In all the books, Harry is a hero because he is able to dig deep into his sources of courage, wit and physical strength when he needs to. It is obvious that he is not a natural hero, nor is he fully comfortable with his fame. He knows that to some his fame is notoriety, and J K Rowling has done well to remind readers and viewers in the celebrity age of the difference between the two.
From his first confrontation with Voldemort in The Philosopher's Stone to his final destruction of him in The Deathly Hallows, Harry's efforts against Voldemort have been as much on behalf of his friends as in revenge for the death of his parents. While he has not tempered his actions - the stabbing of Tom Riddle's diary with the basilisk tooth was at once inspired and murderously violent - he is not given to blind, vengeful furies. His thoughts leading up to his actions are often impulsive and the product of rage, but when it comes to the crunch, he acts with a clearer vision.
In The Prisoner of Azkaban, we see Harry's more considered - if ultimately ineffective - treatment of Peter Pettigrew, insisting that he be handed over for trial and shipment to Azkaban, rather than being vapourised in the Screaming Shack.
Like all people with talent - whether musical, sporting, dramatic, literary or whatever - Harry, too, has his own favourite moves. That Voldemort hasn't learned this is a result of his own hubris. In the final confrontation, Voldemort is truly at bay. He is facing a Harry Potter that he believes to have killed already. His loyal aids are dead, including his favourite, Bellatrix Lestrange. Voldemort is, much like Macbeth, taking his last desperate throw, using all his remaining strength.
Harry, however, has passed to a new plane where he is no longer afraid of death, having faced it. There is nothing more Voldemort can do to him, and he knows it. His knowledge of the prophecy, and his awareness of the nature of the transference of the Elder Wand, gives him the serenity of mind to realise that all that is necessary in the final exchange is his own, tried and proven, spell, Expelliarmus!.
It is enough to defeat Voldemort. Harry has proved he not a killer, but one who uses his wits as well as his magical abilities. He has not been corrupted by his experiences, and this is why his friends, Hermione, Neville, Luna, all the Weasleys, and others have remained loyal to him.
Sunday 9 December 2007
Wednesday 24 October 2007
When books are written
It’s curious that no one suspected Dumbldore was gay. We saw him on the first page of The Philosopher’s Stone and in the final chapters of The Deathly Hallows, and no one caught on. Not a whisper of suspicion; not a hint of scandal.
Dumbledore’s age has never been clearly explained. His friendship with Nicolas Flamel suggests that he, too, might be extraordinarily old. However, when he speaks of his parents, his sister, and his – still living – brother, he seems more bounded by the conventional three score years and ten.
So what are we to make of J K Rowling’s Carnegie Hall revelation?
This is a much more knotty problem than might first be supposed, because it raises the question that everyone who majored in English Literature will be well aware of: when does a writer (or other artist) let go of his work?
Received wisdom acknowledges that there are more things in the creative artist’s mind surrounding a work than make it to the page (or canvas). Given that, it’s a logical step to assume that there is legitimately more to be said about a work than has actually been made public. And this is where the debate begins.
There are those who maintain that once a work has been published, the author has no further legitimate input. Who knows what Shakespeare said in the pub after the first performance of Hamlet? Or what Michelangelo said in the bistro after Julius II had inspected the Sistine Chapel ceiling?
And that’s the point: Whatever J K Rowling says about her characters from 21 July 2007 on doesn’t really matter, because they don’t change the books. Should the books survive, it’s doubtful that her comments will be anything more than a footnote in someone’s obscure dissertation.
This does not prevent writers from having some fun, and perhaps this is what Jo is doing. William Faulkner (does anyone actually read Faulkner anymore?) was notorious for this. A visiting writer asking about a character in his interminable Yoknapatawpha series was told, “Well, his uncle was a bit that way. He ran off to join the circus when he was twelve. . ." The young writer went through the whole series again, but there was no uncle and no circus; just an old man having some fun.
So, is Dumbledore gay? Probably not, actually. Someone would have discovered it long before J K Rowling decided to have him come out of the Room of Requirement. Besides, I always thought he was rather sweet on Professor Sprout.
Dumbledore’s age has never been clearly explained. His friendship with Nicolas Flamel suggests that he, too, might be extraordinarily old. However, when he speaks of his parents, his sister, and his – still living – brother, he seems more bounded by the conventional three score years and ten.
