Interesting. I'm not sure I agree with it, but it's very interesting.
Here's what I don't agree with: - Harry doesn't change or grow. But I think he does. Just because there's never a question of him choosing the side of "good" doesn't mean he is a static character. Sawyer of the article says "puberty aside" as if this change were less important than the question of good versus evil. I think about my students reading these books. They don't, for the most part, question that they're "good" people. (Most people think they're "good," I think.) They're not looking to choose the "good" or the "evil" path in life. But they do know that they have flaws: they don't work hard enough; they're too emotional; they're not willing to listen to advice; they isolate themselves when they should call on friends to help. These are very adolescent concerns, I think. In this sense, Harry grows up. This is a coming of age story more than anything else. At least, that's how I read it. The "good" versus "evil" debate is more of an adult one (IMO). - This story, like most all modern commercial stories, has no authentic moral. Sawyer says that she doesn't want to return to the Victorian didacticism of Victorian stories. Strangely enough, I find HP to be more like Oliver Twist than any modern Disney flick. (Have you read Oliver Twist? If not, minor spoilers ahead ...) A seemingly ordinary orphan, in the care of so-called "moral" individuals of the middle class who are really corrupt and sick. Several villains - one, Fagin, who is mean and bad but not really evil; the other, Sikes, who is truly evil and brutal. A dead mother who is key to everything. A helpful old man, some friends along the way, and in the end, a very settled life the hero deserves. It's not an exact match, of course (or else Charles Dickens would have risen from the grave and sued Rowling ;-D), but Harry Potter is much more Victorian than I expected. There is a clear good and evil, and yet, some of the supporting cast - Snape, the Dursleys, the Malfoys, the Ministry officials etc. - show the various shades of good and evil. Like Oliver Twist, Harry will always make the good choice ... but not before you , the reader, see the other options.
I do agree with Sawyer, though, that Snape would have been the more interesting protagonist. But he would have been the more interesting protagonist for a series aimed at adults. I'm not trying to argue that teens are too stupid to recognize and appreciate the struggle Snape undergoes. But I don't think many teens are in an emotional place to really appreciate that struggle. I know I wasn't. (Though I wish I could say that I was. sigune and the-bitter-word both said that, when they were teens, they would have been rooting for Snape. But I was still very much in a black and white world, only just beginning to accept that decent people do some really nasty things.
And I think that most of my students really could have cared less about Snape (based on the few HP club meetings when we actually talked about character development ...) They identified with the Trio ... or Draco. Probably in part because of the movies, but also because these were fellow teenagers. Their experiences, even in a fantasy world, were so much closer to the experiences they had. Of course, I teach at a private school, and most of my students are privileged (though not necessarily wealthy).
In this sense, Harry grows up. This is a coming of age story more than anything else. At least, that's how I read it. The "good" versus "evil" debate is more of an adult one (IMO).
It's true, he's certainly not static. The reason I agreed with the essay is it seems Harry's issues -- particularly jumping to conclusions and his hatred of Snape -- are resolved without any struggle on his part. Jumping to conclusions? It's OK! He happens to be right! Except where Snape is concerned, at least -- which brings us to No. 2, and ... well, that just went away for no apparent reason. I don't mean when he viewed Snape's memories; I was struck long beforehand that his raging anger at the end of Half-Blood Prince had petered out. We get that one moment of him yelling "Snape!" when we learn who sliced off George's ear, but that's it. I expected him to have to work through this, and it was odd that he didn't.
It's the same with his flashes of dark-ish behavior. Back in OotP, when his interaction with Dudley made me think of Snape at his most sarcastically bitter, I thought: Oh, this is really clever, Rowling's making her hero more like the anti-hero -- what possibilities. Then you have him gleefully using Snape's questionable spells in HBP (I flinched when he cast something -- can't remember what now -- at Filch just because he could). And finally the Cruciatus in DH, which bothered me more than the botched one in OotP because the second time, Harry is in full control of himself and treats it as a bit of a laugh. All this ought to be leading somewhere, but it doesn't. Harry is Goodness Itself because ... just because. "All was well."
Maybe I'm being too harsh? I'm not a Harry-hater, really -- I don't want him exposed as a terrible person. I just wanted these things to be dealt with, rather than swept under the carpet.
Anyway, I completely agree with you that most kids, even older ones, don't identify with Snape. Why should they? I think you have to be older to personally understand the appeal of a flawed character slouching toward redemption.
