Harry Potter and the Inevitable Blog Post

So I popped open my copy of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows at about 5PM on Saturday and finished it before going to bed at a perfectly reasonable hour. Ever since then, it's seemed like I should do a blog post on the blog, but I think I turn out not to have a lot of interesting things to say on the subject. I'll second Ross' recommendations of these spoiler-containing posts by Russell Arben Fox and Eve Tushnet.

What's more, like everyone else I enjoyed Megan McArdle's piece on the poorly sketched economics of the Harry Potter universe. My general feeling is that the Potter books fall along a pretty symmetrical quality curve, starting off okay, then getting better as the series' ambition grows, but then getting worse again as the series becomes more ambitious than J.K. Rowling can really pull off. The storyline of Hallows winds up calling for a level of big-picture world-building -- not just the economics of the wizarding world, but the politics and the international relations, too -- that's far off from Rowling's core strength of offering rich micro-level detail.

Comments

Well, you know, there isn't a lot of economics in Harry Potter, or Lord of the Rings, or almost any fantasy other than China Mieville. That's not any great failure in world building on the part of the authors--that's just that the authors aren't particularly interested in writing about economic issues. There's not a lot of economics in Hamlet, or the Iliad, either.

World building in a novel is like building a movie set--there's no point in building something that doesn't appear on camera--it doesn't matter if most houses in the neighborhood are really false fronts. I don't need to understand much about the economy of 17th Century France to appreciate The Three Musketeers.

Posted by rea | July 24, 2007 4:53 PM

Sorcerer's Stone was good, Chamber of Secrets better, and Azkaban was great--it's where she was hitting on all cylinders, storywise, details, atmosphere, characterization, etc. She was at her best when the story was pretty taut and Hogwarts-focused.

Goblet of Fire is where she lost her footing. It had flashes of Azkaban, but the central story had a huge plot hole (as someone else on this website pointed out)--why not just portkey Harry right away? Why go through the whole sham of the yearlong tournament? The lesser characters were too thinly drawn, and her lack of vocabulary began to show through in her repetitious descriptives. Order of the Phoenix was a hackneyed, bloated, disjointed mess. The nadir of the series. She tried to do so much that there ended up being too little of everything, and what there was wasn't good. She recovered somehwhat with Half-Blood Prince, but Deathly Hallows, though not as bad as Phoenix, was unsatisfying.

I agree with MY--the whole thing got too big, and got away from her. She had a good story right up until Goblet, then didn't know what to do with it once Voldemort actually returned. In hindsight, maybe she should have set her sights lower and stayed away from the Tolkien-esque "darkness threatening the whole world" macro-level saga.

Posted by Claudius | July 24, 2007 4:54 PM

i thought 4 and 5 were the weakest (too bloated with quiddich and politics), but she picked it up with 6 and did a commendable job of wrapping it all up in 7. in other words - symmetrical, but the exact opposite of how MY graded them.

Posted by cleek | July 24, 2007 5:05 PM

The series started out great when she had an editor. Her publisher failed her imo by being too afraid to edit her writing as the series went on.

Posted by Fred F. | July 24, 2007 5:12 PM

My pet theory is that by book 4 the JK Rowling phenomenon was so huge that no editor at Bloomsbury was willing to tell her that entire plot lines were total crap.

Posted by ndm | July 24, 2007 5:13 PM

Well I feel the movies just get better and better, I loved number 4 especially.

Posted by Freddie | July 24, 2007 5:44 PM

Tushnet's and McArdle's articles are extremely superficial and simple-minded. It is funny that somebody can find any ideas worth reading in those articles, and at the same time criticize Rowling for weaknesses of plot or style. Fox's post is far more thought out, but I am puzzled how he failed to predict so many things. Anybody who didn't figure out the Snape-Lilly connection and the outline of Dumbledore's plan for Snape hadn't been paying attention.

Posted by bullfighter | July 24, 2007 5:44 PM

This may come as a shock to you and McArdle, but most people who read popular fiction don't want to read about the economic back story. It's enough for the story itself to be interesting.

I think Matt needs to leave the city and politics for a bit, and hang around with real people who talk about things other than politics most of the time.

You know, people with actual lives.

Posted by James Robertson | July 24, 2007 6:00 PM

The biggest problem is how much you miss in book 7 only seeing things through the eyes of Harry.

Posted by dbt | July 24, 2007 6:01 PM

I actually did predict that Snape had loved Lily, bullfighter, but I don't really count that as one I got correct because the context and implications of that relationship I got almost totally wrong. (I pictured a unrequited, one-sided love, which drove Snape into permanent, double-minded despair.) And as for "Dumbledore's plan for Snape," well, I have to simply admit to bullheadedness: my first impression upon reading Half-Blood Prince was that Rowling had fooled us, had managed to plant a bad guy right in front of our eyes, and I never wanted to reconsider that impression, despite all the persuasive arguments otherwise.

