Reading Harry Potter as one book

[Maria]

The part that irks me about the Potterverse magic is that the "sectum sempra" spell worked for Harry when he didn't even have a clue what it would do. Or how to pronounce the words. Or how to wave his wand. That violates even Rowlings own loose magical code.

If a story is going to have magic, it's use should be internally consistant. Everything she wrote about magic use before and after Harry got hold of Snape's old textbook showed that new spellls are hard to learn even for Harry, and required concentration and focus. Later on, they learned to do them silently and that required even more concentration.

It's hard to believe that just saying the words and willing something unknown to happen would really work.

edit: You are one book away from my favorite in the Dresden series, Wampus. Enjoy!

[WampusCat]

OT I'm on Blood Rites now, and it's terrific. Very interesting twists!

[Frelga]

Would someone like to save me googling and tell me what the first book in Dresden Files is? I am ready for some new fantasy.

[Maria]

"Storm Front"

[Frelga]

Thanks

[Túrin Turambar]

Yes, magic is really the weakest part of Potterverse, ironically. It's inconsistent, it's boundaries are not defined. The whole theme of the Weasleys being poor - what does that mean, when they are a family of powerful magicians who can apparently conjure objects out of the air or turn one thing into another?

I think that it's because the HP books are not so much fantasy as an English boarding-school story/Agatha Christie-like mystery/comedy with a magical setting. The use of magic is all a bit tongue-in-cheek - it's not serious in the same way the drama sorrounding the characters is. That's why I think the series struggles under its own weight a bit in the later books - the stories were never equipped to be high fantasy.

[WampusCat]

The Dresden books are by Jim Butcher, by the way, and the audiobooks of them are outstanding. They are detective books with fantasy elements, as Potter books are (as Lord M said) English boarding school books with fantasy elements.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

I reached halfway through The Goblet of Fire before terminating my JK Rowling investment. Apart from the repetition (each story seemed to be a retelling, with cosmetic alterations, of the previous one) I had the feeling that an editor was required, but the author's ego had grown so great that an editor was dispensed with. For their content, the later books just seem incredibly long, as people who have read them do seem to concede. The idea of reading the thousands of pages as one volume fills me with horror. At least Richmal Crompton and Enid Blyton understood concision!

[WampusCat]

I don't know if it was the author's ego or the publisher's reluctance to tamper with a successful product. But everyone needs an editor. And it did become obvious with Goblet.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Rowling was no more in need of an editor than Tolkien was. Which is to say, by normal standards, they both were in need of an editor. But I would argue that in some cases normal standards don't apply. Personally, the more wild and rambling the Potter books became, the more I enjoyed them. I'm sure that makes me intellectually deficient and all that, but you know what? I don't care.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

Rowling was no more in need of an editor than Tolkien was. Which is to say, by normal standards, they both were in need of an editor. But I would argue that in some cases normal standards don't apply. Personally, the more wild and rambling the Potter books became, the more I enjoyed them. I'm sure that makes me intellectually deficient and all that, but you know what? I don't care.

Oh, I so disagree. Not about your intellectual deficiency (who am I to argue?) but in your comparison of Rowling with Tolkien. There are occasions (rarely) when Tolkien could do with a jolt, but considering that the Goblet of Fire was almost as long as the Fellowship and Two Towers combined... I ask you, really?

[WampusCat]

Goodness no, it doesn't make you intellectually deficient! The books were highly enjoyable, and I, for one, gladly read every word. But professionally I do see how the last few books could have benefitted from a little more focus. That's all. I don't mean to disparage anyone with that opinion!

[Voronwë the Faithful]

No offense taken, Wampus!