So what are we to make of J K Rowling’s Carnegie Hall revelation?
This is a much more knotty problem than might first be supposed, because it raises the question that everyone who majored in English Literature will be well aware of: when does a writer (or other artist) let go of his work?
Received wisdom acknowledges that there are more things in the creative artist’s mind surrounding a work than make it to the page (or canvas). Given that, it’s a logical step to assume that there is legitimately more to be said about a work than has actually been made public. And this is where the debate begins.
There are those who maintain that once a work has been published, the author has no further legitimate input. Who knows what Shakespeare said in the pub after the first performance of Hamlet? Or what Michelangelo said in the bistro after Julius II had inspected the Sistine Chapel ceiling?
And that’s the point: Whatever J K Rowling says about her characters from 21 July 2007 on doesn’t really matter, because they don’t change the books. Should the books survive, it’s doubtful that her comments will be anything more than a footnote in someone’s obscure dissertation.
This does not prevent writers from having some fun, and perhaps this is what Jo is doing. William Faulkner (does anyone actually read Faulkner anymore?) was notorious for this. A visiting writer asking about a character in his interminable Yoknapatawpha series was told, “Well, his uncle was a bit that way. He ran off to join the circus when he was twelve. . ." The young writer went through the whole series again, but there was no uncle and no circus; just an old man having some fun.
So, is Dumbledore gay? Probably not, actually. Someone would have discovered it long before J K Rowling decided to have him come out of the Room of Requirement. Besides, I always thought he was rather sweet on Professor Sprout.
Thursday 4 October 2007
Harry Potter and the Spirit of Youth
Harry’s indomitable spirit is one of the keys to his appeal, and the appeal of the books. He is a real adolescent, moving from insecurity, to anger to adulthood, and along the way becoming determined, witty and even crusading.
Harry’s sense of justice and moral indignation is familiar to all teenagers who read the books – and to adults who remember this period of their lives. Things that are unfair outrage Harry. He is impulsive, and as Dumbledore rightly recognizes, needs the cool head of Hermione to keep him in check.
At the same time, Harry is a lover of tradition. He is uncertain of change – the exception being his conviction that anything is better than living with the Dursleys. To Harry, Hogwarts and Dumbledore are inseparable, and this is reinforced by his rescuer, Hagrid, who steadfastly maintains that Dumbledore is the best headmaster Hogwarts has ever had. This is most clearly demonstrated in The Chamber of Secrets when Harry’s loyalty is sufficient to summon Fawkes, the phoenix.
However, as Harry matures through the books, he is able to see the other characters in more than the black and white terms of childhood. J K Rawling underlines this when she comments that people aren’t all good or all bad. It is this, of course, what makes life tricky to understand, as our childhood notions would very much like to put people in tidy boxes.
The mutability of the Malfoys from absolute villains to disenfranchised parents concerned for their son, is an obvious case in point. Also critical is Peter Pettigrew’s instant of hesitation that allows Harry to escape.
Dumbledore’s eulogy for Cedric Diggory at the end of The Goblet of Fire is something of a climax to the series. He is praising those qualities of youth that Cedric exemplified, and his phrase, “fierce friend” speaks volumes about the nature of youth.
That youth should be dealt with honestly is one of the greatest sub-texts of the series. When adults do not, they succeed only in turning their children in copies, not improvements, of themselves.
Recognition of this is one of J K Rowling’s wisest observations and the way she communicates this to a youthful audience, one of her greatest accomplishments.
Harry’s sense of justice and moral indignation is familiar to all teenagers who read the books – and to adults who remember this period of their lives. Things that are unfair outrage Harry. He is impulsive, and as Dumbledore rightly recognizes, needs the cool head of Hermione to keep him in check.
At the same time, Harry is a lover of tradition. He is uncertain of change – the exception being his conviction that anything is better than living with the Dursleys. To Harry, Hogwarts and Dumbledore are inseparable, and this is reinforced by his rescuer, Hagrid, who steadfastly maintains that Dumbledore is the best headmaster Hogwarts has ever had. This is most clearly demonstrated in The Chamber of Secrets when Harry’s loyalty is sufficient to summon Fawkes, the phoenix.