I agree that Rowling got progressively better through Prisoner of Azkaban, which is really a brilliant children's novel, then struggled for a while. But I thought Half-Blood Prince showed that she could, just maybe, pull the world-historical stuff off. Deathly Hallows, however, shows she really wasn't interested in that stuff, and seeing as how the book works fine on its own, simpler terms, it makes me wonder how much of the world-historical stuff we didn't wrongly read into it in the first place.

Posted by Russell Arben Fox | July 24, 2007 6:06 PM

I must have low standards, as 5 is my favorite, and I was perfectly happy with 6 and 7 too. I agree with Eve Tushnet in one main way, though - the willy-nilly way theoretical good guys perform Unforgivable Curses felt very wrong (remember how upset Hermione and other students got at the mere mention of them, or their performance on a spider, in 4?).

The storyline of Hallows winds up calling for a level of big-picture world-building -- not just the economics of the wizarding world, but the politics and the international relations, too -- that's far off from Rowling's core strength of offering rich micro-level detail.
In her defense, that's why we only get hints and suggestions of the wider world as the protagonists go on their micro-level quest.

Posted by SDM | July 24, 2007 6:23 PM

"The biggest problem is how much you miss in book 7 only seeing things through the eyes of Harry."

Yeah, this is my main problem with the book. Needed way more Snape, for one thing.

Overall I thought the book was quite good, though. A pretty satisfying conclusion to a children's fantasy series.

Posted by Korha | July 24, 2007 6:27 PM

The problem with her very rich micro-level detail inventions is that they don't at all cohere into even a mid-level world. For example, why do they have trials to determine someone's guilt or innocence when they have Veritaserum and Time-Turners? They could just make the person tell the truth, or go back in time and check it out for themselves. In every book new very cool micro-level things are introduced that could solve a lot of problems -- and so must be ignored later since the problems aren't allowed to be solved right away.

To say nothing of the morality of the wizarding world, which can heal most normal Mugglish illnesses with absolute ease, but chooses to do nothing at all for us Muggles. Apparently they just leech off of us for food (since they can't magick up food), and return nothing.

Posted by Robert the Red | July 24, 2007 7:24 PM

As far as the economics of the books, it seems almost like most of the spells are illusion, hypnosis, or telekinesis. So, you can make a house disappear, or make a person appear like another, but you can't create food out of nothing. You can also ride a broom, knock a wand out of people's hands, or magically wash the dishes. You can mind control someone, or paralyze someone, etc.

So, the Weasley's aren't willing to grift food, money, and materials out of Muggles, but dishonest people like the Malfoy's are stinking rich because they trade illusionary gold for real things. Or, they mind control a guy at a nice Muggle department store and get a years worth of clothes for free.

Then, the Ministry of Magic sits on top of this dishonest economy built mostly of Malfoy type people.

Well, this is a rationalization really. Rowling didn't really get into the limits of her magic at all.

Posted by stm177 | July 24, 2007 7:36 PM

I thought 4 was great, although the plot whole pointed out above is interesting. That might require some thought.

I think I liked 3 and 6 the best, with 4 slightly behind. Not sure where 7 fits in yet - I really enjoyed it and read it very quickly, but while it was a quick and engaging read I wish there had been more from the supporting characters (besides the last 100 pages; i.e. there should have been more Snape). And I'm not totally satisfied with why Harry survived. It's somewhat biblical and similar to Narnia - Harry is "resurrected," but the explanation isn't totally clear.

I agree that 5 was probably the weakest. The conclusion was great, but the book was just too long and in hindsight, I didn't remember nearly any of it.

Posted by Andrew | July 24, 2007 7:45 PM

So wudja think of The Baroque Cycle?

Posted by chiggins | July 24, 2007 7:59 PM

I'm not sure if I know which one of the books I liked best (since I haven't read them again, and probably won't re-read them in toto in a long time).

I do agree with Andrew that 5 was too long.

I actually liked 7 a lot (though it may have strayed a little during the Harry-Ron-Hermione in a tent part).

Yes, Russell, she did not really go for the world encompassing side of things (on another board I mentioned that I would have loved to have understood how the Wizenmot worked, and how it got Dumbledore to go after Grindenwald - and what Voldemort's impact outside the U.K. has been). But I generally liked the book, and both felt a good vibe rush (which I still have) since finishing early Sunday A.M. and a bit of a letdown that we won't be playing in the HP garden anymore.

I'm not too down on the Severus plotline, since I think that in the end, Severus was what he was (and though he proved to be very brave in some ways, he was also a very shallow and emotionally screwed up character). I do assume that Harry has informed others of Severus' bravey (I don't think he would have named his kid Albus Severus if Severus was still perceived to be the assassin of Dumbledore).