Nor was I trying to suggest that what Rowling has done is comparable to what Tolkien did. Rowlings work doesn't have anything like the depth that Tolkien's has (and don't forget that LotR is only a comparatively small portion of Tolkien's work). And, much as I enjoyed the Potter books, they will never mean anything to me like Tolkien's work has (nor could I ever imagine putting the kind of work into a study of Potter that I put into Arda Reconstructed). But what they do have in common is that they disregarded literary conventions, to the disgust of professional literary critics, but to unprecedented popular success. Much of the criticism of Tolkien's work, particularly LOTR, is what critics consider the over-abundance of detail. Yet, of course, that is one the things that makes LotR so great. Moreover, I would argue that Tolkien's least successful published book is The Silmarillion, in large part because it WAS edited, and much of that detail was removed (I believe, though I can't prove it, that this was largely done by Guy Kay, who is very much a believer in literary conventions).

[elfshadow]

I'm briefly stepping out of lurkdom to say what I say in almost every discussion about Harry Potter and J.K. Rowling: considering Rowling's intended audience, I do not see why anyone ever feels the need to engage in any sort of literary criticism of her books. I started reading Harry Potter when I was nine and the books first came out--this was Rowling's intended audience. I believe that the reason so many adults love them is precisely because they were written for children. As Wampus so rightly said, the magic in Harry Potter is the sort of magic we all wish we could do! She built a universe that appeals to the child in many of us, wistfully hanging on to the possibility of that sort of magic. Perhaps I have a different view because I grew up reading the books. I was about the same age as Harry throughout the years that the books were being written, and I was able to look forward to the release of each new book as was published. I'd spend hours reading each one nonstop, and let myself get lost in the Potter world.

So it just strikes me that any literary analysis of Rowling's writing is a bit misplaced. She never intended to write the next LOTR trilogy, and she certainly does not have the gift Tolkien had with words and language. However, like Tolkien, I believe she was writing mostly for herself and for those readers who would enjoy the world she created. I don't think the Potter books were ever meant to be "great literature" and they shouldn't be treated as such. They were written for children, as is evident by the writing in the first two or three books of the series. That so many adults deeply enjoy the books, I think, is a testament to Rowling's ability to tap into the childish fantasy in all of us.

V, I'm very glad that you became as immersed in Rowling's world as I did, despite our otherwise different experiences with the books! I've wondered what it would be like to read them for the first time as you did, and it is definitely a perspective I appreciate.

[axordil]

I have a hard time believing any six- or seven-hundred page book is written for children. Just sayin'.

[Inanna]

I have a hard time believing any six- or seven-hundred page book is written for children. Just sayin'.

Not children, as in kids, but for "Young Adults". And the first 3-4books in the series were much thinner - around 350 pages each.

[River]

As a college classmate of mine once said, Harry Potter is instant entertainment. Open up the book and boom, you are entertained. Crack on paper. Even the parts that seem extraneous are fun and amusing. The last books were definitely a bit on the bloated side, but I looked on much of that as fan service and I was entertained. So yes, maybe there was a need for editing and Rowling probably is not going to be winning a Nobel for literature. But you know what? I never cared and I still don't care. I'm not sure Rowling ever meant these books to be great works of literature. She just had a story to tell.

[elfshadow]

I have a hard time believing any six- or seven-hundred page book is written for children. Just sayin'.

Maybe not six-year-olds, no. But certainly by the time most kids are ten or eleven I think they could easily get through the writing in Harry Potter, even in the longer ones. I think the content of the books matures as Harry ages, but as Mahima said, they are still appropriate for young adults. My point was that they were not written as an adult fantasy series, and therefore I do no think it is necessary to analyze them as such.

[Frelga]

Well, my son was younger than ten when he read through LOTR, FWIW, and by then he had read through whatever HPs were out.

And I don't see why a book written for children is therefore excused from having literary value. Kipling's Kim, for instance, is one of the most gorgeous novels written in English, and it's aimed at young readers.

The reason people put up with extraneous stuff in Rowling's books is similar to the reasons they put up with extraneous stuff in Tolkien's books (as I think V alluded to) - because they want to spend more time in the book's world. Tolkien is just better at it.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Elsha, you speak words of wisdom.

And