obviously biased against HP.
First it says that HP is too similar to Diana Jones' novels:
My first impression was that Rowling was a plagiarist, who borrowed almost everything in her fictional world from the work of a much better English children's writer, Diana Wynne Jones
She (Diana Wynne Jones) teases out the implications of her magics in a way Rowling doesn't even want to do. For example, in Charmed Life, the hero, after hearing about the power of dragon's blood, actually meets a baby dragon orphaned by poachers. And the baby dragon is...not cute. Not cuddly. It hypnotizes and wants to eat anyonewho comes within range. But it's a delightful character anyway, wholly beyond suburban morality.
Its okay to say that one book is better than another, and also to say that one book is copied from another, but to say that one book is bad becuase it copies another, and then go on to suggest that it would have been better if it were more like that book is just bleh.
That's the biggest difference, really: Jones has heart, and doesn't love every pustulant tradition of the Eton- or Rugby-style English Public School; Rowling, unfortunately, thinks that horrific world of cold baths, bad food, terrorizing prefect and homosexual rape is just dandy.
Well, HP is fantasy, meaning that its not supposed to be realistic. Rowling romantises it into a fantasy, whereas Di Jones obviously aims for a more realistic portrayal. This is simply two different spins on a similar premise, and it doesn't make one any better than the other.
Another particular thing that I noticed:
when there is evil, it comes from sly, brainy foreigners like the wizard Voldemort
Voldemort was born and raised in England, and he attended Hogwarts.
Finally a quick word on the HP phenomena in general: I think the hype and marketing for this particular set of books is overblown, but that does not mean that their is not a good book hidden beneath all the hype. It is not as good as the media machine would have you believe, but they are still very good books. The thing that saddens me most is that no other book series seems to get the same attention as Hary Potter, becuase their are certainly other books worthy of media attention.
BTW Ram, I will try to read Wizard of Earthsea, if its similar to HP I'll probably like it.
Too much individual heroism. Take the Quinditch game for example, throwing the ball through the hoop is worth 10 points, but catching the snitch is worth 150 points and ends the game. I dont even understand why the other players other than the Seeker even bother to play, because their performances in fact, dont really matter. It is a one man game.
Not to mention that broomstick riding and wand waving are somewhat laughable actions.
Most good libraries have a copy in the kids section in England. If they don't, you can request they get it from another branch or actual purchase a copy themselves. They will be grateful for your interest and impressed with your good knowledge and taste .
Otherwise there are very cheap copies online and even in dusty old bookstores (a good place for eager young readers to hang out). This is where I got mine and it only cost me 20p. The illustrations are great too!
That is highly likely. You'll see how HP can be done - and note Leguin didn't have to roll out 7 books to make the point and story work. There are also all sorts of great undertones and subtexts to the book which I would be happy to discuss on PM or a thread.
It's probably also necessary to point out some factual errors in the earlier posts.
First:
Harry's salvation comes when he is taken up by magical friends and summoned to a magical boarding school, learning in the process that his relatives have been keeping his fortune from him.
This is simply not true; they remain wholly unaware of his fortune for at least the first five books. However, it seems the essay author was rather predisposed to dislike Philosopher's Stone in the first place due to the attendant hype.
Rowling, unfortunately, thinks that horrific world of cold baths, bad food, terrorizing prefect and homosexual rape is just dandy
I challenge anyone to read the descriptions of Hogwarts in the books and pinpoint where exactly any of the above occurs other than one or two lone instances of Malfoy abusing his prefect power. Seeing as he's not exactly the hero of the story, that's hardly a recommendation.
For example: brains are dangerous. Better to be brave and good at sport.
Funny, you'd think Hermione didn't figure in the books at all.
The headmaster is the very British Professor Dumbledore, who is "particularly famous for his defeat of the dark wizard Grindewald in 1945"; when there is evil, it comes from sly, brainy foreigners like the wizard Voldemort
Voldemort isn't a foreigner ( sorry, I overlooked Darth_Pugwash pointing this out)
Now people here have thrown the word 'plagiarism' around rather easily. In the only case where this actually went to court, the plaintiff turned out to have forged her own papers. Rowling's books clearly have a setting, maybe even some themes in common with a range of other books, but that's inspiration, not plagiarism. I read the summary of the LeGuin novel and it reminded me in no way of HP other than some superficial common themes. But then I'd argue there's a lot of literature, particularly English, that has similar themes and settings (the maltreated orphan, the boarding school, even magic).
It's never quite clear enough to take to court. Rowling doesn't quite plagiarize Jones; Rowling isn't a bad writer. It's just sad to see the lesser writer swimming in fame, money and adulation while Jones, who's been writing wonderful novels for almost forty years, remains a name known mostly to children's librarians. It raises a question which has no happy answer: was it just random—did Rowling just happen to come along at the right moment? Or is she more successful BECAUSE she's not as good as Jones?
