Current mood:	cranky
Current music:	I Want You to Want Me - Cheap Trick

discussing AS Byatt's Op-Ed piece...
So Dot asked us what we thought about A.S. Byatt's piece on Harry Potter in today's Times</b></a>.

Not to put too fine a point on it, I think she's full of shit, but what do I know? (And Possession is one of my favorite books, btw, so I like Byatt.)

Anyhow, this is cobbled together from some emails Dot and I exchanged today on the subject, with her comments edited out, since I don't have her permission to share them.

I don't think HP stands with Lewis or L'Engle or LeGuin (to go with an "L" theme) as excellent literary writing, but I find the world itself very interesting and satisfying.

Yeah, it's pastiche, but it's well-done pastiche. Yes, there are writing issues, but the writing has gotten stronger in each book (though she still needs a firm editor, and I don't think she's got one), but I think it's also popular for 'literary' writers to bash popular works. And nothing is more popular than HP right now, you know? It's more *story* than style, and storytelling is never as respected by writers as literary thingies are. (And yes, that's the sound of my college professors groaning in unison as all litcrit jargon flees my tired brain.)

As for Dark Is Rising, well, I tried it (as an adult) and found it twee and unreadable, whereas my 'adult' brain slipped easily and whole-heartedly into Harry Potter's world on first reading. *shrug* The characters may be stereotypes (though that's changed, I think over the course of the books), but they're quite lovable.

And yes, again, literary comfort food, at least up until Cedric buys it in GoF. I think that was the turning point, and there’s no *way* you can tell me OotP is a comforting book. I think Rowling has done well to capture the adolescent anger at the whole “I’m living in a world I didn’t make” thing (ASSCAPS aside. see note about strong editing), as well as the distrust of authority (and Harry *ought* to distrust authority, considering how it’s treated him throughout his life, up to and including Dumbledore, who may claim to love him but is using him nonetheless, and worse, using the tragedy in his life to mold him into a weapon against Voldemort).

Yeah, the romance is a little juvenile, but gah. I remember my first kiss and my reactions to it and I didn’t think she was far off. Yes, I wanted to kick Cho (or put her in therapy), but Harry’s no prize (hello? 15yo boy), and he, like Buffy, has got a lot more important things going on than appeasing a girlfriend or catering to her.

Rowling has finally produced some interesting female characters (other than Hermione), which was my one major knock against her previously. But we had two really nasty female villains *plus* Luna, Ginny, Cho, Molly Weasley, Tonks and McGonagall in addition to Hermione (not to mention Lily’s brilliant moment) as opposed to Lavender and Parvati giggling all the time in previous books, and Hermione discounting her contributions (and I can’t emphasize enough how *much* her little speech in book 1 about how she’s just “books and learning” while Harry is bravery and nobility pisses me off. If Harry spent more time listening to Hermione and less time running around like a testosterone-fueled brat [like (god)father like son? *g*), the big tragedy of OotP could have been averted. That's not to say I wouldn't like to see Hermione be flat-out wrong sometimes, 'cause I would.).

And that was a tangent I didn’t mean to go off on. *g*

On the topic of the numinous:
Well, there *is* a sense of wonder early on, when Harry first finds out he's a wizard.

But part of what I like about it is how lived in the magic feels. Yes, it's not as ... awesome (in its original meaning, not its surfer dude devolution) as the magic in say, Earthsea (which is lived in but completely *foreign*) but I don't think it's *meant* to be.

It's more like a Star Wars or Buffy kind of magic. Cool, but you could see it being possible in our world.

As for there being no heavy issues or themes presented in the books, well, I think she's wrong, and if she's read PoA, GoF or OotP, she obviously hasn't done so very closely, because the books are teeming with issues, simplistic at first, but still - the issues are there.

Shall I list them? I shall:

1. racism (Muggles. Mudbloods. Half-breeds. Werewolves. A whole enslaved race of elves and a race of goblins who are clearly analogous on some level to medieval Jews - allowed to handle all the money but not allowed any true freedoms.)

2. classism/elitism (OotP is in particular a pointed criticism of the aristocracy. And even the 'really' poor families (i.e., the Weasleys) own their own home and seem to have enough food/enough money for education. The only truly poor person so far is Remus. Harry is only poor in Muggle money terms.)

3. fascism (Umbridge and her inquisition)

4. appeasement of evil (Fudge=Chamberlain)

5. consumerism/yuppie materialism (the Dursleys)

6. governmental corruption and inertia

7. police brutality/habeas corpus/death penalty (Sirius's whole story line, up to and including the dementors - what kind of government uses such methods of incarceration or allows the use of deadly force without question, as Barty Crouch allowed the Aurors? How was Sirius imprisoned without a trial?)

8. power/authority and its uses and abuses (from Lupin's inability to stop Sirius and James from their nasty bullying to Snape's behavior as a teacher toward his students to Dumbledore's manipulations of children to gain his ends to Lucius Malfoy's buying up the government and Umbridge's takeover of the school and the teachers' rebellion against her, and Harry's own struggles with authority and who to believe and who has rightful authority and who doesn't? to Voldemort seeking power over death to the way wizards without second thought cast memory charms on Muggles left and right...)

9. the bankruptcy of celebrity culture (not only Harry's fame but Lockhart's)

10. free press v. goverment-controlled press

And all of that's without even touching on issues of adolescence and growing up and school stuff (though of course, some of that is included in the above), *or* dealing with grief and tragedy as a youngster.

These threads are all *there*, though admittedly, Rowling may not be doing a great job with all of them, and some of them are drawn rather simplistically. I may choose not to read any of that stuff into it, and just think they're cracking good stories. Otoh, I'm sure if I were so inclined (which, anyone who's read this LJ for any length of time knows I'm not, lit degree aside), I could do a Marxist (or some other 'ist') reading of the books and find textual support.

So while I don't think the books are great literature* (kid or adult), per se, I don't think they're easily dismissable as prepackaged and toothless.

To sum up, people are gonna knock it, but I like it regardless, and I think it keeps getting better.

*At some later date I may go into what *I* think *is* great literature, but to put it simply for now, the writing ought to match the subject matter in depth and grace, and Rowling's writing doesn't. She's a good storyteller, but her writing is ... workmanlike at best, though I envy her facility with action scenes.

Edited to add Tonks to the roster of cool female characters, just for harriet_spy. *g*