Harry Potter mania

[Trevor Salyzyn]

I read the last page of Harry Potter, and that was it. It was mostly to add that little thing called "evidence" to my predictions. (Yes, I'll spoil the series, but this is genius realms, so such should be expected.)

I'd predicted the "easy way out" for an author, and Rowlings ended up doing each and every prediction. The man that had been turned into a red herring from book 1 (Severus Snape) through the single most cliche, obvious method of creating a red herring -- that is to say, by making the main character hate him), was revealed -- to have actually been a "good guy" on the final page. This was the big secret of the book.

She showed no insight into her own characters, and thus managed to turn her two back-up characters (Ron and Hermione) into genuine 1-dimensional characters, by having them get married (and live happily ever after) in the future.

The girl who had a crush on Harry Potter since the beginning of the series ends up marrying him, thus turning Harry Potter into a predictable, 2-dimensional male, and the series is thereby conclusively proven to be the fulfillment of some author's juvenile fantasies.

That leaves only two potential 3-D characters: the main villain (who I assume dies somewhere before the last page, but whose past is extensively studied throughout the series), and the narrator. For a work of 7 volumes, that is pathetic.

There was one problem that every academic knew, and managed to phrase very kindly: Rowlings is an arrogant bitch. She did not want to go the Arthur C. Doyle route, and have the potential open for her character used by future writers (who, very likely, would be more proficient than her). This shows a profound gratelessness to her own fans, and to all the people she imitated in creating a work in this genre. Was she going to kill her main character?

Of course not! She does not have the skill to pull off such a death without destroying the tone of her work (marrying Ron to Hermione is evidence of lack of skill; having one die and the other successfully cope would have taken quite a lot more skill; having both die without destroying the narrative was leagues beyond her: as in, Shakespeare managed it, but Rowlings could not).

So, her solution: push the narrative 20 years forward, removing all possibility of continuing the story without killing anyone.

Honestly? That's pathetic. Her lack of talent demands someone crush that hope spectacularly. I am now waiting for someone to pick up a pen and write Harry Potter fiction when he's goddamn 90 years old, and make it fucking GOOD. Kierkegaard managed to do it with Abraham. The Arthurian legends managed to do it with Merlin. Unfortunately, it's very doubtful that her fans are able to pull that off -- it would actually require someone who hates her, but not too much, to do it. And I hate her too much to do it. :)

Anyway...

The Worst of the Worst Harry Potter Forums, with comments.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Just to save the thread for you :)

Daniel Radcliffe (17 year old actor who played Harry Potter) recently stated in interviews:

"I think it would be very hard to go out with an actress, because they're mad"

"Some actresses are just insane. I've never worked with a nasty actress — they're all absolutely delightful. But completely barking mad."

What if he ever descends down from the world of professional acting and discovers it's no different at all, apart from the currency of payment? Then he'll indeed would have entered the wizard school.

[Imadrongo]

Ron should have been put under a spell by the dark wizard and raped Hermoine and committed suicide or something. But since the first couple books there was never a good plot so whatever.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

That's inspiring. Maybe give young Danny-boy some Weininger, or "An Exposition on Women"... who knows? Maybe he'll be inspired enough to turn it into a script, and get the fuck out of the shadow of Rowling's immense head. He has just enough fame to garner an audience, if he doesn't blow it right now by thinking that acting is somehow different from the rest of the world.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Whorly: you just described what is known as "slash fiction". It's a type of pulpy fan-fic. There's reams of it -- and yes, as you say, it's often embarassingly better than the source material. (Although the authors of slash fiction are completely unaware of this fact.)

[Trevor Salyzyn]

On second thought, giving that kid some Weininger would probably crush him. I don't think he'd be able to do much of anything after reading it, if he didn't have the wisdom to simply ignore it.

He'd end up writing a play that nobody would watch. It's far more likely he'll succeed in the bumbling manner of most men thrust accidentally into the spotlight: by doing whatever other people tell him to do.

[Pye]

Spoiler coming. You've been warned.

The Dead

Fred Weasley (castle-wall explosion)
Remus Lupin (auror/werewolf; general battle)
Nymphadora Tonks (auror/Lupin's spouse; general battle)
Dobby the house elf (airborne knife)
Severus Snape (murdered/sacrificed by Riddle; gives his memories to Harry just before dying)

Tom Riddle (Voldemort) (ricocheted curse off Harry Potter)
Bellatrix LeStrange (death by Molly Weasley)
Crabbe (Slytherin henchboy/dies in fire)
Rufus Scrimgeour (Minister of Magic)

*and Harry Potter, briefly . . . .