I would have liked for Harry to have shown a little more feeling for Ginny (at least to have her come along when he went up to Dumbledore/Snape's office with Ron and Hermione after the Battle of Hogwarts).

What I am finding funny are the RAGING battles going on in Wikipedia about things pertaining to the last book and the characters.

Finally, I liked the epilogue just fine, but then, it reminded me of what I think is probably the most epic Latin American soap opera ever: "Café con Aroma de Mujer", which had a very similar denoument....

JRVJ

Posted by JRVJ | July 24, 2007 8:12 PM

Yes, Russell, she did not really go for the world encompassing side of things....But I generally liked the book, and both felt a good vibe rush (which I still have) since finishing early Sunday A.M. and a bit of a letdown that we won't be playing in the HP garden anymore.

Rest assured, JRVJ, I liked it a lot too. My frustrations with the book are many, but in the larger scheme they are small, because what they basically boil down to is wishes for a book that Rowling had no intention of writing (though arguably in books 4, 5, and 6, as well as in parts of 7, she--unintentionally? clumsily?--spun out plot points that made it seem reasonable to expect that kind of world-encompassing book). In the end, she gave us an emotionally intense youth fantasy, and that's more than good enough.

Posted by Russell Arben Fox | July 24, 2007 9:34 PM

Economics? In a world of magic? How does that work?

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 24, 2007 9:44 PM

Russell,

I agree. On another board I mentioned Roger Ebert's great summation of LoTR: Return of the King: "I admire it more as a whole than in its parts".

While I actually enjoyed the parts quite a lot, I stand in awe at Rowling essentially pulling it off (yes, some people may not have liked this or that, but by and large, Rowling pulled it off).

We are left with the feeling of having been part in a very special 10 year journey through Harry Potter's garden, and though I am a little bit saddened to come to an end of this journey (and at my age - 36 - I wonder how many of these 10-year, pop-culture journeys I will still be able to embark on), I am reminded of a great line in Sandman 74:

"Only the phoenix rises and does not descend. And everything changes. And nothing is truly lost".

BTW - The comments on your "it-ends" blog post are some of the best I've read yet on HPo7.

Posted by JRVJ | July 24, 2007 10:07 PM

I think 5 was best by far, and 6 was weakest by far. Funny how different that is from other opinions. I felt that in 6, she started going deus ex machina all over the place, probably because she had been too ambitious. I agree with others that the plot holes in 4 were bothersome.

I generally liked 7, and I would place it firmly in the middle quality-wise. However, like Andrew said above, the part that was "somewhat biblical and similar to Narnia" was, to me, disappointing and unsatisfying.

Posted by DASC | July 24, 2007 10:25 PM

I liked it, but I'm going to have to read it again to say precisely why. I read it in the emergency room where my husband was being treated for acute and severe pancreatitis. He occasionally moaned in pain, but several other patients were screaming. Reading a description of the cruciatus curse with actual screams in the background was intense.

Oh, and my husband has been admitted for an indefinite hospital stay. I'll be posting soon on a thread about medical bills.

Posted by Karen | July 24, 2007 11:17 PM

I liked it, but I'm going to have to read it again to say precisely why. I read it in the emergency room where my husband was being treated for acute and severe pancreatitis. He occasionally moaned in pain, but several other patients were screaming. Reading a description of the cruciatus curse with actual screams in the background was intense.

Oh, and my husband has been admitted for an indefinite hospital stay. I'll be posting soon on a thread about medical bills.

Posted by Karen | July 24, 2007 11:17 PM

The biggest problem is how much you miss in book 7 only seeing things through the eyes of Harry.
Posted by dbt

I agree too. The other problems people are talking have been there all through the series, and/or are cases of "wishes for a book that Rowling had no intention of writing." But this was probably the first book of the seven in which there was a lot of important offstage action. Snape was up to a lot, and we shouldn't have got to see that he was "really" good until when we did, but it would have been nice to see what he was up to. And Neville and Ginny and Luna, even more so.

It's an interesting contrast with other epic fantasy series like "A Song of Ice and Fire" and "The Wheel of Time." (I'd count "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy too, but it seems different for a number of reasons.) They both have a dozen different narrative viewpoints and ongoing storylines which are all (theoretically) building towards one central conflict. They also, probably not coincidentally, are completely out of the author's control.

There should be a book eight, with the same events as book seven, but through Ginny's eyes. (Maybe Neville, but come on, a female lead might be nice after all this time.) "Ender's Shadow" done right — oh, damn.

Posted by Cyrus | July 25, 2007 10:07 AM

"The biggest problem is how much you miss in book 7 only seeing things through the eyes of Harry."

Unless I'm mistaken, the entire series is seen through Harry's eyes; the exceptions being the occasional prologue.