I was struck long beforehand that his raging anger at the end of Half-Blood Prince had petered out. We get that one moment of him yelling "Snape!" when we learn who sliced off George's ear, but that's it. I expected him to have to work through this, and it was odd that he didn't.
You're exactly right. It did seem, at the end of HBP, that Rowling was setting us up for a major confrontation between Snape and Harry. And it never came. Now that I think about it that way, I'm pretty disappointed! Not in her characterizations, exactly ... but in her plotting. It's just another one of those instances when she seemed to promise a story that didn't develop. I read over a transcript of her most recent Q&A chat (post-DH) and someone asked about the character who was supposed to develop magic late in life. Her response was something like "Oops, wasn't able to fit that in. Sorry." And I thought, wow, that's something I'd do in a fanfic (if I ever finished). But I didn't expect Rowling to do this! Makes me realize I expected a little too much. I guess, if I were being objective, I'd have realized this last year when I went to the NYC book reading. When she read an excerpt from HBP just after John Irving read an excerpt from "A Prayer for Owen Meany," I remember thinking - Wow, Irving is pretty damn good. I didn't think - "Wow, Rowling isn't nearly as good." But I think that was the reality of it. ;-D Don't get me wrong. I'm still a fan of the book, the series, and Rowling. But the more we continue these conversations, the more I'm forced to admit that the story could have been much stronger. I guess what I'm trying to articulate (badly) is that there are some disagreements over the characterizations (should Snape have loved Lily, should Harry have been so angry, should Hermione have been so whiny, etc.). I think this is the author's choice, and if a reader doesn't like those characterizations, that doesn't necessarily mean the author lacks skill ... only that reader and author see things differently. But then there are some issues that readers have that really stem from flaws in the storytelling. I think Harry's strange lack of anger toward Snape in much of DH is one of those problems because the author told us he was angry but then didn't really show that anger as being important.
Wow, I took a really long paragraph to tell you what you just told me. And I'm criticizing Rowling for the way she writes? ;-D
Maybe I'm being too harsh? I'm not a Harry-hater, really -- I don't want him exposed as a terrible person. I just wanted these things to be dealt with, rather than swept under the carpet.
No, you're not being too harsh. This makes complete sense.
Here's what I don't agree with:
- Harry doesn't change or grow. But I think he does. Just because there's never a question of him choosing the side of "good" doesn't mean he is a static character. Sawyer of the article says "puberty aside" as if this change were less important than the question of good versus evil. I think about my students reading these books. They don't, for the most part, question that they're "good" people. (Most people think they're "good," I think.) They're not looking to choose the "good" or the "evil" path in life. But they do know that they have flaws: they don't work hard enough; they're too emotional; they're not willing to listen to advice; they isolate themselves when they should call on friends to help. These are very adolescent concerns, I think. In this sense, Harry grows up. This is a coming of age story more than anything else. At least, that's how I read it. The "good" versus "evil" debate is more of an adult one (IMO).
- This story, like most all modern commercial stories, has no authentic moral. Sawyer says that she doesn't want to return to the Victorian didacticism of Victorian stories. Strangely enough, I find HP to be more like Oliver Twist than any modern Disney flick. (Have you read Oliver Twist? If not, minor spoilers ahead ...) A seemingly ordinary orphan, in the care of so-called "moral" individuals of the middle class who are really corrupt and sick. Several villains - one, Fagin, who is mean and bad but not really evil; the other, Sikes, who is truly evil and brutal. A dead mother who is key to everything. A helpful old man, some friends along the way, and in the end, a very settled life the hero deserves. It's not an exact match, of course (or else Charles Dickens would have risen from the grave and sued Rowling ;-D), but Harry Potter is much more Victorian than I expected. There is a clear good and evil, and yet, some of the supporting cast - Snape, the Dursleys, the Malfoys, the Ministry officials etc. - show the various shades of good and evil. Like Oliver Twist, Harry will always make the good choice ... but not before you , the reader, see the other options.
I do agree with Sawyer, though, that Snape would have been the more interesting protagonist. But he would have been the more interesting protagonist for a series aimed at adults. I'm not trying to argue that teens are too stupid to recognize and appreciate the struggle Snape undergoes. But I don't think many teens are in an emotional place to really appreciate that struggle. I know I wasn't. (Though I wish I could say that I was. sigune and the-bitter-word both said that, when they were teens, they would have been rooting for Snape. But I was still very much in a black and white world, only just beginning to accept that decent people do some really nasty things.
