![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Harry Potter and Genres
A discussion about HP and fairy tales in another journal got me thinking about the genres that inform the series.
Fairy tales, all fairy tales are extremely, obviously didactic. It's what often makes them so unpalatable to adult readers - the lessons are simplistic, the endings little more than foregone conclusions and for all their darkness, they are essentially safe. Everyone knows where fairy tales are going. They're comforting, soothing even. The Harry Potter series is not, when taken as a whole, simplistic or obviously didactic and Rowling has managed to surprise her readers every now and again, by bucking conventions. She has also opted to draw on conventions from a wide range of genres - including the British school story, a subgenre of the bildungsroman - which muddies the waters quite a bit.
I could argue just as successfully (if not more) that HP is a coming of age story, rather than a hero's quest and that is because the nature of the protagonist prevents it from being such. I could also argue that HP is a highly political story about class warfare. I think that maintaining a single rubric is too simplistic in this case - one cannot predict the ending to a series that is so multifaceted if one denies the other influences on and elements of the work.
Harry Potter is not a classic hero. He does not know what his quest is and would probably deny that he is even on one. He's likely to point out that all he's trying to do is live - he certainly didn't sign up for this defeating the Dark Lord nonsense. He's insecure about his abilities as a hero and generally uninterested in playing the part, not just in OotP but in every novel, though to differing degrees. He dislikes Voldemort because the man keeps trying to kill him and because he hurts people that Harry cares about - there doesn't seem to be a gut-level recognition of Voldemort's evil, beyond his ability to really screw with Harry and what's his. Harry is not an idealist and he hasn't internalized the moral code of his friends. He has to work for it and for him, evil is still essentially pain.
Unlike Hermione, he doesn't understand Umbridge's evil until she discomfits him. His first reaction is to pay people back in kind, to give pain for pain, and not to make things right. Harry is perfectly comfortable wishing Unforgivable curses and later death, on Snape, for perceived injuries. He holds Snape responsible for Sirius' death but instead of wanting him imprisoned, or punished, Harry would like to see Snape dead. He delights in terrifying Dudley - on several occasions he has used the threat (perceived or implied) of magic to scare Dudley and he has enjoyed doing it. He has always enjoyed seeing the Dursleys discomfited by magic. He enjoys watching the pain of those who have hurt him. He has no interest in justice, only retribution. As the series progresses, he is not becoming a better hero, but he is becoming a better human being (ie. is experiencing development).
Harry starts out as the emotionally stunted boy from under the stairs. He's needy, confused and ready to believe everything that Hagrid and Ron say, simply because they treat him decently. He adopts there moral code without critical thought, and does his best to internalize it, but since the Dursleys were the source of his early moral education, conflicts arise - his internal moral compass is more attuned to the philosophy of the Malfoys, or Professor Snape, than it is to the Weasleys or Hagrid. Harry wants to believe like the latter, but this clashes with what he learned from the Dursleys, what he has internalized.
Harry doesn't know how to be a hero, so while he may muddle his way through to saving the girl and slaying the villain, it isn't for quite the right reasons and I'm not sure that it ever will be. In a sense, Harry is very much a Slytherin in Gryffindor clothing - he is a Gryffindor by choice, but without any understanding, instinctual or intellectual of what that means. He goes through the motions of heroism because it's expedient, necessary or desirable, but not because it is right.
In OotP the results of Harry's internal conflict are made obvious - we seem him arguing with old sources of moral guidance like Ron, Hagrid, Dumbledore and Hermione. Cedric's death is the catalyst for the more obvious expression of the conflict that has been inside Harry since the beginning. The rage and confusion that the trauma inspires allows him to break free, in a sense. Instead of asking his Gryffindor friends what to think and then attempting to internalize the advice, he is considering it and rejecting it when he feels it appropriate. Harry is figuring out what he thinks and feels and he's expressing it, and making sure that everyone knows that he's not afraid to. This is not Harry going through a bratty teenage period; this is Harry figuring out that he can't coast along on Ron and Hermione's advice. He's finally accepting that he's not like them and figuring out what that means for him. I think that points to the moral center of the story.
We have Dumbledore and Voldemort at two poles of the classic morality tale, with Harry positioned between as the hero, but it's interesting to note that Harry has far more in common with the villain of the piece, than he does the embodiment of good. It's also interesting that Dumbledore himself is an enigmatic figure, whose motives and plans are as often cloaked in mystery, as the man himself. Readers are quite often suspicious of him and for good reason. He lies, obfuscates and has plans within plans, all in the name of a greater good, much like his adversary Voldemort.