However, as Harry matures through the books, he is able to see the other characters in more than the black and white terms of childhood. J K Rawling underlines this when she comments that people aren’t all good or all bad. It is this, of course, what makes life tricky to understand, as our childhood notions would very much like to put people in tidy boxes.
The mutability of the Malfoys from absolute villains to disenfranchised parents concerned for their son, is an obvious case in point. Also critical is Peter Pettigrew’s instant of hesitation that allows Harry to escape.
Dumbledore’s eulogy for Cedric Diggory at the end of The Goblet of Fire is something of a climax to the series. He is praising those qualities of youth that Cedric exemplified, and his phrase, “fierce friend” speaks volumes about the nature of youth.
That youth should be dealt with honestly is one of the greatest sub-texts of the series. When adults do not, they succeed only in turning their children in copies, not improvements, of themselves.
Recognition of this is one of J K Rowling’s wisest observations and the way she communicates this to a youthful audience, one of her greatest accomplishments.
Sunday 30 September 2007
Harry Potter and the Egalitarian Spirit
One of the little discussed aspects of the Harry Potter books is also one of the main keys to their success: the basic equality of the characters.
This is no mean achievement in that the main setting for the series is an English boarding school. However, Hogwarts is no ordinary boarding school, nor are the students in any real sense ‘ordinary.’ However, apart from some very basic distinctions, the world of the Potter chronicles is very much a meritocracy.
We know only a few things about the families of the children at the school: Hermione’s completely muggle. Her parents are dentists, and can be assumed to have a comfortable, but not extravagant living – they are British dentists, not American ones, and could even be employed by the National Health Service.
The Weasleys are certainly not wealthy, and there are many cruel remarks made about their “poverty” though they cannot be in any way said to be living in poverty. They have to work hard and make do, but they are still surviving on the salary of Mr Weasley alone – something that may not be true of Hermione’s family, both of whom work. The Weasleys are also pure-bloods.
Harry Potter himself has a muggle mother and wizard father, so in the three main characters, we have all the combinations. Harry does have a great deal of money and earns more from his achievement in the tri-wizard tournament, but he has little regard for money apart from the good it can do for other people. His experiences at the hands of the Dursleys means that he knows just how much generosity and kindness can mean to people who need it.
Of the other student families, we know very little. We know that Neville Longbottom comes from a well-respected family, but there is no evidence of wealth, and Neville is unprepossessing and often a source of good-natured amusement.
We suspect that the Malfoys are wealthy, and see that Lucius Malfoy buys the latest broomstick for the Slitherin quidditch team, but the Malfoys’s brand of snobbery is not based on money, but on power. The source of that power – apart from associations with you know who – is unclear, though Lucius seems to spend a lot of time at the Ministry of Magic.
Apart from these very sketchy inferences, the position of the students and other characters are largely based on ability and moral courage, rather than on inherited position or wealth. J K Rowling’s position appears to be that she considers character to be of more importance than either position or wealth, and we, as readers, respond to that attitude, finding ourselves admiring the virtues of honesty, loyalty, courage, friendship, dedication to duty, and love in the various characters, regardless how eccentric.
Just how J K Rowling gets us to admire and like characters as curious as Lupin, Tonks, Hagrid, Luna Lovegrove and others is part of her art.
This is no mean achievement in that the main setting for the series is an English boarding school. However, Hogwarts is no ordinary boarding school, nor are the students in any real sense ‘ordinary.’ However, apart from some very basic distinctions, the world of the Potter chronicles is very much a meritocracy.
We know only a few things about the families of the children at the school: Hermione’s completely muggle. Her parents are dentists, and can be assumed to have a comfortable, but not extravagant living – they are British dentists, not American ones, and could even be employed by the National Health Service.
The Weasleys are certainly not wealthy, and there are many cruel remarks made about their “poverty” though they cannot be in any way said to be living in poverty. They have to work hard and make do, but they are still surviving on the salary of Mr Weasley alone – something that may not be true of Hermione’s family, both of whom work. The Weasleys are also pure-bloods.
