JKR is a TERF with terrible writing skills and worldbuilding. The idea of a comfy, cozy british castle where you could fulfill your magical dreams and get sorted into a house is an incredibly fun self-insert universe, just like Pokemon, Star Trek, etc.
The idea of a comfy, cozy british castle where you could fulfill your magical dreams and get sorted into a house is an incredibly fun self-insert universe, just like Pokemon, Star Trek, etc.
Which makes her a great childrenās book author. Her world building did exactly what it was supposed to do: encourage imagination.
Her political/social views and appeal to adult audiences are irrelevant. I think sheās a fantastic childrenās book author because she did the thing thatās most important: get kids to read.
Her political/social views and appeal to adult audiences are irrelevant. I think sheās a fantastic childrenās book author because she did the thing thatās most important: get kids to read.
She weaves her awful views into her books, though, from racist caricatures of Jewish People represented by the Goblin Bankers, to the anti-labor organizing section of the books with the odd Hermoine/Elf revolt. Itās entirely relevant.
The world has exciting and fantastical properties, yes, and she did get children to read, absolutely. However, you cannot unti her views from how they were woven into her works.
racist caricatures of Jewish People represented by the Goblin Bankers
Projecting much? She doesnāt make any ties to Jewish people in her portrayal of goblins. I honestly donāt see how anyone could get this impression w/o actively looking for reasons to dislike JK Rowling.
Rowlingās goblins come from European folklore. Hereās a Reddit post about it, or you can feel free to go down a rabbit hole about European folklore and find a bunch of similarly depicted creatures (brownies, leprechauns, etc) and see how Rowling likely constructed her view of these creatures.
I honestly donāt see any overlap between goblins and Jewish people, any overlap is a stretch by critics IMO.
Hermoine/Elf revolt
I donāt see how itās odd.
Elves were enslaved by exploiting their innate sense of loyalty. Think of something like a dog, who will defend its master even if the master is terrible to it. Or look at humans, where once weāre part of a tribe (however you define that), weāll overlook issues with that tribe and defend it anyway (see: cults, political divide, racial divide, etc).
Rowling is a feminist (at least how she defines it), but her book uses a male protagonist (perhaps for broader appeal?), so she develops Hermoine into a strong, female character. Thatās why she puts this āoddā piece of character development into the story, she wants girls to look up to Hermoine, so she canāt just stay in the background for the whole series. As an outsider, it makes sense for her to attack āinsiderā things, like acceptance of elvish slavery. She could easily have used another opportunity, but HP had already freed one elf two books prior, so Hermoine trying to free more is just an easy way to develop Hermoineās character using information already presented (she needs a way to stand apart from HP) and fits with the whole āoutsiderā thing her character is going for.
I see Harry Potter as having very little social commentary, other than a criticism of government (total ineptness of Ministry of Magic, which I think is a caricature of UK govāt) and a general theme of combating intolerance (Voldemort is bad because heās intolerant, not because heās a murderer). Both of these are great themes for kids, since āadults dumbā and ābullies suckā really resonate with kids.
She uses caricatures as plot devices, not social commentary. Gringotts getting broken into is powerful because itās guarded by a race thatās uniquely positioned to defend gold. Dobby being freed is powerful because itās a complete affront to wizarding world norms and an āoutsiderā solution to a stalemate (elves are intensely loyal, humans are exploitative). Any of her views that make it into the book are more accidental than anything, if not completely fabricated by critics of Rowling.
HP is just a childrenās book, not a social commentary.
whatās wrong? that bigot terf
Americans are schockt that not everything is used to fight a war.
Letās be real.
Rowling started out making a fairly bog standard magical kids book. It was all about the fantasy of being a wizard, and relied on tropes so old they get found in La Brea.
This isnāt a bad thing. Thereās nothing wrong with that kind of kid lit.
But she wasnāt a good writer. She was mid tier at best. So the eventual success of the series got beyond her abilities. While the last book was much better overall than the first few, it still relied on shoddy world building because she had chased sales.
She tried to turn a kidās light fantasy into a YA fatasy-adventure. To an extent, it worked. And I donāt mean that it wasnāt successful, she had a hit on her hands because the idea behind it all was brilliant. It pulled from a long history of British youth fiction, and added in fantasy and magic and a ton of tropes.
But from the perspective of a coherent story in a coherent world, ignoring the success in terms of sales, it was cobbled together without a plan, and it shows. It wasnāt until maybe order of the phoenix that she had a plan for how the story would end, and she had to do a lot of hand waving to make it happen.
