No-rules Potter

11 Comments

Actually, that last entry started out to be about something entirely different. I was going to briefly mention an article from the Financial Express called "Potter Phenomenon: Will The Magic Never End?" The article is mostly uninteresting, but it includes what the article author sees as the "business morals" that we can draw from Rowling's success. The first one is to "hook the kids," something I've heard others say. But then she says this:

Second, think wild. JK Rowling's story follows no rules at all. Anything can happen in a Harry Potter book and usually does. The single thing that grabbed me most about the series is Rowling's sheer force of imagination: You have diaries that write back, railway platforms numbered 9 3/4 , dead professors who come to class to teach, portraits that come alive at night. If you want to learn how to think out-of-the-box, read a Harry Potter book. A logical person would have said: naaaah, this is too weird, it'll never work. But look at how it did. Moral: if you have a crazy idea, think "why not?"

Of course, Rowling's "sheer force of imagination" is pedestrian by speculative fiction standards, but of course people who've never read any of that weird science fiction stuff have no way of knowing that. And, of course, having "no rules at all" would not be a good thing; to her credit, Rowling is (imo) reasonably internally consistent in what can and can't be done in the Potterverse. The moral I would draw is that even work that doesn't do anything terribly new in terms of ideas can hit it big if it happens to capture the zeitgeist and the public imagination. (Some, more cynical than I about such things, would add that only work that doesn't do anything terribly new can hit it big. But the ideas in Rowling's work are clearly new to a lot of people, just not to speculative fiction readers.)

Don't get me wrong; I think Rowling's books are fun, and move along smoothly, and though I won't be standing in line next week to pick up the new one in hardcover, I'll certainly be interested in reading it. Really, this is just another episode of Curmudgeon Jed being annoyed by people being overly impressed with aspects of Rowling that've been done plenty of times before, often better.

11 Responses to “No-rules Potter”

  1. Catherine Osborne

    well, cantankerous Catherine thinks the same thing. I’m all, well, they’re fine, sure, but can I PLEASE buy every child on the planet a set of Narnia books, for God’s sake? They’re just…it’s not that they’re bad, just that they’re pedestrian in the extreme, and it drives me crazy that Susan Cooper or any number of other authors just don’t get that kind of recognition.

    reply

  2. Jenn Reese

    I certainly don’t think the Harry Potter books are the best children’s books ever, but they are highly entertaining. And clearly she’s done something right to hook so much of the world. I read that article, too, and I agree with the author that Rowling’s world is highly inconsistent. I think so much of it — the magic system, Quiddich, the economics, etc. — is impossible and inconsistent to a frustrating level. Yet, at the heart of the stories are three very likeable characters who always try to do the right thing. I love the Narnia books, but I remember almost none of the actual characters. Certainly none attract me as much as Hermione (for her Willow-esqueness). I think the books are appallingly written – especially with their use of dialogue tags — but it doesn’t seem to matter in the end. These books create a monumental sense of wonder (perhaps in the sheer number of magical details — details that are certainly lacking in books with more versimilitude), but also create credible, scary threats. I always find myself rooting for the heroes, wanting to defy the villains, and most of all, wanting to attend Hogwarts.

    I understand your cynicism, but I do think Rowlings books do certain things better than Narnia, etc. Of course, I also don’t see much point in stating which is better. What does that really matter? “Better” is such a subjective concept in terms of fiction.

    Wow. I’ll be amazed if any of this post makes sense. I’m practicing some serious writing avoidance over here. 🙂

    reply

  3. Jed Hartman

    I certainly agree that Rowling is clearly doing something right; hard to argue with that level of success. Her books clearly speak to an enormous number of people. And good point about sheer number of magical details.

    But the article’s author is saying two specific things that bug me: first, that Rowling is wildly imaginative, with the implication that this goes far beyond anything anyone’s ever done before. (If someone familiar with the genre said that, I’d listen seriously to their argument; but my guess is that this article’s author has simply never encountered books in which cool magical stuff happens, and that seems sad to me. For sense of wonder and wildness of imagination, there are dozens of kids’ books that imo far outshine Rowling, even if they don’t have as many specific magical details.) Second, that being wildly imaginative is the same thing as having no rules; I disagree. (And we could argue about how consistent she is, but my real point is that “no rules at all” isn’t true. Whether or not they’re consistently applied, there are plenty of rules to the Potterverse, and it’s quite possible to be wildly imaginative while still following all sorts of rules of story logic.)