The Malfoys - Draco, Lucius, Narcissa - all survive in indeterminate states of culpability.
Kingsley Shacklebolt becomes acting minister of magic.
Neville Longbottom kills Riddle's snake.
Dumbledore retains mythic status in spite of questionable revelations.
Dumbledore's "dumber" brother, Aberforth, shows up, turns into a right fine resistance fighter, without Dumbledore's annoying pomp.
Percy Weasley suddenly shows and reconciles with his family; fights by their side.

The Epilogue is insulting to the intelligence and the imagination. Who'd have thought Rowling would suicide her own 'magic' at the end like that. She must have been overwhelmed with a desire to bake a big gooey treacle tart for her most involved fans to keep them sweet on it.

Things this series/story had going for it:

Encumbering everything extraordinary (magic) with the ordinary. Rowling could have slipped a million times and made magic look better than life, but she didn't.

All travel sucks: brooms, floo network, apparation, portkeys - doesn't matter. Getting from one place to another had its annoyances/dangers, no matter what.

Magic cannot 'fix' death.

Her villains are not dimensional, but her borderland character - Severus Snape - is the only tour de force of character complexity she had going on. Harry's okay, but no real surprises. Everyone else becomes a caricature of themselves. Comforting, but repetitive.

She has done well with the age-to-events ratio, with respect to her readers and the book sequence, but her readers are not going to read the series as slowly as it was written. I can just see the parents after their 9-to-11-year old has read the Philosopher's Stone, refusing them permission to keep going until . . . .

Some very clever use of latin/linguistics/lore.

Harry and his stomach: some really good description of what Harry was feeling happened in his stomach: swallowed a brick, bathed in icewater, fell to the floor, leaped to his throat; knotted, heaved, crawled, soared - you name it; it was the best stomach action I've read anywhere.

This is really rather criticism, but Rowling has plied deeply into every kid's wish that their parents were more mythic than they actually are, and that they, too, will find out they are not just plain old children.

Criticism

Blown opportunity to develop the Draco Malfoy character into the complexity of a Snape.

Some of the children's spell-actions were perverse, especially Hermione Granger, who once trapped a human-turned-insect inside a jar for a year, dispensing her brand of "justice." She also permanently disfigured a girl for tattling on the heroes.

*For one brief and shining moment, I thought Rowling would let Harry die. It was a well-earned arrival, rife with existential opportunity, replete with rational thoughts and plain old pluck. It would have killed, as they say, and made this series into a world-class bummer with a residual glow, but no-ooooooooooooo . . .

You can tell she knows now what her story looks like on screen; this last book is full of indulgent cinemagraphic opportunities.

Marketing. Much, much too heavy, manipulative marketing. Would have worked quite well as a cult classic, especially had Harry perished . . . . Someone should have told her not to make us sick of her, of it, with overexposure. Someone might have warned her of this in the 7-year plan. Nevertheless, I am quite confident that the Harry Potter series will rank up there with Alice in Wonderland as a youth classic. Though Alice outdistances in the intelligence department by legions, Harry is the future's humanist children's story . . . .


okay, well, I have to go read some Heidegger now for school. Can't tell which way the ridiculous/sublime thingy is going . . . .

[Trevor Salyzyn]

I'm impressed. You read the whole thing. I thought the last page was sufficient. :)

BTW, total agreement on the Draco thing. I actually preferred Draco to Harry; Harry was an ass to him from day one. One of my sister's friends is planning some Draco fanfic, which will probably be superior to the original....

[Pye]

Trevor writes:

You read the whole thing.

Yes, but I'm tired now, very tired ;)

and I'm about three hours behind in lecture preparation for Monday's classes . . . .

A few years ago, I ran into a fan fiction site for Potter-heads. I could not believe how many people had borrowed her sieve to press their own fantasy-lives through; it's so very telling. Perhaps your sister's friend will do better, but then, that's what fan-fiction is for . . . .

Yeah, you read the very worst part of the book, Trevor.

Seriously, when Harry figures out he's the 7th of Riddle's horcruxes, he walks with his death, his body, and his thoughts in a really well-written, well-earned way. Best part of the last book. Like I said, it would have killed . . . . but no-oooooooooooo . . .

[Dan Rowden]

Successful children's fare. Who cares? I must be not be seeing the point of this discussion.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

"Worldy matters" -- we talked about Paris Hilton in here, for God's sake. There's very little to recommend this stuff to anyone, but I find it interesting to see how members of Genius respond to these trivial E!news worthy issues that for some reason clot up respectable newspapers.