Again, thatās okay. Nothing wrong with a bit of light fiction. But, it had cultural impact way beyond its original scope. So it draws the same kind of analysis that something like LOTR does, and it just canāt compare. It barely holds up to comparisons with Narnia, and Narnia at least kept things vague and mystical without trying to get into the mechanisms under the hood.
For whatever reasons, Harry, in the books, long before the movies, resonated with kids. So the series exploded. And now everyone pokes at it like it was ever supposed to be literature, with any serious thought behind it. It was all broad brush strokes on construction paper from the beginning, expecting anything in it to hold up to scrutiny is like expecting politicians to be honest and up front. It is what it is.
To say it more bluntly: That whole story ark was cobbled together by an amateur and is barely hobbling on crumbling crutches. In regards of storytelling and consistency itās one of the most shitty dilettantic book series Iāve ever encountered. And the characters arenāt coming alive, they are just bland and boring.
Really bad books.
I always say - to defend the series (which doesnāt need too much defending, itās the most successful book series after the old testament > new testament > Quran trilogy). The magic of Harry Potter is that all of the fantasy magic works exactly as well as it needs to right at the moment that itās directly in front of the readers eyes. As you mention, as soon as it leaves the view of the characters in the story, it literally blows up into nonsense. However, as the story is being told the magic used is awesome and just what the plot needs at that exact moment to move along.
as the story is being told the magic used is awesome and just what the plot needs at that exact moment to move along
Thatās bad writing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deus_ex_machina
a plot device whereby a seemingly unsolvable problem in a story is suddenly or abruptly resolved by an unexpected and unlikely occurrence
As the person before me mentioned, scrutinizing the magic expecting it to be high literature is self-defeating. I never said I would defend the story on the merits of its writing, itās a book series written for young adults.
Deus ex machina is egregious when a story that has otherwise been consistent pulls the rug out from under you with a twist that makes no sense. The magic in Harry Potter is consistently inconsistent, as I mentioned it only makes sense when itās directly in front of the readers eyes. It doesnāt just show up as deus ex machina that saves the characters life at the end of the book and leaves the reader feeling betrayed, the reader expects magic to save the day because since page 1 magic has been doing whatever has been conveniently cool to move the plot along in the main characterās favor.
Michael Bay movies arenāt fun to watch because they have airtight plots and intelligent writing. Theyāre fun to watch because there are sparkly things going boom and it looks pretty.
The Harry Potter series is effectively the same thing. A spectacular story thatās fun to experience the first time through.
In both cases, if you think too hard about it, the thin veneer giving the appearance of coherence disappears and youāre left with a logically inconsistent mess.
Itās not going to stop me from watching Independence Day or reading Prisoner of Azkaban again though.
I was about to comment- Harry Potter and the Deus Ex Machina thanks for beating me to it.
I might add Harry Potter and the Order of the Pipe Layers
Thatās bad writing.
Eddie Valiant: You mean you couldāve taken your hand out of that [hand]cuff at any time?
Roger Rabbit: No, not at any time! Only when it was funny!
To be fair, Harry Potter is probably more logically consistent than the Bible is.
Agreed on all points. I view fiction like this the same way I view junkfood TV shows/movies/music/etc. Yeah, itās often brainless, but if you shut your brain off and go with the flow, it can be enjoyable. Just donāt consume too much of it, because then youāll start to actually think itās something more than it really is.
āBut from the perspective of a coherent story in a coherent world, ignoring the success in terms of sales, it was cobbled together without a plan, and it shows. It wasnāt until maybe order of the phoenix that she had a plan for how the story would end, and she had to do a lot of hand waving to make it happen.ā
āBut she wasnāt a good writer. She was mid tier at best. So the eventual success of the series got beyond her abilities. While the last book was much better overall than the first few, it still relied on shoddy world buildingā
Excellent explanation. The first HP book is excellent. It really sucks you in. After book 4, the quality declines and they become slogs to get through.
Letās be real here, she started off just writing a fun story, think nothing of it, and it became a cult. Thereās two ways to go about this; 1) milk it for everything itās worth, or 2) let the fans go apeshit on fanfic without providing anything more. She chose option 1. Cause money.
Arguably I think all the flaws combined with its popularity is why there are so many HP fanfics out there and they are at least part of the popularity of the work.
Itās like confidently posting a wrong answer on the Internet, people canāt help but want to correct you. Same with her story, which fuels a good chunk of the dialogue and discussions about it.
If it was bad or unpopular no one would care. If it was extremely well written, with little to no plot holes, people would like it, but thatās kind of it. Harry Potter just seems to have the right mix of good ideas and poor execution while remaining popular enough to be relevant to generate seemingly endless efforts to fix or improve it.
Well the person who wrote it thinks āLolitaā is a touching love story soā¦