And here's the rub: maybe Jones is a better writer, I wouldn't know. But the root of the essay is clearly spite and envy at the success Rowling has enjoyed. Can we blame Rowling and her books for the fame and money she made ? I think not - all she did was write the books. Is she herself responsible for all the hype ? I doubt it. Because this requires believing that children would queue up at midnight at a bookstore for 700+ pages of trash on multiple occasions purely due to 'capitalist-inspired youth consumerism'
without there being some redeeming feature in all of these books to justify that.
HP isn't great literature (Diana Wynne Jones is much better, and Ursula LeGuin is a genius), but it's not terrible, either. It's got a whole lot of creativity in the details, and it has a lot of very good humor, for which I'll forgive much. (For all her virtues, LeGuin wouldn't know funny if it bit her on the toe.)
And some of these essays and comments ... they're as bad as the Christian attacks -- clearly made by people who either haven't read the books or who haven't bothered to read for comprehension or remember anything that contradicts their biases.
But then I'd argue there's a lot of literature, particularly English, that has similar themes and settings (the maltreated orphan, the boarding school, even magic).
Precisely. If one is to accuse Rowling of being derivative of anything, I would think it would be the works of Roald Dahl, who created the modern version of the orphan-hero story. In fact, Oliver Twist is pretty darn similar too. Bottom line: the idea of an orphan with special powers at the intersection of two worlds, abused in one and a newcomer to the other, is one of the basic stories of mankind. Of course Rowling's basic plot isn't original in this regard! And of course, being squarely in the English tradition of children's literature, certain formal traditions will be common with other works. If Harry Potter's environment is in some ways similar to that described by Wynne Jones, or E. Nesbitt, or Mary Norton, then that is only because they are all in the same tradition. Heck, one of the things that makes Harry Potter so fun and popular is precisely its Englishness-- Americans love English children's literature. As for being unrealistic or romantic, I have to say that Rowling is far less of an offender in this regard than Enid Blyton, who is yet considered an original and well-loved author. People say the HP kids are goody-two-shoes, try looking at the Famous Five, or the children in Mr Pinkwhistle. Harry Potter is a certain kind of book that has been done many times before; I would argue that its rich detail and humour set it apart as a work of original merit.
As for the accusation of pastiche, I won't deny that some of this goes on, particularly with the various magical beasts. However, I would suggest that this is a reflection of our culture instead of any lack of imagination on Rowling's part. She clearly wants the world of wizards to appear familiar in many ways-- "they're just like us" is a common phrase uttered by young HP fans. As such, she draws on several already existing mythological traditions that have entered into the Western milieu, and doesn't bother to differentiate them much. Our culture is a melting pot already, which I agree is a negative thing. But the point is, if Rowling didn't include things like centaurs and phoenixes and giants, the readers would probably wonder where they were. The familiar mythology is a hodgepodge synthesis, and Rowling is aiming for familiarity.
Sorry, I'm not buying it. Either give plausible ("hard") explanations, or give no explanations. But not the half-serious jokes that only serve as (semi-racist) jibes at Muggles.
1) Why so ignorant of modern law/justice/policing,
2) why not use guns, which can't be counter-spelled, (yes, wizards do know about guns)
3) why does all technology mysteriously fail around wizards*,
4) why so much archaic stupidity in general, and
5) why has the wizarding world never been revealed in the least? Remember: the Prime Minister is always in the know, magic was well known in the Middle Ages (unless Rowling is quietly altering history in a rather dishonest way), and cameras are commonplace.
1) Small minorities whose way of life is threatened are necessarily extremely conservative. Also, technology isn't as useful for wizards, because it doesn't work properly or can be got around with spells.
2) Feelings of superiority. Guns would probably be a banned weapon if any wizards started using them, anyhow. See number 1.
3) No idea. This is one of the weakest points-- for example, wristwatches and cameras still work at Hogwarts, while stereos apparently do not. I'm willing to suspend disbelief on this point.
4) This is likely due to the fact that no wizard possesses formal education in any non-magical field except elementary education to the age of 11. You'd think they'd still care about real-world fields like science, literature, and philosophy, but wizards don't seem to feel that these are valuable subjects. They certainly don't have universities. This likely also explains the fact that where the wizarding world is democratic, it is so only in the mediaeval Germanic sense-- they haven't had any political theorists to develop more enlightened theories, so they gather like Norsemen or Anglo-Saxons in prestige-based councils (even the etymology of the "Wizengemot" gives this away).
5) Mediaevals were ignorant about magic, being ignorant in general, so it was easy for wizards to camouflage themselves amidst all the simple superstitions. Moderns are too incredulous, and would prefer to assume a rational, materialist explanation for any magic they saw. There have only been Prime Ministers since 1700 or so, and as Scrimgeour notes, nobody would believe them if they revealed the truth. Nobody listens to Canada's deputy PM babble about alien visits, do they?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
And the contest for Upper Class Twit of the Year is just getting tougher and tougher for every other thread...
to you
.