My opinion on this matter is best expressed by Nietzsche's lament, which went something like: "too much literacy will eventually destroy the art of thinking."

[Dan Rowden]

Potter is children's fare, but it's interesting that many adults seem to enjoy it as well. It's a very popular form of escapism.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Yes: in fact, I found the link [end of first post] to be a pretty funny "cross-section" (if you can still call selecting the worst of the worst a "cross-section") of these adult Potter fans.

There were men my age complaining about people who bring children to theatres, since they won't get it. There's forty-year old women staring with eyes enamored at these flat-land characters. Slash and pulp writers, Harry Potter roleplaying, men who complain about spoilers ruining the book (in contrast, it is impossible to spoil the end of Hamlet),....

The woman who writes it seems as completely insane as her fans. Mob writing for mob. She's not even a quarter-of-a-fraction-of-a-step above any of these people, who could literally do exactly what she did with no real effort whatsoever, except perhaps the luck to land across a very shrewd editor with great marketing sense. They prove it constantly with their own short stories, which only differ in length and number of drafts.

I may have even hit on the appeal: Rowlings is so goddamn average (and is deliberately presented to her fans as such) that she becomes a Symbol of Averageness. A popular hero for people who want the mean to feel like a noble ideal. Not her characters, but she herself, the narrator: the only 3D character in any one of her books. JK Rowlings herself. The anonymous editor's masterpiece: a woman picked at random from the mob and given a throne. The crap she shits out actually benefits from being rank: it draws the flies.

[Shahrazad]

Trevor, no offense, but you seem to be obsessed with Rowlings.

[DHodges]

The woman who writes it seems as completely insane as her fans. Mob writing for mob. She's not even a quarter-of-a-fraction-of-a-step above any of these people, who could literally do exactly what she did with no real effort whatsoever, except perhaps the luck to land across a very shrewd editor with great marketing sense. They prove it constantly with their own short stories, which only differ in length and number of drafts.

Well, you won't go broke by assuming that Americans are a bunch of morons with no taste.

I have not read any of the Potter stuff, and don't intend to. I saw about half of one of the movies, but could not sit through it. It struck me as a sort of pornography. It was like watching some fetish porn for a fetish you don't have - knowing some people get enjoyment from it, but just finding it disgusting, sickening - not really getting how it could be possible to enjoy it, and not wanting to know.

I've kind of blocked out of my mind why I had such an extreme reaction to that in particular. I mean, I can occasionally sit through trash like Spiderman 3 and even get a few laughs out of it (although I'm generally laughing at different scenes than the rest of the audience).

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Shah: my mother thinks I'm completely obsessed with the mail-man, because I'm able to explain why he pisses off my dog....

[Trevor Salyzyn]

Dave,

I have not read any of the Potter stuff, and don't intend to. I saw about half of one of the movies, but could not sit through it. It struck me as a sort of pornography. It was like watching some fetish porn for a fetish you don't have - knowing some people get enjoyment from it, but just finding it disgusting, sickening - not really getting how it could be possible to enjoy it, and not wanting to know.

So, should I give you a few hints, anyway, since you're so close to the mark that actually sitting through it -- and contemplating its hideousness -- is the only thing that would actually distinguish your opinion from mine? I think I will, and play a little game of "Marquis de Masoche".

The appeal of Harry Potter, plain and simple, is that it takes place now, in the single lowest-common denominator of all places, and with boring, everyday, average, people.

So it's a contemporary fantasy story, set on modern-day Earth, taking place in a modern-day Earth schools (Hogwarts is a slightly-elitist boarding school, but that doesn't really make it much different from any other school in the Western hemisphere), and using characters that, like everyone most people will ever know, gradually turn into mindless parodies of themselves when they run out of imagination, get married, have kids, and die.

There is no ideal, whatsoever. Anyone who claims otherwise is reading some measure of taste into it.

I genuinely believe the woman writing this has put absolutely no contemplation into whether or not what she is describing is a good thing. She's more like a huge pair of spectacles guiding a blank lump of fat hither-and-thither through modern day mediocrity.

Porn movies are written the same way. The directors know kinda how long a person likes to see a man grind into a woman in this position -- so he has a couple of well-trained actors grind in that position for a while. And, well, *this* sometimes happens in real life, so a few seconds of generic dialogue there.