Harry Potter himself has a muggle mother and wizard father, so in the three main characters, we have all the combinations. Harry does have a great deal of money and earns more from his achievement in the tri-wizard tournament, but he has little regard for money apart from the good it can do for other people. His experiences at the hands of the Dursleys means that he knows just how much generosity and kindness can mean to people who need it.
Of the other student families, we know very little. We know that Neville Longbottom comes from a well-respected family, but there is no evidence of wealth, and Neville is unprepossessing and often a source of good-natured amusement.
We suspect that the Malfoys are wealthy, and see that Lucius Malfoy buys the latest broomstick for the Slitherin quidditch team, but the Malfoys’s brand of snobbery is not based on money, but on power. The source of that power – apart from associations with you know who – is unclear, though Lucius seems to spend a lot of time at the Ministry of Magic.
Apart from these very sketchy inferences, the position of the students and other characters are largely based on ability and moral courage, rather than on inherited position or wealth. J K Rowling’s position appears to be that she considers character to be of more importance than either position or wealth, and we, as readers, respond to that attitude, finding ourselves admiring the virtues of honesty, loyalty, courage, friendship, dedication to duty, and love in the various characters, regardless how eccentric.
Just how J K Rowling gets us to admire and like characters as curious as Lupin, Tonks, Hagrid, Luna Lovegrove and others is part of her art.
Monday 17 September 2007
Harry Potter and the Question of Religion – Part 1
This topic will be in several parts as the Harry Potter stories are laced with religious references, myths, stories and ideas.
I want to offer first a few thoughts about whether there is justification for religious outrage at these stories about witches, wizards, ghosts and other supernatural phenomenon.
Let me begin with a story about when I was a teacher. I was teaching at a girls’ school and had set a series of ghost stories as a class reader. The books had been taught at the school before and comprised a selection of Henry James, Somerset Maugham, M R James, Sheridan LeFanu, Edgar Allen Poe and tales by other well-respected writers. These weren’t driller-killer stories.
After one lesson, I found one of the girl’s mother waiting to speak to me.
“I’m not having my daughter reading this book!” she exclaimed. “We’re a Christian family and don’t believe in ghosts and other such supernatural things.”
I let her spill it all out, which took several minutes. When she had finished, I said:
“Very well. Let’s go see the head mistress together.”
“What? Why?” she asked in some surprise.
“To arrange to have your daughter withdrawn from the school,” I replied.
This stopped her.
“Why?”
“Because, if I can’t teach stories with ghosts, I can’t teach her Julius Caesar. I can’t teach her Richard III. I can’t teach her Macbeth. I can’t teach her Hamlet. If I can’t teach her those texts, there is no way that she will get her GCSE examinations, her “A” levels or get into university, so you may as well take her out of school now.”
The mother went home to reconsider and I never heard about it again.
Stories with ghosts and witches and magic are part of the wonder of the culture of the world. They are stories, and when regarded and taught as stories, they are fun and fantastical and provide much amusement, and some chills, too.
Regarded as such, they do little, if any damage to anyone. Like all things, they can be misused. Teaching that Harry Potter was a real boy and that the dark lord known as Voldemort does exist and is waging a secret war in a hidden world is something else altogether.
I’ll talk about evil in another article, but my point here is that read in the way that it’s intended, there’s little harm – and arguably a deal of good – to be found in reading the Harry Potter stories.
I want to offer first a few thoughts about whether there is justification for religious outrage at these stories about witches, wizards, ghosts and other supernatural phenomenon.
Let me begin with a story about when I was a teacher. I was teaching at a girls’ school and had set a series of ghost stories as a class reader. The books had been taught at the school before and comprised a selection of Henry James, Somerset Maugham, M R James, Sheridan LeFanu, Edgar Allen Poe and tales by other well-respected writers. These weren’t driller-killer stories.
After one lesson, I found one of the girl’s mother waiting to speak to me.
“I’m not having my daughter reading this book!” she exclaimed. “We’re a Christian family and don’t believe in ghosts and other such supernatural things.”
I let her spill it all out, which took several minutes. When she had finished, I said:
“Very well. Let’s go see the head mistress together.”
“What? Why?” she asked in some surprise.
“To arrange to have your daughter withdrawn from the school,” I replied.
This stopped her.
“Why?”
