Harry Potter and Genres

[schmevil]

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.

Comments

[verstehen.livejournal.com]

*applauds*

[aesc.livejournal.com]

Your comment on the goblins got me thinking about the treatment of the Jews by state leaders (particularly in Italy and France) during the late Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Jews ran the banking and investment world -- and, by extension, the mercantilism that drove the Renaissance economy -- but as individuals had very few rights, and were subject to slander and persecution in their professional lives.

Goblins may provide a rough parallel -- I'm not sure how far I want to carry the analogy (or even if I want to carry it at all.) Both are perceived by their respective societies as being subhuman; both have been subject to harsh treatment by their governments. They fulfil a purpose, but beyond that, are allowed to do little else.

I wish I could attend the Remus chat tonight, but am busy trying to make myself clean my apartment for impending Parent Visitation. I had all sorts of great comments on lycanthropy and the outlawing of werewolves in the Wizarding World as roughly equivalent to the terms of outlawry in Anglo-Saxon England, and the perception of wolves in general.

Suffice it to say, though, all of the not-quite-human beings on the Ministry watch lists all seem to represent some distortion of human appearance or appetite. The Veelas are oversexed; the Werewolves animalistic and uncontrollable; Vampires are the next thing to cannibals; Giants are perversities of form and intellect. I think Rowling has done a superlative job -- intentional or not -- of picking up on the old Christian problem of human deformity, as expressed by Augustin and Isidore. Namely: can a member of a monstrous race (e.g. cynoephali, a dog-headed creature with a human body or a blemmya, a human-like being with its face in its chest) experience divine grace? To answer the question, one has to first establish that the monster is, indeed, human -- Augustin equivocates, Isidore provides no answer; both say that these creatures, whatever they are, fit into God's plan (because everything does). Rowling approaches the problem genetically and socially: the wizards define vampires & co. on both levels as emphatically not human. I don't believe their reasons are ever stated, but there is a pernicious conservatism in the WW, and I think their dislike of radical elements in their own race discomfits them in some way.

There's an essay in there somewhere, but I need to vaccum.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

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.
i think the problem here is that i have a much wider cross-section of fairy-tales, myths and legends in mind, probably. first of all, you cannot read myths in the same way as modern literature, mostly because they were initially created with different goals in mind. secondly... you are probably thinking of a small number of popular tales here-- cinderella, puss in boots, sleeping beauty, snow white-- whereas there is a -ton- of fairy-tales out there, by all sorts of different cultures, with all sorts of different goals. there are the creation myths of every culture under the sun, each one with a slightly different spin, there are the hero myths, the subtle spirit myths of japan and china and india, the fall of the nordic gods, all the soul journeys in greek mythology, all the quirky little tales in russian folk-tales, all the very strange, very dark tales of the asian peoples near the mongol and indian border... i've grown up with all of them. you simply cannot make those sorts of generalizations about the depth of fairy-tales in general.

you are also leaving out literary fairy-tales-- jrr tolkien's and jm barrie's and cs lewis' work, andersen and even emma donoghue. all these are fairy-tales-- in the ancient tradition of the fairy story-- symbolic tales about the journey of the Fool. this isn't some simple tale where everyone is going to the same destination and we know they'll get there. these heroes and the tales themselves have many destinations, many quests and many, many obstacles. they do have a number of things in common nonetheless-- as documented by joseph campbell and clarissa pinkola estes and jrr tolkien and a large number of modern scholars, only a handful of whose work i'm familiar with. the fantasy tradition itself owes a huge debt to myths and legends and fairy-tales, and in ways the writers are perhaps often unaware of.

