[salmon rants!] HP Through the Eyes of an Old School Fantasy Battleaxe
So, recently, while I had a cold, I vegged on Movie Sins. Couldn't help it. They're like 5-30 minute versions of MST3K. They had the HP movies, so I shrugged and dived in. Probably a mistake. See, I've avoided HP fandom, and I'm really glad I did. HP will never hold that special place to me of Most Hated Story Ever that Twilight does. Maybe because I didn't force myself through the torture of reading two of the books like I did with Twilight...? But, no, HP has it's flaws, yet remains nowhere near as horrendous as Twilight. Of course, being better than Twilight in my eyes is hardly complimentary. It's kind of like saying, "Well it wasn't complete sludge."
Now, before I get flamed by the HP fandomhood at large (Twilight fans can flame away. I will sit back and laugh.), I'm actually not about to trash your fandom. I don't think I'll ever actually read/watch or even really like HP, but I'm willing to give it a few dues. The thing is, I'm no Spring Chicken. I'm an Old School Fantasy Battle Axe and there's stuff I just don't like about Fantasy fandom's modern golden child. However, I do understand what made it so addictive to its fans.
Once Upon a Time
Here's something you have to understand about me to understand my rant. I'm an old school Fantasy Fan who was raised by old school Fantasy fans. Yes, my mother read me Mother Goose.... when I was three. By five, I was drifting off to sleep to the Hobbit; The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe; The Last Unicorn; Treasure Island; ect. By seven I was borrowing Dragonlance, Dragonriders of Pern, and The Sword of Shannara from my elder sisters' bookshelves. I grew up surrounded by Fantasy fans and I never stopped loving the genre.
I also grew up well before fantasy and sci-fi hit the main stream. In my younger years they were the realm of the freaks and the geeks. While I wouldn't say I quite bore it with pride in my preteen years, by my teens I was more than willing to argue my love of both with the world at large. Ironically, around that time fantasy and sci-fi started to become main stream. It was suddenly the "in" thing, and I didn't have to argue my love of it with anyone.
Come with me and you'll be in a world of pure imagination
Here's the thing with HP fandom - I get it. Fans grew up with these books. They're part of their childhood. For some it was the first time they ever read a fantasy novel. That's huge. It's not something you dismiss away.
I also get why the newer fans were more drawn to it then the books I grew up with. My childhood favorites were written in a different era. Technically, my beloved Narnia series was written for a time before my own childhood, but the levels of technology weren't different enough in my own youth to warrant explanations. I'm certain modern children pick up the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe and wonder why the siblings are playing Hide and Seek to begin with. Where are their tablets? Their cellphones? Their PS Vita?
HP manages to sidestep these issues with Harry's background and the fact that the world he goes too doesn't have any of those things. (Neither does Narnia, but as the four siblings' history is nothing like Harry's their lack of modern things pre-Narnia no doubt build an immediate disconnect that younger generations may struggle to overcome.) In both stories, the MCs lack of knowledge of the world allow the readers to be slowly introduced to the magical world they find themselves in. So explanations end up feeling far more organic rather than just information dumps.
The main characters start as children, and the adults mainly serve as advisors and foils. The bulk of the adventures surround the kids. Something else HP has in common with Narnia. I can hardly complain about a set up that has so much in common with my own beloved childhood stories.
Defender of the Cliche
So, here's the thing. I love cliches. I am the Defender of the Cliche. Story Tropes? Bring it on! Seriously, there's a reason plots, characters, and creatures/species get used often enough to earn the title. They work. They're enjoyable. We just plain like them, no matter how often we read/watch them.
Secondly, they're only a trope after you've seen them used enough to warrant the use of the word yourself. If you've never seen Star Wars (Yes, there's people who have never seen Star Wars. Can you believe it?) and are watching a movie where one of the main villains turns out to be the MCs father, your reaction would be - "OMG! They're their Father??" You wouldn't understand why the rest of us would be snickering and saying, "Luke, I am you're father." Despite our amusement, let me assure you, when we first saw The Empire Strikes Back, we were all - "OMG! Vader is Luke's father??"