And I think that most of my students really could have cared less about Snape (based on the few HP club meetings when we actually talked about character development ...) They identified with the Trio ... or Draco. Probably in part because of the movies, but also because these were fellow teenagers. Their experiences, even in a fantasy world, were so much closer to the experiences they had. Of course, I teach at a private school, and most of my students are privileged (though not necessarily wealthy).
Reply
It's true, he's certainly not static. The reason I agreed with the essay is it seems Harry's issues -- particularly jumping to conclusions and his hatred of Snape -- are resolved without any struggle on his part. Jumping to conclusions? It's OK! He happens to be right! Except where Snape is concerned, at least -- which brings us to No. 2, and ... well, that just went away for no apparent reason. I don't mean when he viewed Snape's memories; I was struck long beforehand that his raging anger at the end of Half-Blood Prince had petered out. We get that one moment of him yelling "Snape!" when we learn who sliced off George's ear, but that's it. I expected him to have to work through this, and it was odd that he didn't.
It's the same with his flashes of dark-ish behavior. Back in OotP, when his interaction with Dudley made me think of Snape at his most sarcastically bitter, I thought: Oh, this is really clever, Rowling's making her hero more like the anti-hero -- what possibilities. Then you have him gleefully using Snape's questionable spells in HBP (I flinched when he cast something -- can't remember what now -- at Filch just because he could). And finally the Cruciatus in DH, which bothered me more than the botched one in OotP because the second time, Harry is in full control of himself and treats it as a bit of a laugh. All this ought to be leading somewhere, but it doesn't. Harry is Goodness Itself because ... just because. "All was well."
Maybe I'm being too harsh? I'm not a Harry-hater, really -- I don't want him exposed as a terrible person. I just wanted these things to be dealt with, rather than swept under the carpet.
Anyway, I completely agree with you that most kids, even older ones, don't identify with Snape. Why should they? I think you have to be older to personally understand the appeal of a flawed character slouching toward redemption.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
You're exactly right. It did seem, at the end of HBP, that Rowling was setting us up for a major confrontation between Snape and Harry. And it never came. Now that I think about it that way, I'm pretty disappointed! Not in her characterizations, exactly ... but in her plotting. It's just another one of those instances when she seemed to promise a story that didn't develop. I read over a transcript of her most recent Q&A chat (post-DH) and someone asked about the character who was supposed to develop magic late in life. Her response was something like "Oops, wasn't able to fit that in. Sorry." And I thought, wow, that's something I'd do in a fanfic (if I ever finished). But I didn't expect Rowling to do this! Makes me realize I expected a little too much. I guess, if I were being objective, I'd have realized this last year when I went to the NYC book reading. When she read an excerpt from HBP just after John Irving read an excerpt from "A Prayer for Owen Meany," I remember thinking - Wow, Irving is pretty damn good. I didn't think - "Wow, Rowling isn't nearly as good." But I think that was the reality of it. ;-D Don't get me wrong. I'm still a fan of the book, the series, and Rowling. But the more we continue these conversations, the more I'm forced to admit that the story could have been much stronger. I guess what I'm trying to articulate (badly) is that there are some disagreements over the characterizations (should Snape have loved Lily, should Harry have been so angry, should Hermione have been so whiny, etc.). I think this is the author's choice, and if a reader doesn't like those characterizations, that doesn't necessarily mean the author lacks skill ... only that reader and author see things differently. But then there are some issues that readers have that really stem from flaws in the storytelling. I think Harry's strange lack of anger toward Snape in much of DH is one of those problems because the author told us he was angry but then didn't really show that anger as being important.
Wow, I took a really long paragraph to tell you what you just told me. And I'm criticizing Rowling for the way she writes? ;-D
Maybe I'm being too harsh? I'm not a Harry-hater, really -- I don't want him exposed as a terrible person. I just wanted these things to be dealt with, rather than swept under the carpet.
No, you're not being too harsh. This makes complete sense.
Reply
~dances around joyfully~
~realizes that you've been convinced that DH isn't quite as enjoyable as you thought it was; feels guilty~
I don't feel as disappointed with DH as I was with the Star Wars prequels, so I suppose it could be worse. Perhaps I'll go read some John Irving.
Reply
Leave a comment