the lessons are only simple in the most popularized transmission of the most popular of tales. i could, if you like, give you examples of tales you wouldn't be able to dismiss quickly, but i don't know how far your own reading has gone. this is rather an unbalanced discussion, too, because i admit to knowing a lot more about fairy-tales, myths and legends than i know about harry potter-- mostly because i've read them voraciously for about 15 years instead of 1. i guess this is just a long-winded way to say-- the symbolic roots of Story itself are woven within myth and fairy story. they are not all didactic by far-- a number of them are purely whimsical, a number are means of understanding the world-- as creation myths are-- and a number of them are told to keep the darkness at bay, to warn and enlighten the listener about their hidden selves. the hero's quest is a series of metaphors for one's growth through life-- the journey of Everyman, one's transition from childhood into maturity. the goal, ultimately, is to find oneself-- happiness. the goal of every human being. this doesn't always happen by far-- you need only go to nordic mythology to find blatant examples of what happens when a happy ending is far from guarranteed.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

you are clearly talking about the children's versions of fairy-tales easily found in common libraries-- and these are indeed fairy-tales. but they are not representative of the tradition of the fantastical story through all cultures, through the ages. and even -those- stories function best on a symbolic level, not within their thin plot but within the dream imagery that they evoke, the symbolic functions of the players. this is basically where the meta comes in. the deeper level-- the story behind the story. when i call the hp a `hero's quest', i don't mean it on a direct, most obvious level-- i mean it corresponds to the symbology involved in fairy tales, the same one used in your basic tarot deck, the same one jrr tolkien used for for his trilogy, the same one you could observe in a very large portion of western literature in general. The Hero with a Thousand Faces, joseph campbell called him. the story is always different and always the same, and understanding the paradoxes involved in telling the same story in countless books as well as telling a different story each time is essential to grasp the idea of symbolic doubles for these characters or any others.

a coming of age story, rather than a hero's quest
the problem with this is that you could easily call -a hero's quest- a coming of age story-- often enough, that's what it is. in fact, i would say that's exactly what it is. the hero's quest in its most abstract, symbolic terms, is to discover himself and the source of strength within them. also, merely by being a hero's quest doesn't -preclude- a story from being a number of other things-- simply because every boy's story is different (hero or not).

He does not know what his quest is and would probably deny that he is even on one.
first of all, there is no necessity for a hero to know what his quest is, he just has to be -on- it. in terms of legends told hundreds of years ago, i admit the protagonist tended to know what they were after-- but most often, this was incidental to the actual journey of discovery they wound up making. harry knows, for instance, especially as of book 5, that he has to defeat lord voldemort-- in fact, that he -has- to as a function of being alive. if that's not knowing his quest, i don't know what is.

you don't need to -sign up- for a quest-- it can easily be sprung upon you, as the hero. there is no need for willingness, and in fact plenty of stories center about the inevitability of fate and the iffy nature of free will (which you could also argue is a concern of the hp books, if you wanted). insecurity is perfectly acceptible, and rather common-- or rather, it's besides the point-- a hero is distinguished because they do what they have to do because they find themselves unable to do anything else, which is certainly what happens to harry. there is no need for a gut-level recognition of evil-- a hero's motivation varies with the hero-- what doesn't really vary is that they -fight-, but reasons are quite optional, really. no need to be an idealist-- in fact the term "reluctant hero" is a cliche for a reason. most often, they fight for their own reasons-- and often as not, in russian fairy-tales, the hero was usually the laziest, most blase Third Son who just wanted to lie on his warm bed all day and was really rather surprised at himself when he got up and did great deeds because he simply didn't know he had it in him.

[oysterverse.livejournal.com]

::wanders in via danwilde's LJ from the tattered fringes of the GW fandom::

This is a well-reasoned and thought-provoking essay, and I will be musing on it tomorrow at work when I'm supposed to be processing map depository.

I must say, my initial uncritical reaction to the book is in tune with your critical perspective--when I was done reading it, I realized "Harry's finally growing up." Not that he was a childish brat before, rather, that he's finally moving from having a child's relationship with his surroundings into an adult one. And it's fascinating to watch it happen.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

i think harry's eye-for-an-eye mentality doesn't preclude him being a hero-- you're confusing being a Hero with having heroic "qualities". this implies that it's the -heroes- which are similar, not their -quests-, which is not true. the quest (to find oneself) is universal, the hero is usually quite specific. besides that, harry isn't -always- giving pain-for-pain, as shown by his behavior towards wormtail and fleur's sister and hermione's obsevation that harry's got a "hero thing"-- and we all know that hermione's always right~:) harry's impulsive, given to unreasoning anger, and nowhere close to a saint-- but then, nothing says he has to be. fairy-tales aren't populated by saints either (thankfully). harry doesn't require an interest in justice to be on a hero's quest, simply because a hero's quest has little to -do- with justice. you're confusing a "hero" as modernly used to describe people who do good deeds and a "hero" as meant by joseph campbell, which is used to describe people on a specific sort of journey of discovery. it is true they aren't evil, but then, neither is harry. it is also true that they're very free to be as much of a bastard as they want (and a lot of them are a lot better at that whole bastard thing than harry). i can't even -think- of any hero who had any interest in becoming a "better hero"-- that actually seems sort of funny if it -was- true. it's not like it's a vocation, like "auror" or even "writer" or something.