“Because, if I can’t teach stories with ghosts, I can’t teach her Julius Caesar. I can’t teach her Richard III. I can’t teach her Macbeth. I can’t teach her Hamlet. If I can’t teach her those texts, there is no way that she will get her GCSE examinations, her “A” levels or get into university, so you may as well take her out of school now.”
The mother went home to reconsider and I never heard about it again.
Stories with ghosts and witches and magic are part of the wonder of the culture of the world. They are stories, and when regarded and taught as stories, they are fun and fantastical and provide much amusement, and some chills, too.
Regarded as such, they do little, if any damage to anyone. Like all things, they can be misused. Teaching that Harry Potter was a real boy and that the dark lord known as Voldemort does exist and is waging a secret war in a hidden world is something else altogether.
I’ll talk about evil in another article, but my point here is that read in the way that it’s intended, there’s little harm – and arguably a deal of good – to be found in reading the Harry Potter stories.
Wednesday 22 August 2007
Of Owls and Newts
One of the unresolved issues at the conclusion of The Deathly Hallows is how do Harry, Ron and Hermione cope with missing their final year at Hogwarts. Mind you, the quality of education at the school had suffered rather badly what with Dumbledore being yanked out mid-year, in The Prisoner of Azkaban, Umbridge taking over in Order of the Phoenix and the distress of Dumbledore’s death in The Half-blood Prince.
Even as long ago as The Chamber of Secrets, exams were cancelled, so one wonders exactly how good a school Hogwarts was. However, next to Drumstrang and Beaubatons Academy, Hogwarts appears to be pretty good. Drumstrang seems to be rather too stoic to be appealing, while the girls of Beaubatons display little of the wit, wisdom and fortitude of the Hogwarts girls. I doubt either of the Delacour girls ever went near a quidditch pitch. Indeed, the Beaubatons’ cheerleading was pretty feeble, too.
Achievement?
While there is no doubt that Harry, Ron and Hermione distinguished themselves in The Deathly Hallows, they did miss their final year at Hogwarts and failed to take their N.E.W.T.s The three had good sets of O.W.L.s (Ron and Harry had 7, while Hermione had 11), one wonders what they did between the time of the vanquishing of Voldemort and the time they, presumably, got married. Calculating from the ages of the children, and assuming they did things in the conventional order, Harry would have been 23 when he married Ginny. Ron and Hermione would have been a similar age.
J K Rowling has given hints that Hermione went into Magical Law, which she could not have done had she not resumed her studies. It can also be assumed that Ginny remained at Hogwarts until she completed her N.E.W.T.s, as she was certainly more studious than George and Fred, who only managed to scrape 3 O.W.L.s each.
I suspect that Harry, Ron and Hermione all attended Knight School, so they were able to do some work during the day. Harry had a considerable amount of money (no doubt, part of the attraction for Ginny, who as the youngest child probably never had anything new), and might have added to it by giving special lessons in Defence Against the Dark Arts, which he had done so successfully to Dumbledore’s Army.
However, with Voldemort defeated, the demand for DADA lessons probably collapsed.
Given the state of 12, Grimmauld Place, Harry would have been well advised to learn some DIY skills to bring that 18th century house up to standard. He could have done worse than training as a plasterer.
It’s not likely, though. I think the trio found a way to complete their education. Yes, Ron, too. Hermione wouldn’t marry someone who only had 7 O.W.L.s. Her parents were dentists, remember, and she knew the value of education and professional training. Similarly, Harry wouldn’t be comfortable with a wife who had more education than he did. He had professional ambitions, too, and even though he might never become an Auror, he was clever enough – and smart enough – to want to make the most of his abilities.
Even as long ago as The Chamber of Secrets, exams were cancelled, so one wonders exactly how good a school Hogwarts was. However, next to Drumstrang and Beaubatons Academy, Hogwarts appears to be pretty good. Drumstrang seems to be rather too stoic to be appealing, while the girls of Beaubatons display little of the wit, wisdom and fortitude of the Hogwarts girls. I doubt either of the Delacour girls ever went near a quidditch pitch. Indeed, the Beaubatons’ cheerleading was pretty feeble, too.
Achievement?