It's been pointed out by smarter people than myself that Harry has never been a very active hero and that is because despite his role, as dictated by convention, he hasn't been a hero at all - he's been a tool. The ending of OotP serves to underline this - he has been Dumbledore's tool and he has been Voldemort's but he has yet to be anything more than that. Dumbledore and Voldemort have all the power and have all the will to power. Even the power Harry is said to have that Voldemort cannot understand - love - is essentially inherent and passive in nature. According to Dumbledore and the prophecy, Harry's power lies in his conscious revocation of power. He is Care Bear!Harry, meant to love Voldemort into submission.
However it seems as though Harry will no longer be satisfied with this role. I can't really blame him, as Care Bear isn't the best of gigs to have when everyone else is running around casting Unforgivables. As Harry questions his moral position, he questions his position in this relationship - why is he essentially choiceless; why must he be the hero? The fairy tale ending would have Harry take up Dumbledore's cause without reservation, but considering what we know about the character, this seems impossible. The more plausible ending would be Harry negotiating a position for himself somewhere between the two: though he may defeat Voldemort, it will not be in Dumbledore's name.
Harry cannot remain a tool of these two men - his nature will not allow it - but to escape them, he has to resolve the conflict within himself. Again, the fairy tale ending would have Harry embrace the Weasley/Gryffindor position wholeheartedly, but the influence of the Dursleys can't be dismissed. Harry will have to reconcile the two (see Slytherin and Gryffindor Harry merge!), before he can even attempt his 'hero's quest'. The great victory of the series won't depend on a eucatestrophic moment, but a kid growing up and figuring himself out.
Let's talk about that great victory, now. As I said before, Rowling's writing is informed by a number of different genres, including the British school story. Up til now I've been concentrating on the strictly bildungsroman aspects of that, but I'd like to take a look at the class issues that are implicit to the genre. Fairy tales are almost always underwritten by class struggle - there is often an element of comeuppance, to the story, where a naughty social climber is struck down, or an abusive, upper class twat is turned into a rat. They do not challenge class structures, but they are informed by class struggle.
School stories, on the other hand, generally do not take such struggle into account at all - there is perhaps a brief mention of the hardworking scholarship boy, who's best mate to the hero, or a the uptight villain - and work to reinforce existing class structures. They focus on British public schools and thus reinforce upper class values and superiority. HP is set in what appears to be a British public school. The student body seems to be universally comfortable with even the poorest of students bordering only on lower middle class - there are no poor students. The students all have basic reading, writing and mathematical skills, or at least, no time is spent on such lessons. It is assumed that all students have not suffered from intellectual/cultural poverty. Hogwarts is coded as exclusionary, but as the only magical school in Britain, how can it be?
The characters of Rubeus Hagrid and Remus Lupin point to the major division in the society - it is not, as one might suspect, between poor and rich wizards like the Weasleys and Malfoys, but between wizards and everyone else. The ministry has Being and Beast departments devoted to controlling the population of each. Beasts and Beings are not allowed into Hogwarts or to keep a wand. They do not seem to hold jobs or to have representation within the ruling body. They have no rights and are groups like the Giants are persecuted and hunted into extinction. Rowling has made it very clear that Giants, Werewolves, Veelas and Vampires are sentient beings, but as beings they are considered less than human.
We even have an example of the total enslavement of sentient race, in the house elves.
The only sentient race that seems to have any measure of independence is the Goblins and it's notable that this species handles the finances of the WW - they are an important stabilizing force in the WW and their work upholds the minor class differences amongst the wizards. Most importantly though, they are useful. The History of Magic lessons make it clear that it wouldn't be easy to entirely subjugate the Goblins but certainly it is possible. Simply, the WW hasn't done so because they like these particular beings right where they are.
In HP the wizards, all of them are the upper class. We shouldn't confuse social with economic class in this case - that the Weasleys and Malfoys are obviously of different economic classes, does not eliminate the far greater differences between say, the Weasleys and the Vampires. There are clearly divisions within the larger class structure, as there is in *gasp!* real life and the Weasley/Malfoy feud is indicative of them. The Weasleys are very clearly cast as the good guys, although it's equally clear that all of them are flawed. Voldemort has allied himself with the 'worst' of the highest economic class and their downfall is tied together - defeat Voldemort and one must also defeat the Malfoys. However, to fully defeat the Malfoys, one must disrupt the normal class structures that allow them to exercise such disproportionate influence over the WW. Harry will have to affect a social revolution, to really have his victory.