nothing abotu harry's personality really matters because there is no typical personality implied by being on a Hero's Quest except perhaps a touch of bravery. being emotionally stunted actually is rather common-- oh yes, coming from emotionally/physically dark circumstances is almost common enough to be a requirement. critical thought absolutely not necessary and may in fact be detrimental for quest. though i wouldn't jump to the conclusion that harry's code is like the malfoy's-- he HATES everything that's reminiscent of dudley and the dursleys and he's reacting against it. i think it's cruel to say he -is- like that. he's got a dark side but he's not secretly just like dudley-- if anything, he'd have got on with him a lot better then.

as i said, the "right reasons" may not exist and are entirely unnecessary.
.........i feel like i'm probably not making the right sort of sense since our conceptions of the fairy-tale tradition are so disparate as to be incompatible..... i'd recommend reading "the hero with a thousand faces" by campbell, "on fairy stories" by jrr tolkien, "women who run with the wolves" by clarissa pinkola estes, and "the uses of enchantment". basically, without the grounding of the theory behind modern folklore study, i feel like i'm flailing here, like we're talking about apples and oranges.
because well-- a "classic morality tale" is -not- the same as a Hero's Quest tale. a classic morality tale would more likely be one of aesop's fables-- sounds kind of greek, and it doesn't really have as much tendency to recur in other cultures. because, basically, moralities differ with the culture.

He goes through the motions of heroism because it's expedient, necessary or desirable, but not because it is right.
i think i get it.
you're thinking of modern-day comic-books or something, aren't you? because that's much more along this venue than the legends and myths and fairy stories -i'm- thinking of. i mean, i can see the righteousness in superman and daredevil and spiderman a lot more than in perseus or orpheus or even the little taylor, you know? they just did what they felt like, they didn't mean to be Good or Right at all. so there's a definite rift of definition there i keep stumbling upon.

...yah, i can't believe i wrote this much either...

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

another thing to note would be that you can't really make statements about harry's choice before he made it. i would say he'd never stop fighting voldemort, if only for his own reasons, but that's just me. regardless, until book 7 ends, we can't vouch for harry. i would say, though, that as the prophecy makes blatantly clear, if harry is to survive, voldemort will die. one way or another, harry -will- be the hero, no matter what. how he deals with that is another question, but i think voldemort's defeat by harry is no big mystery, is it? no need for anything to be in dumbledore's name at all. in fact, a hero's quest -involves- the repudation of one's mentor in order to make one's own decision. ever seen star wars? now that's one of the most blatant Hero's Quest stories in existence. yoda kept information from luke. luke got mad. yoda died. luke made a rash decision in direct opposition to yoda. blah blah you see where i'm going, don't you? yes. "why must i be the hero" is -classic-, typical Hero's Quest fodder. bleh. example number 2: season 6/7 buffy. i can think of dozen others, probably, too.

Again, the fairy tale ending would have Harry embrace the Weasley/Gryffindor position wholeheartedly
and again, i can't talk about this without a greater range of tales to work with, here. you appear to be talking about a rather narrow range of tales, so narrow in fact that i can't even reply without saying, "but you have to change your givens". suffice it to say, this is no fairy-tale worth its salt. a fairy-tale ending can be any number ot things-- the main thing is that harry resolves himself, discovers his true self, and defeats his nemesis. no gryffindors necessary in any way, shape or form.
Harry will have to reconcile the two (see Slytherin and Gryffindor Harry merge!), before he can even attempt his 'hero's quest'.
....well, as i said, that's more like the point of the journey, not the beginning....
The great victory of the series won't depend on a eucatestrophic moment, but a kid growing up and figuring himself out.
yes, you're right of course. except that -is- the eucatastrophic moment. the great eucatastrophe of which jrr tolkien originally spoke of in his essay (um... did you read it?) was christ's. the joyful turn is the attainment of whatever is the hero's heart's desire-- the triumph of their spirit, their successful return to the beginning, to the place they started from, except changed for the better. i'm rather thinking jkr is aware of all this stuff of legend and quest, putting the mirror of erised in the very first book-- his heart's desire indeed.