    This sounds like I’m nitpicking her phrasing, but I think I’m really disagreeing with her at a more fundamental level: she’s saying that amazingly unusual magical stuff, beyond what any normal person could imagine, is a key to Rowling’s success, while I feel that the relative obscurity of most children’s-fantasy authors is proof that that’s not true.

    Please note, btw, that Jed still has a headache and thus is being extra-grumpy this afternoon.

    reply

  4. Jenn Reese

    Don’t worry, Jed. You’re not coming off as grumpy. I can definitely see your point. I mean “Diaries that write back!” is hardly the height of creativity compared to most even run-of-the-mill fantasies.

    Hm. But perhaps that’s what makes this book different — there’s enough of the real world to hook people into fantasy. Most of the magic items actually do incredibly mundane things — the Rememberall turns red if you’ve forgotten something. A Howler is a letter that yells at you. The candles float by themselves. Maybe because these things aren’t “wildly” imaginative, but just a little imaginative, the books are more accessible to non-fantasy readers. You don’t need to actually think when you read them — everything is just one step removed from the real world instead of requiring a whole new fantasy world and system of rules, politics, etc.

    Just speculating, of course. So yes, I’ll agree that the woman who wrote the article clearly doesn’t know what she’s talking about in terms of “wild imagination” and “no rules.” No argument from me on that one, no sireee.

    Sorry about the headache. 🙁

    reply

  5. Mary Anne

    I will just note that Edmund, in the first Narnia book, is one of my favorite kids’ book characters ever, of a character that you hardly ever see in a kids’ book, and which struck me as very real, even as a child. And I typed out a long explanation of why but then deleted it because it contained way too many spoilers. Just go read the book.

    reply

  6. Jenn Reese

    I remember Edmund very well, and I agree that he was exceptionally real and interesting. However, he’s certainly not one of my favorite characters, and I never actually liked him or wanted to be him, which I think is much of the allure of Harry, Ron and Hermione. Obviously, just my opinion. 🙂

    reply

  7. Tempest

    I remember reading (and rereading) and loving the Narnia books as a child, but I also remember that I never had any particular desire to actually live in Narnia. It was a nice place to visit in books and all, but I never sat around daydreaming about my own adventures with Aslan. Whereas I would LOVE to live in Potterland, Voldemort and all.

    What I think is most appealing about Rowling’s books IS her imagination. not that she’s creating stuff we, as spec fic readers, haven’t seen before, but that she really seems to be pulling all of this stuff out of her own head. because she’s not well read in fantasy or myth or folklore, she’s basically just using what she had already. Stuff that she probably picked up at school or from TV. In that way, I think she’s a lot like the people who read her books, and in that way she appeals to them.

    reply

  8. Shannon

    Well I had resisted reading the Potter books for quite a while, but finally gave in and bought the 4 book set used from Powells.com.

    I think there are certainly equally interesting children’s fantasy novels out there (I would cite The Baum OZ books and Dr. Doolittle as a few of my favorites from childhood).

    A few elements of the Potter books which I think go a long way to explaining their popularity.

    1. The structure of each book being a year at school resonates deeply with children and with adults – children because they are in the midst of a year of school, adults because they can think back on their school days.

    2. The “heros” while special are not exactly like the heroes of many genre books – i.e. they are not(at least all of them) the best at everything they do, and they do bend (or break) the rules – and get punished to some degree. In short while decidely not “normal” the heroes of the Potter books are also not abnormal to the same degree that many other genre books might have – i.e. the social outcasts/nerds etc.