The class structure of the WW, in all its divisiveness is mirrored by the house struggle within Hogwarts itself. As the series progresses we are told again and again that the house struggle only makes Hogwarts easy prey for Voldemort, just as the divisions in the greater WW make it easy prey for Dark Wizards. They have had Grindelwald and now Voldemort. Twice. Simply defeating the new Dark Lord is not enough, because the constant tensions within the society encourage splinter groups to form and the unstable, easily influenced power structure allows too easily for extremists to take power. The WW is deeply, deeply corrupt. The Voldemort problem, the Giants, Umbridge - these are all symptoms of a larger dilemma.
This is a society in flux, with many in search of accountability and trustworthy leadership. There is a reluctance to trust the Ministry, or the old money families like the Malfoys, who have suspected/proven ties to the Dark Arts and there is deep confusion about moral issues - the treatment of Beings and Beasts is becoming increasingly problematic for a number of characters.
The moral lesson in HP is not at all times clear and OotP is proof enough of this - the novel is disheartening and bleak, for some, full of hope for others. I would argue that the central concern of the series is prejudice in all it's myriad sources, expressions and effects, but someone else might want to argue something wildly different. That is because the influences on HP are myriad.
We cannot read OotP or any of the Potter books through one lens and we certainly can't assume a single genre. To read HP as a fairy tale is to miss everything that does not fit into the conventions of that genre. We especially cannot define genre by like elements alone, because that does not consider how those elements are being used. HP has many fairy tale elements, but they don't function as fairy tale elements - at her heart, Rowling is a realistic novelist. Her characters and world behave according to the conventions of realism - that is, she attempts to reflect the world as she sees it, though she uses the conventions of fantasy as decoration. Take away the magic and we still have a fascinating and engaging story about a boy learning about himself and the world around him.
Fairy tales, all fairy tales are extremely, obviously didactic. It's what often makes them so unpalatable to adult readers - the lessons are simplistic, the endings little more than foregone conclusions and for all their darkness, they are essentially safe. Everyone knows where fairy tales are going. They're comforting, soothing even. The Harry Potter series is not, when taken as a whole, simplistic or obviously didactic and Rowling has managed to surprise her readers every now and again, by bucking conventions. She has also opted to draw on conventions from a wide range of genres - including the British school story, a subgenre of the bildungsroman - which muddies the waters quite a bit.
I could argue just as successfully (if not more) that HP is a coming of age story, rather than a hero's quest and that is because the nature of the protagonist prevents it from being such. I could also argue that HP is a highly political story about class warfare. I think that maintaining a single rubric is too simplistic in this case - one cannot predict the ending to a series that is so multifaceted if one denies the other influences on and elements of the work.
Harry Potter is not a classic hero. He does not know what his quest is and would probably deny that he is even on one. He's likely to point out that all he's trying to do is live - he certainly didn't sign up for this defeating the Dark Lord nonsense. He's insecure about his abilities as a hero and generally uninterested in playing the part, not just in OotP but in every novel, though to differing degrees. He dislikes Voldemort because the man keeps trying to kill him and because he hurts people that Harry cares about - there doesn't seem to be a gut-level recognition of Voldemort's evil, beyond his ability to really screw with Harry and what's his. Harry is not an idealist and he hasn't internalized the moral code of his friends. He has to work for it and for him, evil is still essentially pain.
Unlike Hermione, he doesn't understand Umbridge's evil until she discomfits him. His first reaction is to pay people back in kind, to give pain for pain, and not to make things right. Harry is perfectly comfortable wishing Unforgivable curses and later death, on Snape, for perceived injuries. He holds Snape responsible for Sirius' death but instead of wanting him imprisoned, or punished, Harry would like to see Snape dead. He delights in terrifying Dudley - on several occasions he has used the threat (perceived or implied) of magic to scare Dudley and he has enjoyed doing it. He has always enjoyed seeing the Dursleys discomfited by magic. He enjoys watching the pain of those who have hurt him. He has no interest in justice, only retribution. As the series progresses, he is not becoming a better hero, but he is becoming a better human being (ie. is experiencing development).
Harry starts out as the emotionally stunted boy from under the stairs. He's needy, confused and ready to believe everything that Hagrid and Ron say, simply because they treat him decently. He adopts there moral code without critical thought, and does his best to internalize it, but since the Dursleys were the source of his early moral education, conflicts arise - his internal moral compass is more attuned to the philosophy of the Malfoys, or Professor Snape, than it is to the Weasleys or Hagrid. Harry wants to believe like the latter, but this clashes with what he learned from the Dursleys, what he has internalized.