They do not challenge class structures, but they are informed by class struggle.
well... you're talking about the most common western, post-medieval fairy-tales here (again). and whereas that is closest to the inspiration of hp's setting, the symbology behind the fairy tale that i've been talking about is much, much older and more diverse.

...and finally, the end... -.-

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

i fully agree with you that it'd be unwise to read the hp books as being able to be summed up by just one genre-- in fact, genre in general is an iffy proposition (but that's a rant for another day). a hero's quest, thankfully, doesn't imply a genre, and the mere structure of a fairy-tale can be transferred onto a realistic tale (and has been, in modern times, quite successfully). modern fantasy is multifaceted and full of possibilities and there is no one way for it to be written, regardless. although i would have to disagree about it being realistic literature-- i can see how it's a parody, a satire, but not -realism-. the dursleys, straight off the bat in book one, are such blatant parodies as to be -painful- for me to read. all the books are full of mockery of this or that social custom or more. there are plenty of flat characterizations for the sake of a point being made, and in fact before book 5 -most- of the characterizations outside the trio were rather 2-D. i do think that amidst all the satire and blatant, blatant caricaturism and punning and send-offs on a bunch of cultural tropes, rowling -is- in fact, writing about the world as she sees it. but it's in the way that all writers do-- by using various narrative devices, in this case, rich with absurdism and humor and horror. any writer who'd written characters like umbridge and the dursleys and the malfoys cannot be said to write according to the conventions of realism. of course, realism is ultimately in the eye of the beholder, and maybe you don't see satire there but some sort of serious reflection of reality, and maybe draco malfoy is a deeply realistic human being as far as you're concerned, i don't know.

all i can say is, we see the books (as well as fairy-tales) rather differently, in any case, which is okay, and even to be expected -.-

~reena

[flourish.livejournal.com]

Depends on which version of the fairy tale you're reading! Do not impugn the honor of my fairy tales!

</ fairy tale geekage >

Other than that I do take your point. Cheers for the meta!

[skylark97.livejournal.com]

Awesome argument! *claps* You've definitely given me some more to think on and broadened the scope through which I look at HP. :)

*applauds you*

[kitsune13.livejournal.com]

Wow. *g* You've said a lot of things that I was going to say (and far more eloquently than I would have), particularly about didacticism in fairy tales (not really true), and there being an enormous range of stories. The thing is, when you talk about a particular fairy tale, you can only really talk about a specific telling -- yes, many of Perrault's or the Grimms' stories have a stated didactic purpose (some tongue-in-cheek), but not every version of Bluebeard or Little Red Riding Hood or what-have-you is didactic. blackfall's argument is, as you pointed out, working within a very narrow range of stories, and a rather narrow conception of those stories.

But one thing: putting on my folklorist's hat for a minute, I have to say that all the texts you mentioned -- Campbell, Estes, and especially Bettelheim -- are treated with great caution by folklorists, who don't really trust psychoanalytic readings of fairy tales. Psychoanalysis is a) too dependent upon a stable text, which a folktale by definition will not provide -- psychoanalysts tend to cobble together "ur-texts" of, say, Cinderella, to interpret, which folklorists consider to be inaccurate and irresponsible; b) relies too heavily upon Western European notions of family structure, gender, and sexuality, among other things, to work across the board -- psychoanalysis' claims to "universality" in general is also something to be suspicious of; and c) runs roughshod over most folklorists' notions of "it's really rude to go in and pretend that I, the educated elite, will tell you foolish primitives what your stories mean." Now there are good folklorists who have a psychoanalytic bent -- Alan Dundes being the main one -- but they go into their analyses with full understanding of variations (a big, big deal) and sensitivity to ethnocentrism in a way that Campbell, and especially Bettelheim, dont. Also, Bettelheim is absolutely reviled by the majority of folklorists: in part because he doesn't know shit about the history of the genre and hasn't a clue what to do with variants -- and all folktales that we have are versions and variants, there being no such thing as an "original"; and second, because the few decent arguments he has were plagiarized from Julius Heuscher and Alan Dundes. Bettelheim is simply not to be trusted as a scholar, though there's certainly stuff in there that could make for a good story.

