Thoughts on literary merit
Today I was piddling around on the net like I normally do and found this article by noted author A.S. Byatt.
It's a bit old, written just after Order of the Phoenix came out, but I still found myself reading it and scratching my head.
Byatt points out first that the Harry Potter books are written at a child's psychological and emotional level, and that the adult reader's fascination with them stems from a desire for literary comfort food. I won't argue with that; I absolutely agree. I actually think it's a strength that Rowling captures Harry's perspective so well throughout all the books, and certainly we read them for the escapist fantasy.
Where Byatt criticizes the books however, is in terms of depth. The world is derivative, a fancified version of the real world, and the story essentially a personal melodrama. She maintains that there is no sense of mystery, danger or real magic.
Here's where I get confused. Byatt herself is one of my favorite authors, along with Rowling, and interestingly enough I find that the reasons I'm drawn to read both authors are scarily similar.
Their writing styles are completely different but Byatt, like Rowling, melds the fantastical into the mesh of real world settings. I read both authors and have that sense of things not being quite what they appear: whether it's stone creatures that exist in plain sight but hidden to the human eye among the mountains of Iceland or Platform 9 and 3/4's and 12 Grimmauld Place.
They make such unrealities believeable by immersing us in the world.
The other reason I love their stories is that they both write characters that I get emotionally invested in when I read. Byatt does this subtly, telling her characters' stories in an almost distant, almost detached way that's nevertheless amazingly poignant. Rowling writes in a straightforward, contemporary voice, relying on action and reaction and in some cases drama. But it's just as effective.
Each style achieves the same reader sympathy, the same desire to keep turning page after page, the same reflection and self-reflection on the part of the reader. And the most telling thing is that both writers have a very personal aspect to their stories. If Rowling's books are all about saving Harry (or Harry saving everyone), Byatt's are all about characters dealing with some aspect of their lives or the lives of those around them.
The characters of both writers are intensely self-focused, but both writers manage to convey some broader commentary about the world through what their characters experience. Where Byatt condemns Rowling's world for being derivative, it could be argued that the wizard world is Rowling's own political commentary. Where you could condemn Byatt's characters for egocentricity and angst, I feel Byatt is making her own commentary on the world that has shaped them.
Maybe I missed the point of Byatt's work entirely and I am one of those childish adults with no concept of the serious and the mystical. Or maybe my opinion of Rowling's work is weighted too heavily by books 5-7 of the Potter series which are much different in tone and theme from the first 4.
Perhaps it is as Byatt says, the "leveling effect" that leaves modern readers incapable of distinguishing popular entertainment from literature. Personally, I do believe there is a very definite distinction between literary (or artistic if you want to include movies) merit and cookie-cutter, mass-consumption fodder. I also feel Rowling and Byatt both fall on the same side: that of literary merit. To be certain I find small faults in the work of both, but I do not think those faults are worthy of relegating either author to the same mindless goop that includes Danielle Steels and Robert Jordans.
What sets Rowling and Byatt apart is the underlying power of their stories. The staying power of their stories. It comes down to that: both writers are great storytellers, despite differences in voice, genre, characterization, style, ideas, themes. That's something no potboiler, however melodramatic, can ever achieve. And as a reader, in the end, what I really care about is the power of the story I'm told
It's a bit old, written just after Order of the Phoenix came out, but I still found myself reading it and scratching my head.
Byatt points out first that the Harry Potter books are written at a child's psychological and emotional level, and that the adult reader's fascination with them stems from a desire for literary comfort food. I won't argue with that; I absolutely agree. I actually think it's a strength that Rowling captures Harry's perspective so well throughout all the books, and certainly we read them for the escapist fantasy.
Where Byatt criticizes the books however, is in terms of depth. The world is derivative, a fancified version of the real world, and the story essentially a personal melodrama. She maintains that there is no sense of mystery, danger or real magic.
Here's where I get confused. Byatt herself is one of my favorite authors, along with Rowling, and interestingly enough I find that the reasons I'm drawn to read both authors are scarily similar.
Their writing styles are completely different but Byatt, like Rowling, melds the fantastical into the mesh of real world settings. I read both authors and have that sense of things not being quite what they appear: whether it's stone creatures that exist in plain sight but hidden to the human eye among the mountains of Iceland or Platform 9 and 3/4's and 12 Grimmauld Place.
They make such unrealities believeable by immersing us in the world.
The other reason I love their stories is that they both write characters that I get emotionally invested in when I read. Byatt does this subtly, telling her characters' stories in an almost distant, almost detached way that's nevertheless amazingly poignant. Rowling writes in a straightforward, contemporary voice, relying on action and reaction and in some cases drama. But it's just as effective.
Each style achieves the same reader sympathy, the same desire to keep turning page after page, the same reflection and self-reflection on the part of the reader. And the most telling thing is that both writers have a very personal aspect to their stories. If Rowling's books are all about saving Harry (or Harry saving everyone), Byatt's are all about characters dealing with some aspect of their lives or the lives of those around them.
The characters of both writers are intensely self-focused, but both writers manage to convey some broader commentary about the world through what their characters experience. Where Byatt condemns Rowling's world for being derivative, it could be argued that the wizard world is Rowling's own political commentary. Where you could condemn Byatt's characters for egocentricity and angst, I feel Byatt is making her own commentary on the world that has shaped them.
Maybe I missed the point of Byatt's work entirely and I am one of those childish adults with no concept of the serious and the mystical. Or maybe my opinion of Rowling's work is weighted too heavily by books 5-7 of the Potter series which are much different in tone and theme from the first 4.
Perhaps it is as Byatt says, the "leveling effect" that leaves modern readers incapable of distinguishing popular entertainment from literature. Personally, I do believe there is a very definite distinction between literary (or artistic if you want to include movies) merit and cookie-cutter, mass-consumption fodder. I also feel Rowling and Byatt both fall on the same side: that of literary merit. To be certain I find small faults in the work of both, but I do not think those faults are worthy of relegating either author to the same mindless goop that includes Danielle Steels and Robert Jordans.
What sets Rowling and Byatt apart is the underlying power of their stories. The staying power of their stories. It comes down to that: both writers are great storytellers, despite differences in voice, genre, characterization, style, ideas, themes. That's something no potboiler, however melodramatic, can ever achieve. And as a reader, in the end, what I really care about is the power of the story I'm told