So I'm not going to complain that HP is full of cliches and tropes because that isn't an issue to me. It's a point in its favor. If it's a Centaur, call it a centaur. If it's not a goblin, don't call it a goblin. (Coughorvampirecough) We're all suckers for stories about the power of friendship no matter how much we complain about the trope.
So, seriously, on the general side of tropes and cliches, I'm good. However...
You have a Power It has not...
No, that wasn't a typo. The thing is, a good 40 years before HP, there was this amazing book called A Wrinkle in Time. And in it, an old Witch tells a young Heroine that she has a power It has not. It being the evil in the novel. Unlike Voldermort who eventually moves from the ambiguous He to a name, It is merely It and never anything but a living embodiment of evil. And Meg uses her ability to love to save her brother, not the world. But, seriously? There's cliches, tropes, inspired by, ect. Then there's just plain ripping off. And, to me, that line was a blatant rip off.
While we're at it... the name. Cuz Harry Potter Jr (of Troll) was battling evil years before HP existed. And while overlapping names can't be helped to a certain extent, first and last names of a main character in the same genre is kind of like putting down someone's fandom.
I know she's stated she never saw the film. Seriously, though, if someone wrote a fantasy novel with a hero called Ronald Weasley, but claimed to have never heard of HP - would you HP fans believe them? But Troll fans are supposed to be all - it's ok you used the exact name for your fantasy story. Cuz y'know, your stories are about this young boy fighting an evil who's trying to take over the world for a second time, after previously being defeated in a war he started because he hated humans... wait...
"That didn't sit well with Turok and some of the fairies. They wanted to rule the world so there was a great big war. But the good humans won and the rebel fairies were condemned to darkness."
... hey! Seriously?
I mean, the facts beyond the base are different enough, I wouldn't normally call someone on it, except, y'know, the NAME. If you're "inspired by", all I ask is you admit to it.
Everyone knows the Magnificent Seven was based around The Seven Samurai. Nobody says it's any less a great movie for it!
So a little admittance on inspirations would not be amiss. However, this is a failing of an author, not a story. So the books of HP themselves do not suffer for similarities to other stories. It upsets me as a fan of the previous works, as I feel they are not given credit when it is in fact due. But I cannot hold it against the work itself.
You're not good, you're not bad, you're just nice.
So, here's the thing, I like characters whose morals are a bit ambiguous. They're fascinating, and sometimes, they prove to be right. But in order for such characters to sway the audience, you need a contrast. You need morally upstanding characters. And, from everything I've read about HP, IMHO, there's not a one. Certain characters are nice. Certain characters are not nice. All of them are occasionally right, more often wrong, and the whole lot have questionable morals. Supposedly certain characters are "bullies", yet the "good" characters do absolutely dreadful things to the "bully" characters and that's portrayed as ok?
See, here's the thing with Willy Wonka the Chocolate Factory - Willy Wonka doesn't do anything to the bullies and brats. They're own actions lead to their bad fates. That's why we really don't care that Violet blows up like a blueberry. She did that to herself. That's called karma.
But if your "good" characters do dreadful things to your "bad characters", then your "good characters" are also a bunch of "bullies". I for one won't be feeling particularly sympathetic for them the next time the "bad" characters have a go at them. Fighting back in the moment is one thing, revenge is another. And by seeking revenge you've invited a reprise. It's not "bullying" if it's two ways. It's just a pissing contest. Which is fine. Heck, it's how The Parent Trap starts. A pissing contest that becomes a friendship. The thing is, nobody ever suggests that the pranks aren't nasty, or the girls aren't both being mean.
What I've read about HP leaves me with the impression that nobody ever calls the "good" characters on their behaviour, or - when they do - it's in a way that makes it seem like it's unfair that the "good" character got in trouble.
That sort of one sidedness leaves me with a sour taste and is one of the reasons I'll never be able to read it and come away with a good impression.