    3. The magic in the Potter books is contexualized in the context of families with kids, and with lots of humor – in contrast many fantasy novels the magic while internally consistant, is not very humourous or grounded in day to day events (sending care packages, letters, going shopping).

    reply

  9. Rachel Heslin

    I actually feel a bit guilty about admitting that I’m tired of the Potter books. Yes, I enjoyed them, and I like how they’re getting darker and more emotionally intense, yet I find that I’m at a stage where I prefer characters over caricatures, and they just don’t hook me the way they did.

    reply

  10. David Moles

    Nice analysis, Shannon. To that I’d add that Rowling’s plotting is well above average — miles better than C.S. Lewis, for instance (sorry, Catherine!), who too often can’t resist the literal deus ex machina; and even if her world-building isn’t particularly original (a faculty that I think many of her detractors overrate), she crams in much more in the way of “eyeball kicks” than, say, Susan Cooper.

    I think that’s really what the Express reviewer is reacting to, Jed — Rowling’s world is crowded with magic the way a Tokyo shopping district is crowded with flashing, beeping electronics, and even if the individual gadgets turn out to be rather pedestrian at close examination, the cumulative effect is formidable.

    I have to admit I haven’t read a lot of children’s or YA fantasy, beyond — back when I was still in the target audience — C.S. Lewis, Lloyd Alexander, Susan Cooper, some Andre Norton and Patricia Wrede, and (if you want to count it) the Earthsea trilogy, as well as some one-offs that rather predate the genre, like Peter Pan and Thurber’s The Thirteen Clocks. I’ve read a little Diana Wynne-Jones and one or two other moderns as an adult, but honestly I haven’t been overwhelemed. (Except by Golden Compass, but the sequels didn’t measure up.) The “adult” stuff I’ve read plenty of, and given that Rowling wasn’t setting out to write Swordspoint or The Last Unicorn or Galveston or Last Call, I think she stacks up well enough. So I’m at a bit of a loss — without going into metafictional issues like the social psychology of fandom — why she catches so much flack from the fan community for being substandard and derivative.

    Anyway, all that’s just a long-winded way of saying that either my taste isn’t sophisticated enough or I haven’t read the right books. Assuming it’s the latter, does anyone have any recommendations?

    reply

  11. Vardibidian

    Sorry to take so long to respond, and I can’t believe no-one else beat me to it…

    Diana Wynne Jones writes tons and tons of YA fantasy; some is better than others, and it depends what you are looking for. Howl’s Moving Castle is the most immediately comparable to the Potter books. Goose Chase, by Patrice Kindl, is terrific. I’m sure I’ll think of others just after I hit the “Insert Comment” button.

    As for me, I think the Potter books are wonderful, although I certainly have my complaints. I prefer them to C.S. Lewis, and honestly I enjoy them more than most of the Oz books (but not the Wonderful Wizard). I re-read the Book of Three recently, and and I think the first Potter compares pretty well with them. I vastly prefer the Potters to the Dark Materials stuff, and if the Potters aren’t as good as Alice in Wonderland, well, what is?

    Of course, to get back to Jed’s point, one of the things that I like about the Potters is that they are very much rule-bound. Not in their magic, but they are good old-fashioned schoolboy stories, much like Wodehouse used to write (I’m thinking here of Head of Kay’s, but they follow all the old rules: Our hero is in a Good House that hasn’t won the Cup in forever and a Day, and must vanquish the Bad House (with its unfair Master) to do it. There are rules to bend, big brothers to avoid, and detentions to serve. Rowling manages to stay within all of this, while putting it in a magic world which is also totally recognizeable, and funny, and comforting, and just a bit scary. That’s what I like about ’em.

    As for Ms. Bhargava’s article, it reminds of a time when on some NPR program they were talking about Star Trek, and talked to a fellow who was writing a book called (more or less) Captain Picard’s Rules for Business. It turns out that the author hadn’t actually watched very many of the shows, nor did he like them particularly, he was just using Picard to illustrate some Rules for Business which he had come up with and wanted to sell. There’s no evidence in the article that Ms. Bhargava has even read one of the books (as opposed to tripping over her bratty children’s toys) (assuming that the children exist).

    Thank you,
    -Vardibidian.

    reply

Join the Conversation