Harry doesn't know how to be a hero, so while he may muddle his way through to saving the girl and slaying the villain, it isn't for quite the right reasons and I'm not sure that it ever will be. In a sense, Harry is very much a Slytherin in Gryffindor clothing - he is a Gryffindor by choice, but without any understanding, instinctual or intellectual of what that means. He goes through the motions of heroism because it's expedient, necessary or desirable, but not because it is right.
In OotP the results of Harry's internal conflict are made obvious - we seem him arguing with old sources of moral guidance like Ron, Hagrid, Dumbledore and Hermione. Cedric's death is the catalyst for the more obvious expression of the conflict that has been inside Harry since the beginning. The rage and confusion that the trauma inspires allows him to break free, in a sense. Instead of asking his Gryffindor friends what to think and then attempting to internalize the advice, he is considering it and rejecting it when he feels it appropriate. Harry is figuring out what he thinks and feels and he's expressing it, and making sure that everyone knows that he's not afraid to. This is not Harry going through a bratty teenage period; this is Harry figuring out that he can't coast along on Ron and Hermione's advice. He's finally accepting that he's not like them and figuring out what that means for him. I think that points to the moral center of the story.
We have Dumbledore and Voldemort at two poles of the classic morality tale, with Harry positioned between as the hero, but it's interesting to note that Harry has far more in common with the villain of the piece, than he does the embodiment of good. It's also interesting that Dumbledore himself is an enigmatic figure, whose motives and plans are as often cloaked in mystery, as the man himself. Readers are quite often suspicious of him and for good reason. He lies, obfuscates and has plans within plans, all in the name of a greater good, much like his adversary Voldemort.
It's been pointed out by smarter people than myself that Harry has never been a very active hero and that is because despite his role, as dictated by convention, he hasn't been a hero at all - he's been a tool. The ending of OotP serves to underline this - he has been Dumbledore's tool and he has been Voldemort's but he has yet to be anything more than that. Dumbledore and Voldemort have all the power and have all the will to power. Even the power Harry is said to have that Voldemort cannot understand - love - is essentially inherent and passive in nature. According to Dumbledore and the prophecy, Harry's power lies in his conscious revocation of power. He is Care Bear!Harry, meant to love Voldemort into submission.
However it seems as though Harry will no longer be satisfied with this role. I can't really blame him, as Care Bear isn't the best of gigs to have when everyone else is running around casting Unforgivables. As Harry questions his moral position, he questions his position in this relationship - why is he essentially choiceless; why must he be the hero? The fairy tale ending would have Harry take up Dumbledore's cause without reservation, but considering what we know about the character, this seems impossible. The more plausible ending would be Harry negotiating a position for himself somewhere between the two: though he may defeat Voldemort, it will not be in Dumbledore's name.
Harry cannot remain a tool of these two men - his nature will not allow it - but to escape them, he has to resolve the conflict within himself. Again, the fairy tale ending would have Harry embrace the Weasley/Gryffindor position wholeheartedly, but the influence of the Dursleys can't be dismissed. Harry will have to reconcile the two (see Slytherin and Gryffindor Harry merge!), before he can even attempt his 'hero's quest'. The great victory of the series won't depend on a eucatestrophic moment, but a kid growing up and figuring himself out.
Let's talk about that great victory, now. As I said before, Rowling's writing is informed by a number of different genres, including the British school story. Up til now I've been concentrating on the strictly bildungsroman aspects of that, but I'd like to take a look at the class issues that are implicit to the genre. Fairy tales are almost always underwritten by class struggle - there is often an element of comeuppance, to the story, where a naughty social climber is struck down, or an abusive, upper class twat is turned into a rat. They do not challenge class structures, but they are informed by class struggle.
School stories, on the other hand, generally do not take such struggle into account at all - there is perhaps a brief mention of the hardworking scholarship boy, who's best mate to the hero, or a the uptight villain - and work to reinforce existing class structures. They focus on British public schools and thus reinforce upper class values and superiority. HP is set in what appears to be a British public school. The student body seems to be universally comfortable with even the poorest of students bordering only on lower middle class - there are no poor students. The students all have basic reading, writing and mathematical skills, or at least, no time is spent on such lessons. It is assumed that all students have not suffered from intellectual/cultural poverty. Hogwarts is coded as exclusionary, but as the only magical school in Britain, how can it be?