Most folklorists today are of the socio-historical school, as explicated by Jack Zipes, in particular. All Zipes' stuff is terrific, though it should be noted that he's changed his mind often and tends to talk out of both sides of his mouth. *g* Donald Haase, Maria Tatar, Steven Swann Jones, Nancy Canepa, Regina Bendix, and Marina Warner are good people to look at; also, there's a lot of very good older scholarship that's still widely in use, and is helpful for understanding where the new scholarship is coming from: Max Lüthi, Vladimir Propp (and some of the other Russian formalists: Bakhtin, Jacobsen, etc.), Levi-Strauss, Stith Thompson (the Aarne-Thompson Index is invaluable, although it's impossible to find a copy; a reasonable substitute is D.L. Ashliman's A Guide to Folktales in the English Language); even some of the old Victorian stuff (Hartland, Frazer, Gomme, Lang) is useful if taken with heaping spoonfuls of salt.

Er. Hi! *waves* Sorry for clogging up your LJ, blackfall.

[isiscolo.livejournal.com]

I applaud as well -- and yes, I was thinking exactly of the Jews/Goblin thing as well.

Also, I believe JKR may have explicitly mentioned the lycanthropy/AIDS connection in re Lupin. Werewolves, like AIDS victims, are a created class rather than a born one.

[ex-ajhalluk585.livejournal.com]

that the Weasleys and Malfoys are obviously of different economic classes

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.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

wow. i really know little about actual folkloric scholarship, i guess, being completely self-taught (if reading a gazillion stories can be called study). i've heard of marina warner, and wasn't sure which book she wrote (though i'm thinking that's the one with the man who has the head of a bull, and i was planning to read it sometime). i actually haven't -read- the bettelheim, though i've often heard it recommended. i've heard campbell's series on pbs, and read scattered stuff (enough to know he inspires me and fascinates me, not so much that he's the guru or anything, but then, the very idea of the "hero's quest" across myth systems comes from him, in my own knowledge, so i had to mention him).

mostly, i've been deeply shaped by reading estes' book for not-exactly-scholarly reasons, as it had deep resonances with me. and of course, jrr tolkien's essay which i heard recommended often and was personally transfixed by. but wow, all those names. i keep wanting to take a folklore class in my school but don't want to read lewis and tolkien (not for class, anyway). but this makes me rather curious about all the stuff out there, so thanks >:D

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

Alas, I've no time or brain cells left to theorize, all I can do is commend a brilliant and well-thought-out article.

~Icarus

Re:

[schmevil.livejournal.com]

They're social equals, but not economic equals. That's where some of the tension comes from. I was trying to draw a distinction for North American readers between modern notions of economic class which center entirely on how much money you have, and the older British notion of class, in which actual liquid holdings are immaterial: if you're an aristocrat, you're an aristocrat. -.-

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. ^_-

[schmevil.livejournal.com]

This is true, but for the purposes of the discussion, I was more interested in the genre as a whole, rather than specific stories. There are always exceptions to broader rules, but the rules exist for a reason. I like fairy tales and have spent some time studying them, so I know that it depends on the geography and time of the tale, but. -.- No impugning going on here.

Re: *applauds you*

[schmevil.livejournal.com]

No problem! I'm not sure where to start, when replying to you and Reena - you've both made a lot of good points.

Well, when I studied folklore and fairy tales in school, one thing we came back to is that as a genre, fairy tales tend to be didactic. The lessons may no longer be obvious to us, but once we get past differences of culture, it's usually easy to pinpoint some kind of a lesson. The lessons are coded, sure, but they're there, because teaching is a major function of oral history and folklore tends to oral retellings.