Good characters don't have to be all good, but they need something to stand on. When they do something bad, they need to be called on it. (Charlie was called on his step out of line. And, yes, his grandfather didn't care but Charlie did - that was what made Charlie good. Not because he wasn't willing to do something bad. Because he was willing to own up to the fact it was wrong and face the consequences.)
In the HP world, does nobody believe "the ends don't justify the means"? No? How about, "It's better to do the wrong thing for the right reason than the right thing for the wrong reasons"? Every spoiler I've read says to me that the answer is - clearly not.
You were just an ass, I was a traitor
So, a lot of my issues with the above could have been helped if anything I read hinted that these characters have some kind of growth beyond the vertical kind. However, even the older characters as seen through flashbacks and tales seem to have 0 development. Nobody truly changes.
Yes, Lucy was my favorite character when Narnia was read to me at seven. By my teens, however, I was far more taken with the journey of Edmund as a character. Edmund is a bully at first. He's selfish, and spoiled, and a full on traitor. These very things are perhaps what makes him so very wise later on.
As he once says to Eustace (another fav character of mine from the series later in life), "Between ourselves, you haven’t been as bad as I was on my first trip to Narnia. You were only an ass, but I was a traitor."
To which Eustace replies something like, "I'd rather not hear about it then." - showing his own character growth. He doesn't care who Edmund was, just who he is. Nor does he care to have information to taunt his cousin with - a far cry from Eustace earlier in The Dawn Treader!
I just don't see any hint that there is anything as amazing as Edmund's story in HP. And a lot of things I read make me certain I'd hate some of the characters you're supposed to like. And not because you're supposed to at first. (Like with Eustace.)
To sum things up:
So I do get what makes HP popular. I will admit it has some great concepts and a good general plotline. But as an old Fantasy Battleaxe, I can't help but feel that nothing in HP hasn't been done first and better by it's predecessors.
Basically:
The Death Eaters have nothing on Camazotz.
Voldermort will never be half as scary as The White Witch (particularly once you've read The Magician's Nephew. Apple Tree. Nuf said.)
Meg is smarter, braver, and just plain cooler a main character than Harry.
Saddest death of an animal sidekick... Artax. Nothing beats Artax.
Smendrick's secret history is way more surprising than Snape's. (But you'd only know it if you read the book. It didn't make it into the movie.)
And either one of Mrs Which or Eunice Sinclair could have kicked Dumbledore's ass any day.
That kinda is it in a nutshell.
Now, before I get flamed by the HP fandomhood at large (Twilight fans can flame away. I will sit back and laugh.), I'm actually not about to trash your fandom. I don't think I'll ever actually read/watch or even really like HP, but I'm willing to give it a few dues. The thing is, I'm no Spring Chicken. I'm an Old School Fantasy Battle Axe and there's stuff I just don't like about Fantasy fandom's modern golden child. However, I do understand what made it so addictive to its fans.
Once Upon a Time
Here's something you have to understand about me to understand my rant. I'm an old school Fantasy Fan who was raised by old school Fantasy fans. Yes, my mother read me Mother Goose.... when I was three. By five, I was drifting off to sleep to the Hobbit; The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe; The Last Unicorn; Treasure Island; ect. By seven I was borrowing Dragonlance, Dragonriders of Pern, and The Sword of Shannara from my elder sisters' bookshelves. I grew up surrounded by Fantasy fans and I never stopped loving the genre.
I also grew up well before fantasy and sci-fi hit the main stream. In my younger years they were the realm of the freaks and the geeks. While I wouldn't say I quite bore it with pride in my preteen years, by my teens I was more than willing to argue my love of both with the world at large. Ironically, around that time fantasy and sci-fi started to become main stream. It was suddenly the "in" thing, and I didn't have to argue my love of it with anyone.
Come with me and you'll be in a world of pure imagination
Here's the thing with HP fandom - I get it. Fans grew up with these books. They're part of their childhood. For some it was the first time they ever read a fantasy novel. That's huge. It's not something you dismiss away.