There is no ideal. It is there because someone likes it, and that someone is probably not the director.

Rowlings wrote what she knew, which is school. This happens to be what every insecure adult wants to return to, so it sells. The seven volumes are each a new year at Hogwarts, which follows the same pattern as the last year. Every year at school is identical to the last, so reading past the first book is completely unnecessary, even for the most diehard fans.

Now you don't need to sit through any more and you'll have a complete understanding of why you don't want to.

I mean, I can occasionally sit through trash like Spiderman 3 and even get a few laughs out of it (although I'm generally laughing at different scenes than the rest of the audience).

That's because superheroes are cool. :)

[Shahrazad]

That's because superheroes are cool.

Really? And how is it that they are more "cool" than Harry Potter?

[Trevor Salyzyn]

A comic book is better than Harry Potter because when I get bored of the plot there's always pictures to keep me entertained. I can't figure out what to do with Potter when I'm bored. Do I have a shower? Burn the book? Talk about it to a psychologist?

[Shahrazad]

As far as I know, the Spiderman movies are not cartoons. What pictures are you going to look at when you're bored?

The fact that you hate Harry Potter books and movies doesn't make them worse than all other books / movies ever written. I can't stand Star Wars movies, but I don't go around saying that they're garbage. Some people like them. I just assume not all of us have the same taste. And I don't assume that my taste should be the absolute standard by which all other tastes should be judged.


-

[Trevor Salyzyn]

My taste is such that if I can't think of an absolute justification for what I like, it's probably not worth liking; I will stop liking it until I can come up with a reason that convinces me.

Anyway, I like comic books. The movies, not so much. I saw Spider-Man for the same reason I saw Les Miserables: because I liked the book. The plot was engaging and idealistic; the message clear; the characters are 3-dimensional and -- amazingly -- rarely stereotyped. Everyone has a back-story and a clear motive. It's pulp, but it's the peak of that genre.

I really can't figure out anything to recommend Harry Potter. A seven-volume children's book, aimed at 10-year olds, seems well ... absurd. Was she incapable of making it shorter? Was she incapable of writing for adults? I just can't get my head around this. It seems shrewd and under-handed.

[ChochemV2]

Harry Potter:Literature::Nickelodeon:Television

[Pye]

Dan writes:

Who cares? I must be not be seeing the point of this discussion.

The philosophical austerity might be impressive perhaps, were it consistent. I do believe you measured your middle finger for some other philosophically relevant topic on this page?

Shit, I'm on board, though. Why not get rid of the worldly drainage forum altogether and keep everyone on point with philosophy? Otherwise, the philosophical policing is random, and a matter of taste and mood.

Shah is correct. This is/was a discussion of tastes, and thus doomed as a matter of argument. Had I the time and inclination, I could skewer the "escapism" in the boy-child superheroes as readily as I could also skewer the potter. But neither provide enough substance or inspiration to last that out . . . .

[Diebert van Rhijn]

No, it's not a matter of taste, that great stick of modernity that beats everything and everyone dead because in death, with lack of taste buds, we're finally equal...

Trevor is in my view exploring in the right direction. No matter if one analyzes the movie or the books, one can easily deduce the incredible smallness from the author and her audience from it. It's a case scenario, a prime example. Its popularity only makes it into a more attractive target to understand nihilist entertainment; the hero's journey subverted as well subdued to sub-sized sub-urban sub-terranean substitute teachers.

You might want to explore this further Trevor. Your criticism is not bold enough, your deduction not far-fetching enough and your judgment not damning enough to escape the vortex of Potterism so far.

[ChochemV2]

There isn't much to be bold about...

They books pander to a generation that isn't used to be challenged intellectually with a story that is just fantastical enough to spark what little imagination most people have and just familiar enough to help children connect with it. Harry Potter is far too average to be a normal fantasy hero; he's extremely emotional, as weak willed as any other child his age, doesn't have any respect for knowledge and somehow manages to "beat the bad guys" even though he's a terrible student who can't do magic if his life depended on it. I admit I haven't read the last couple books but I doubt they have significantly changed from the pattern established by the earlier books.

Harry juggles the "difficult" life of being a kid, personal relationships with other students, trying to be modest about being special so he can fit in and be normal, and trying to save the world ineptly. These books do nothing but reinforce the belief in children that they should assimilate into society and strive to be normal (that is why I compared the books to Nickelodeon, they have the same bullshit premise). If kids want fantasy they should be reading Tolkien or even Lloyd Alexander if they want something simpler but instead they get this crap.