The characters of Rubeus Hagrid and Remus Lupin point to the major division in the society - it is not, as one might suspect, between poor and rich wizards like the Weasleys and Malfoys, but between wizards and everyone else. The ministry has Being and Beast departments devoted to controlling the population of each. Beasts and Beings are not allowed into Hogwarts or to keep a wand. They do not seem to hold jobs or to have representation within the ruling body. They have no rights and are groups like the Giants are persecuted and hunted into extinction. Rowling has made it very clear that Giants, Werewolves, Veelas and Vampires are sentient beings, but as beings they are considered less than human.
We even have an example of the total enslavement of sentient race, in the house elves.
The only sentient race that seems to have any measure of independence is the Goblins and it's notable that this species handles the finances of the WW - they are an important stabilizing force in the WW and their work upholds the minor class differences amongst the wizards. Most importantly though, they are useful. The History of Magic lessons make it clear that it wouldn't be easy to entirely subjugate the Goblins but certainly it is possible. Simply, the WW hasn't done so because they like these particular beings right where they are.
In HP the wizards, all of them are the upper class. We shouldn't confuse social with economic class in this case - that the Weasleys and Malfoys are obviously of different economic classes, does not eliminate the far greater differences between say, the Weasleys and the Vampires. There are clearly divisions within the larger class structure, as there is in *gasp!* real life and the Weasley/Malfoy feud is indicative of them. The Weasleys are very clearly cast as the good guys, although it's equally clear that all of them are flawed. Voldemort has allied himself with the 'worst' of the highest economic class and their downfall is tied together - defeat Voldemort and one must also defeat the Malfoys. However, to fully defeat the Malfoys, one must disrupt the normal class structures that allow them to exercise such disproportionate influence over the WW. Harry will have to affect a social revolution, to really have his victory.
The class structure of the WW, in all its divisiveness is mirrored by the house struggle within Hogwarts itself. As the series progresses we are told again and again that the house struggle only makes Hogwarts easy prey for Voldemort, just as the divisions in the greater WW make it easy prey for Dark Wizards. They have had Grindelwald and now Voldemort. Twice. Simply defeating the new Dark Lord is not enough, because the constant tensions within the society encourage splinter groups to form and the unstable, easily influenced power structure allows too easily for extremists to take power. The WW is deeply, deeply corrupt. The Voldemort problem, the Giants, Umbridge - these are all symptoms of a larger dilemma.
This is a society in flux, with many in search of accountability and trustworthy leadership. There is a reluctance to trust the Ministry, or the old money families like the Malfoys, who have suspected/proven ties to the Dark Arts and there is deep confusion about moral issues - the treatment of Beings and Beasts is becoming increasingly problematic for a number of characters.
The moral lesson in HP is not at all times clear and OotP is proof enough of this - the novel is disheartening and bleak, for some, full of hope for others. I would argue that the central concern of the series is prejudice in all it's myriad sources, expressions and effects, but someone else might want to argue something wildly different. That is because the influences on HP are myriad.
We cannot read OotP or any of the Potter books through one lens and we certainly can't assume a single genre. To read HP as a fairy tale is to miss everything that does not fit into the conventions of that genre. We especially cannot define genre by like elements alone, because that does not consider how those elements are being used. HP has many fairy tale elements, but they don't function as fairy tale elements - at her heart, Rowling is a realistic novelist. Her characters and world behave according to the conventions of realism - that is, she attempts to reflect the world as she sees it, though she uses the conventions of fantasy as decoration. Take away the magic and we still have a fascinating and engaging story about a boy learning about himself and the world around him.
no subject
One minor niggle before I add my chorus of applause to your excellent article. Despite the differentiation made in the film (which I think was an attempt to paint something in broad brush terms which might be too subtle to convey otherwise), it seems clear to me that the Malfoys and the Weasleys are class equals - that's why Lucius and Arthur get at each other's throats in the bookshop in Chamber. If they weren't social equals, Lucius would be able to send someone round to take care of it.
The Malfoys have a great deal more money, but in terms of family the Weasleys are as ancient and as well connected (in fact, the two families are certainly connected, at least distantly, via the Blacks). The Weasleys are clearly upper-middle or upper-class impoverished, a very well recognised status.
Re:
I was trying to show the different ways that class can be concieved, especially how differences are percieved within a larger structure.
I do take your point, however. ^_-