While there is no doubt that Harry, Ron and Hermione distinguished themselves in The Deathly Hallows, they did miss their final year at Hogwarts and failed to take their N.E.W.T.s The three had good sets of O.W.L.s (Ron and Harry had 7, while Hermione had 11), one wonders what they did between the time of the vanquishing of Voldemort and the time they, presumably, got married. Calculating from the ages of the children, and assuming they did things in the conventional order, Harry would have been 23 when he married Ginny. Ron and Hermione would have been a similar age.
J K Rowling has given hints that Hermione went into Magical Law, which she could not have done had she not resumed her studies. It can also be assumed that Ginny remained at Hogwarts until she completed her N.E.W.T.s, as she was certainly more studious than George and Fred, who only managed to scrape 3 O.W.L.s each.
I suspect that Harry, Ron and Hermione all attended Knight School, so they were able to do some work during the day. Harry had a considerable amount of money (no doubt, part of the attraction for Ginny, who as the youngest child probably never had anything new), and might have added to it by giving special lessons in Defence Against the Dark Arts, which he had done so successfully to Dumbledore’s Army.
However, with Voldemort defeated, the demand for DADA lessons probably collapsed.
Given the state of 12, Grimmauld Place, Harry would have been well advised to learn some DIY skills to bring that 18th century house up to standard. He could have done worse than training as a plasterer.
It’s not likely, though. I think the trio found a way to complete their education. Yes, Ron, too. Hermione wouldn’t marry someone who only had 7 O.W.L.s. Her parents were dentists, remember, and she knew the value of education and professional training. Similarly, Harry wouldn’t be comfortable with a wife who had more education than he did. He had professional ambitions, too, and even though he might never become an Auror, he was clever enough – and smart enough – to want to make the most of his abilities.
Tuesday 21 August 2007
Of Money and Muggles
Let me begin by saying that J K Rowling has earned her money. She created seven best-sellers and exercised great control over Warner Brothers to ensure that the film versions of her book came up to her standards. For the most part, Harry Potter merchandise has been of a high standard; control has been maintained over anything that could bring the productions or those working on it into disrepute.
This is no mean achievement.
J K Rowling has already done much good with her money and gives every indication of being the sort of person who will continue to do so. Looking at those who have very large amounts of money, getting rid of most of it as fast as one can appears to be the best way of surviving it.
Fame is a fickle friend, too. For the young cast, the association with such a phenomenal success can radically alter one's view of the world. The tabloids are full of those who have been unable to control their lives or cope with their success.
But let's not be unfair. All of them, Daniel, Emma, Rupert, Tom, Devon, Matthew, Bonnie and Evanna, know that being in these films will probably be the major event of their professional lives. Separating public affection for their roles from any regard for them personally, is very difficult. If half the world loves Hermione, how does that make Emma feel, whose character only partially overlaps that of the role she plays?
By all accounts (based on reports from my son who knows some of Emma's friends) she is a sensible, clever and witty young lady. It can only be hoped that these young people avoid the misery and public disapprobation that has been visited on so many erstwhile glamorous young stars.
In time, when The Deathly Hallows is in the can, I hope they can look back on the experience with pride and fondness, along with the remarkable satisfaction that their young selves are preserved forever on film.
Monday 20 August 2007
First Things
Although a great fan of the books and films, I do not think J K Rowling is the next Jane Austen or Charles Dickens. However, from the first book, it was clear that her ability to tell a story was something special.
There are a number of things that contribute to this success:
- Characters who are real enough to identify with and care about
- An engaging plot that overlaps our own experiences enough to be believable
- Clever use of language and outstanding original terms
- A blend of mystery, suspense and humour that is often unexpected
- An always evident lovingness of the way she handles her characters
- A clear moral vision
- Nobility of thought
- Aspirational values
This is not a complete list by any means, but it shows that there is more than one thing that makes the books successful.
I think the single most appealing notion in the books is that there is another world that exists in parallel to our own; a place where things are more exciting, more glamorous, more in tune with the way we'd like things to be. (Who would not like Dumbledore as head of his school?)
One final point that adds greatly to the stories: there is a real sense of justice in almost all situations. From the beginning, we see Harry get some of his own back with Dudley falling into the snake cage, or receiving a tail from Hagrid. Later on, almost all forms are meanness are punished, or at least have consequences for their perpetrators. This includes Harry, too. When he is unfair or uncharitable, it has consequences.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)