Critics and Harry Potter. Again.

[pegkerr]

Very interesting post from Prof. John Granger (http://hogwartsprofessor.com, syndicated at hogwartspro) here about Harold Bloom's (and other literary critics, e.g. A.S. Byatt's) continual rants against the Harry Potter books. Granger gamely attempts to answer the question of why Harold Bloom waxes so wroth on this particular subject and finds it rather uphill work. You may remember my addressing this topic earlier when Order of the Phoenix came out (And now let the sneering begin. . .) I've read a couple of Professor Granger's books, and although I tend to disagree with his conclusion that almost everything in the HP books essentially boils down to Christianity, he has certainly made some intriguing and original observations, and I have particularly appreciated his insight into the alchemical references in the books. (David Lenander, I keep meaning to point you toward his books; I think you would be particularly intrigued by his thoughtful discussion comparing Rowling to the Inklings).

Edited to add: Hmm. That syndicated feed doesn't seem to be updating properly.

Comments

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

I don't share either your passion for the Potter books, nor Bloom's disdain for them. I read the first one, thought it to be (at best) average, and have had no inclination to read any of the others. Like Bloom, I believe there are far better YA fantasies out there; unlike Bloom, I don't think the popularity of the series is the death knell of literacy. I'd much rather have kids reading Harry Potter than not reading at all. But neither you, nor Bloom, nor I will get to decide whether the Potter books become 'classics' or 'forgotten.' That's up to future generations. There are a lot of forgotten YA series out there that were wildly popular at one time... and others that are still read.

Gotta admit, though, that I find the 'polarization' on the issue interesting. Many of the comments to your linked post seemed to me as rabidly rigid, blind, and froth-mouthed as Bloom, only on the other side. Bloom seems unable to discover any good qualities in the HP books; the majority of your respondents seemed equally unable to admit to any defects.

It's hardly surprising, though, that literary critics finds a popular fantasy series to be contemptible -- that's the general view of academics toward 'popular' fiction, and it doesn't surprise me to see Bloom repeating the party line. Believe me, I know: I write science fiction and fantasy and work in academia, and I've seen the sideways glances of disdain the 'real' writers give me when I mention what I write and how much I've published.

[psychic-serpent.livejournal.com]

I've had problems with a couple of syndicated feeds. I had to unsubscribe from Henry Jenkins' feed because one day I couldn't read the rest of my flist without going back ten pages at a time on the list; for some reason every post he'd ever made was suddenly posted with the date of the day on which I was trying to read my flist (and this happened more than once). I haven't unsubbed from Neil Gaiman's feed but this happened recently on his as well--a whole bunch of posts that I'd read before March 1 were all showing up on my flist with that date last week. (Not as many as on Jenkins' feed, though.)

Anyway, I feel sorry for such people as Bloom and Byatt, because they don't know what they're missing and don't care. To dismiss the HP books the way they do isn't adequately described by myopic. They are completely and willfully missing the wealth of detail in what she does, the intricate structure and the many layers of meaning that she enmeshes in the books. They complain (Byatt does, at any rate) that the books aren't "numinous" enough, but how on earth would she know when all she does is skate on the surface? Even more annoying, they seem to be slamming the series just because it is popular, which reeks of sour grapes big time. (As does insulting the people who choose to read the series.) It IS possible for something to be popular and speak to a lot of people AND contain the deeper meanings and subtexts that they claim it does not.

I agree about not thinking that everything in HP boils down to Christianity as well. While she draws some of her symbols from Christian lore and tradition, she borrows from many other traditions as well, and her underlying ethos is not something that can be characterized as chiefly Christian. I think the importance of the alchemical references is overblown, though; there are also abundant patterns relating to the Tarot Major Arcana, to celestial phenomena (especially her celestial names) and other systems. Alchemy is just a part of the whole, IMO, and a relatively minor part, not the single underlying "key" to understanding the whole shebang.

[eal.livejournal.com]

Eh, ignore old Harold. Most everyone else does (at least in academic circles).

[handworn.livejournal.com]

It's like the Catholic Church saying that because it's universal and encompasses all things, all things human are perforce necessarily also linked to it. The central flaw is that those parts of Harry Potter which are like the story of Christ-- the willing sacrifice of one's life for others, for example-- are simply not unique to Christianity.

Perhaps you can tell me about the same thing as applied to the Narnia books. They're also said to be deliberately a Christian parallel, in the same vein as Granger's idea about HP, but the only part I can remember that was that way was Aslan's deliberate surrender to his enemies to be killed, and subsequent resurrection. Which always struck me as mysterious and not well connected to events before or after that. But it's been too long; was there more in the Narnia stories that supported that idea than that?

[rysmiel.livejournal.com]

Much of his weirdness comes from being a quarter fictitious, on his grandfather Leopold's side.

[sleigh.livejournal.com]

Lewis himself supports it...

From his book Other Worlds and talking about the Narnia series: "At first there wasn’t anything Christian about them; that element pushed itself in of its own accord.”

And from a letter to a friend, speaking about Aslan: "In reality, however, he is an invention giving an imaginary answer to the question, ‘What might Christ become like if there really were a world like Narnia, and He chose to be incarnate and die and rise again in that world as He actually has done in ours?"

(quotes via Wikipedia)

[handworn.livejournal.com]

Oh, I saw that...I just meant, was there anything actually Christian-like in the books besides the sacrifice? (And, I suppose, besides the fact that Aslan was said to be the son of the Emperor-Across-The-Sea, a/k/a God.)

[ceelee.livejournal.com]

Good grief! Please, don't tell me the HP books have a Christian theme. Must Christianity be brought into every thing? I can't imagine JKR going along with this line of thought.

Sorcerer's Stone

[pegkerr.livejournal.com]

That was pretty close to my reaction to Book 1: I have three personal friends who've written a similar story better. However, it was less than three pages into Chamber of Secrets when I was overwhelmed with the sense that there was so very much more to the story than was visible from the first one. Layers and textures and partly just experience writing more words. I am still amazed as tiny details from the first book show up with significance in each of the next five (and we have only one more to go). She was planting things very deeply for later ripening.

I would recommend that some time when you're casting about for the next reading project you pick up the second one for a chapter or two and see if you don't have a similar reaction. The good news is you don't have to wait ten years for the ending if you do like it like many of the rest of us did. The final one will be out in July.

I still think the first is the weakest. Majority probably picks the third as their favorite. I have a much higher impression of the series as a whole than I did of the first one as a stand alone.

Rob

[zwol.livejournal.com]

If memory serves, the allegory becomes more and more obvious as one goes on through the books, but I do not remember clearly enough to give specific examples -- the only thing that's coming to mind is the bit at the very end of The Last Battle where Aslan reassures the Calormene that he will count good deeds done in Tash's name (Tash having just proved to be a false god) as if they had been done in Aslan's name. And I'm pretty sure that's not orthodox Christianity. So, um.

[zwol.livejournal.com]

Perhaps I am reading too much into that bit, but it seems like atheism is the only reason the good Professor can conceive for not liking everything CS Lewis ever wrote. Hi, this is me, I'm calling from the excluded middle. *peeved*