I also get why the newer fans were more drawn to it then the books I grew up with. My childhood favorites were written in a different era. Technically, my beloved Narnia series was written for a time before my own childhood, but the levels of technology weren't different enough in my own youth to warrant explanations. I'm certain modern children pick up the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe and wonder why the siblings are playing Hide and Seek to begin with. Where are their tablets? Their cellphones? Their PS Vita?
HP manages to sidestep these issues with Harry's background and the fact that the world he goes too doesn't have any of those things. (Neither does Narnia, but as the four siblings' history is nothing like Harry's their lack of modern things pre-Narnia no doubt build an immediate disconnect that younger generations may struggle to overcome.) In both stories, the MCs lack of knowledge of the world allow the readers to be slowly introduced to the magical world they find themselves in. So explanations end up feeling far more organic rather than just information dumps.
The main characters start as children, and the adults mainly serve as advisors and foils. The bulk of the adventures surround the kids. Something else HP has in common with Narnia. I can hardly complain about a set up that has so much in common with my own beloved childhood stories.
Defender of the Cliche
So, here's the thing. I love cliches. I am the Defender of the Cliche. Story Tropes? Bring it on! Seriously, there's a reason plots, characters, and creatures/species get used often enough to earn the title. They work. They're enjoyable. We just plain like them, no matter how often we read/watch them.
Secondly, they're only a trope after you've seen them used enough to warrant the use of the word yourself. If you've never seen Star Wars (Yes, there's people who have never seen Star Wars. Can you believe it?) and are watching a movie where one of the main villains turns out to be the MCs father, your reaction would be - "OMG! They're their Father??" You wouldn't understand why the rest of us would be snickering and saying, "Luke, I am you're father." Despite our amusement, let me assure you, when we first saw The Empire Strikes Back, we were all - "OMG! Vader is Luke's father??"
So I'm not going to complain that HP is full of cliches and tropes because that isn't an issue to me. It's a point in its favor. If it's a Centaur, call it a centaur. If it's not a goblin, don't call it a goblin. (Coughorvampirecough) We're all suckers for stories about the power of friendship no matter how much we complain about the trope.
So, seriously, on the general side of tropes and cliches, I'm good. However...
You have a Power It has not...
No, that wasn't a typo. The thing is, a good 40 years before HP, there was this amazing book called A Wrinkle in Time. And in it, an old Witch tells a young Heroine that she has a power It has not. It being the evil in the novel. Unlike Voldermort who eventually moves from the ambiguous He to a name, It is merely It and never anything but a living embodiment of evil. And Meg uses her ability to love to save her brother, not the world. But, seriously? There's cliches, tropes, inspired by, ect. Then there's just plain ripping off. And, to me, that line was a blatant rip off.
While we're at it... the name. Cuz Harry Potter Jr (of Troll) was battling evil years before HP existed. And while overlapping names can't be helped to a certain extent, first and last names of a main character in the same genre is kind of like putting down someone's fandom.
I know she's stated she never saw the film. Seriously, though, if someone wrote a fantasy novel with a hero called Ronald Weasley, but claimed to have never heard of HP - would you HP fans believe them? But Troll fans are supposed to be all - it's ok you used the exact name for your fantasy story. Cuz y'know, your stories are about this young boy fighting an evil who's trying to take over the world for a second time, after previously being defeated in a war he started because he hated humans... wait...
"That didn't sit well with Turok and some of the fairies. They wanted to rule the world so there was a great big war. But the good humans won and the rebel fairies were condemned to darkness."
... hey! Seriously?
I mean, the facts beyond the base are different enough, I wouldn't normally call someone on it, except, y'know, the NAME. If you're "inspired by", all I ask is you admit to it.
Everyone knows the Magnificent Seven was based around The Seven Samurai. Nobody says it's any less a great movie for it!
So a little admittance on inspirations would not be amiss. However, this is a failing of an author, not a story. So the books of HP themselves do not suffer for similarities to other stories. It upsets me as a fan of the previous works, as I feel they are not given credit when it is in fact due. But I cannot hold it against the work itself.
You're not good, you're not bad, you're just nice.