I wasn't thinking of Grimm when I was writing this, but specifically some of the older Irish/English stories that I studied more recently. I'm not sure I made this clear, but I was trying to put HP in its cultural context - yes it draws on fairy tale elements but it also draws on other, more modern genres.

Overall, I wasn't intended to bash fairy tales or folklore. I was simply trying to point out that reading HP as a fairy tale is a gross simplification, because we can't always determine genre by "It looks like..." The best example is how many critics call HP a realistic novel, masquerading as a fantastic one. It looks like fantasy but it doesn't operate as one. I think that HP sometimes looks like a fairy tale but doesn't always operate as one.

On the hero's quest/bildungsroman:
Yes the genres have a lot of similarities. That's why they often go together, but a hero's quest is quite often a bildungsroman, while a bildungsroman needn't be hero's quest. There is a big difference between a quest and growing up and the results too, are often very different.

[flourish.livejournal.com]

...yes, what you say is true.

Damn gut reactions. Gets me every time. :D

Re:

[schmevil.livejournal.com]

It's because your guts have shit for brains. *nods sagaciously*

BTW: love your icon!

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

i guess it's like this: i never implied (or at least, i never meant to) that the hp books are fairy-tales, -pure and simple-. my conception of "fairy story" includes everything from the genesis story to the nordic myths to the many scottish faerie ballads to jane yolen's retelling of `sleeping beauty' to jrr tolkien's trilogy (which i'm safe in claiming since he thought so himself). even so, i never said that hp=fairy-tale to the exclusion of everything else. if anything, i don't see the point of that and i don't know -who- said that if it wasn't me.

i was mostly saying that harry's on a Hero's Quest as defined by joseph campbell and carl jung's interpretations of the over-arching symbolic structure behind myth and Story itself. this has to do with archetypes and the basic meta-structure of symbols behind fairy-tales. the whole concept of a "hero's quest" is a meta-concept and isn't directly related to any particular group of fairy-tales or any particular tradition or even modern folkloric theory. this is jungian psychology, not folkloric theory, that i was applying here.

and as kitsune13 pointed out, not everyone buys that interpretation of fairy or fantasy stories, and that's fine. i still believe you -could- apply it and it would -work- as a system of meta-analysis and understanding of the archetypes and meanings drawn upon by the hp books. jkr may not have meant to and they may not be intended that way and may not be read that way with perfectly acceptable results. all i would say is-- it does fit with the symbolic structure behind the Hero's Quest.

this isn't meaning to get all reductionist, even. archetypes aren't reductions, they're just condensations, sort of an overlay, a dreamscape accompanying the more "realistic" everyday landscape of the work. i am not alone in saying that a lot of her character arcs are strongly archetypical-- and that's all i'm talking about. character arcs. that's my specialty, it's what i -know- about, it's what i notice, really. i don't really notice the other stuff as much, but i'm aware it's there of course.

i suppose i see the meta-function of fairy-tales too much to remember that many people see them separately from myths and legends and the nature of Story itself, as well as the archetypes inherently built into the human mind. regardless, the hp books are much more symbolically potent than say-- your random danielle steele book or even some well-known historical/realistic fiction like tolstoy or your basic coming-of-age story like... i dunno... `catcher in the rye'. a -lot- of stories have -elements- from the hero's quest, but not -all- the necessary elements. hp -does- have them. in spades. you could of course ignore them or interpret it in some other way-- but you could also interpret it this way, and it's been consistently developing the way a Hero's Quest should and there's no reason it would -stop-. at this point, saying it's circumstantial and irrelevant would make jkr out to be rather sloppy and not the conscientious, methodical writer she gives every evidence of being.

but now i'm talking about author's intent, which is murky waters indeed. all i mean is-- if it talks like duck and walks like a duck and tastes like a duck and makes you full when you eat it-- well, what else do you need? it's most likely that hp is an archetypically consistent work like lotr.

and i would say that hp is also at least semi-didactic-- at least, that's what slapped me in the -face- when i opened the first book. it was -too- didactic, so much so it made me -sick-. most -fairy tales- are -subtler- than jkr is. she is very blatant, i think. the dursleys alone prove -that- point, and i could make a whole essay but will desist 'cause i don't care and neither does anyone else.

but thanks~:) i'm glad to know that you do like fairy tales ~:)

~reena