So, here's the thing, I like characters whose morals are a bit ambiguous. They're fascinating, and sometimes, they prove to be right. But in order for such characters to sway the audience, you need a contrast. You need morally upstanding characters. And, from everything I've read about HP, IMHO, there's not a one. Certain characters are nice. Certain characters are not nice. All of them are occasionally right, more often wrong, and the whole lot have questionable morals. Supposedly certain characters are "bullies", yet the "good" characters do absolutely dreadful things to the "bully" characters and that's portrayed as ok?
See, here's the thing with Willy Wonka the Chocolate Factory - Willy Wonka doesn't do anything to the bullies and brats. They're own actions lead to their bad fates. That's why we really don't care that Violet blows up like a blueberry. She did that to herself. That's called karma.
But if your "good" characters do dreadful things to your "bad characters", then your "good characters" are also a bunch of "bullies". I for one won't be feeling particularly sympathetic for them the next time the "bad" characters have a go at them. Fighting back in the moment is one thing, revenge is another. And by seeking revenge you've invited a reprise. It's not "bullying" if it's two ways. It's just a pissing contest. Which is fine. Heck, it's how The Parent Trap starts. A pissing contest that becomes a friendship. The thing is, nobody ever suggests that the pranks aren't nasty, or the girls aren't both being mean.
What I've read about HP leaves me with the impression that nobody ever calls the "good" characters on their behaviour, or - when they do - it's in a way that makes it seem like it's unfair that the "good" character got in trouble.
That sort of one sidedness leaves me with a sour taste and is one of the reasons I'll never be able to read it and come away with a good impression.
Good characters don't have to be all good, but they need something to stand on. When they do something bad, they need to be called on it. (Charlie was called on his step out of line. And, yes, his grandfather didn't care but Charlie did - that was what made Charlie good. Not because he wasn't willing to do something bad. Because he was willing to own up to the fact it was wrong and face the consequences.)
In the HP world, does nobody believe "the ends don't justify the means"? No? How about, "It's better to do the wrong thing for the right reason than the right thing for the wrong reasons"? Every spoiler I've read says to me that the answer is - clearly not.
You were just an ass, I was a traitor
So, a lot of my issues with the above could have been helped if anything I read hinted that these characters have some kind of growth beyond the vertical kind. However, even the older characters as seen through flashbacks and tales seem to have 0 development. Nobody truly changes.
Yes, Lucy was my favorite character when Narnia was read to me at seven. By my teens, however, I was far more taken with the journey of Edmund as a character. Edmund is a bully at first. He's selfish, and spoiled, and a full on traitor. These very things are perhaps what makes him so very wise later on.
As he once says to Eustace (another fav character of mine from the series later in life), "Between ourselves, you haven’t been as bad as I was on my first trip to Narnia. You were only an ass, but I was a traitor."
To which Eustace replies something like, "I'd rather not hear about it then." - showing his own character growth. He doesn't care who Edmund was, just who he is. Nor does he care to have information to taunt his cousin with - a far cry from Eustace earlier in The Dawn Treader!
I just don't see any hint that there is anything as amazing as Edmund's story in HP. And a lot of things I read make me certain I'd hate some of the characters you're supposed to like. And not because you're supposed to at first. (Like with Eustace.)
To sum things up:
So I do get what makes HP popular. I will admit it has some great concepts and a good general plotline. But as an old Fantasy Battleaxe, I can't help but feel that nothing in HP hasn't been done first and better by it's predecessors.
Basically:
The Death Eaters have nothing on Camazotz.
Voldermort will never be half as scary as The White Witch (particularly once you've read The Magician's Nephew. Apple Tree. Nuf said.)
Meg is smarter, braver, and just plain cooler a main character than Harry.
Saddest death of an animal sidekick... Artax. Nothing beats Artax.
Smendrick's secret history is way more surprising than Snape's. (But you'd only know it if you read the book. It didn't make it into the movie.)
And either one of Mrs Which or Eunice Sinclair could have kicked Dumbledore's ass any day.
That kinda is it in a nutshell.