All the instances where it appears that we're seeing through someone else's eyes, it's just that the person is either directly relating these events to Harry, or it's a vision like the pensieve. Because Harry was at Hogwarts surrounded by people and vision-inducing objects, it feels as though there's we're engaged with everyone, but we're not. In Deathly Hallows, Harry's isolation from all this information transfers to the reader.

Posted by Tom | July 25, 2007 10:38 AM

Russell,

I think it is good that there isn't much world-historical stuff in the book, because it would tend to limit the imagination and reduce the mythical aspect. But I also don't think that recognizing bits of it in the series was a misreading. Clearly the theme of healthy mistrust in authority is intentionally prominent, and the name of the Minister of Magic during most of the 7th year both symbolizes that theme and provides a welcome comic relief. Anti-racist message is also very strong, and some allusions invoke real-world examples, but at the end my impression was that she may have included more mythical beasts than necessary for the plot precisely to remind us that we are reading a fairy tale. (In this sense, the motif of the veracity of fairy tales is cleverly self-referential.) Another example of self-conscious restraint in allusions is that the year 1945 is obviously not a coincidence, but the character of Grindelwald is given only a tangential resemblance to Hitler, and loads of glaring differences.

Posted by bullfighter | July 25, 2007 11:48 AM

And I'm not totally satisfied with why Harry survived. It's somewhat biblical and similar to Narnia - Harry is "resurrected," but the explanation isn't totally clear.

It wasn't totally clear to Dumbledore, either, because the connection between Harry and Voldemort was unprecedented, but there are multiple possible explanations (blood connection, the wand's true master, maybe more) and it is hardly less convincing than the other ways in which Harry escaped death throughout the series.

As an atheist, I am very satisfied that the inevitable issues of death and afterlife are dealt with in a way that is compatible with a wide variety of beliefs and worldviews - quite unlike Narnia. For example, the concept of the soul is necessary for the story, but, as we learned in book 5, only wizards can remain as ghosts, and this implies an agnostic stance on whether muggles have immortal souls. That works perfectly: we can entertain the concept in the fantasy world of the novels, but we don't have to take its baggage back into reality if we don't want to. Similarly, the last sentence in "King's Cross" chapter could have come from William James and leaves all questions open.

Posted by bullfighter | July 25, 2007 12:11 PM

But that is not entirely true that everything else is in the eyes of Harry - we have the scene that opens 6 between the Fudge and the prime minister that Harry knew nothing about. In this one, we have the scenes in which Voldemort is meeting with the Death Eaters and kill the teacher. (Maybe I am just making explicit what you call the "occasional prologue.")

Certainly these scenes are relatively rare. And I think the sketch with the two ministers is as poor a scene as there is in the whole of the books. I was pleased she largely stayed away from shifting the viewpoint, mainly because it is not her strength.

My favorite world-historical part of the story was the anti-prejudicial stuff. And that is why I really enjoyed the story of Lily and Snape, because she not only said again and again that prejudice is bad, but in this scene gave the cure. All of the generalizations sound good until you get into a relationship with someone you had previously subhumanized. And then it just doesn't wash.

Posted by Curtis | July 25, 2007 12:17 PM

I agree with Eve Tushnet in one main way, though - the willy-nilly way theoretical good guys perform Unforgivable Curses felt very wrong (remember how upset Hermione and other students got at the mere mention of them, or their performance on a spider, in 4?).

But that reveals a failure to see both the central ethical theme and an important dramatic buildup.

It there is "the" moral message of the series, it is that the world is not black and white, that we all have good and bad sides, and that our choices make us who we are; also, nobody makes perfect choices all the time and we often cannot even know what the right choices are - we must seek them for ourselves. Conversely, pure evil is extraordinarily rare, but if it does show up, one must use extraordinary means to fight it.

The dramatic buildup is important, too: Harry (and the readers) must expect that he will eventually have to use the Avada Kedavra curse against Voldemort; it is thus important that we witness him "prepare" for it - he first uses the Imperius curse, and then the Cruciatus. That builds up the expectation and amplifies the shock when he realizes that he needs to surrender his life without resistance.

Note also that, although he now succeeds in producing them, Harry's Unforgivable Curses are still quite weak. It seems that in the magical world, the culpability of intentions is manifest in the physical consequences of the crime. Being tortured by Harry doesn't have the same consequences as being tortured by Bellatrix.

A related observation: no character destroys more than one horcrux; therefore, no "good" character takes more than the necessary minimum part in killing.

Posted by bullfighter | July 25, 2007 12:36 PM

Dude, that Eve Tushnet blogger is a complete simpleton. Plz to not be linking me to that kind of nonsense.

Posted by vg | July 25, 2007 4:49 PM

The Weaselys some say to be silly wizards
To live like poor Bob Cratchet.
When magically they could be lounge lizards.
Just point their wands and snatch it.
But Rowling’s magic skills we should not trash.
She’s conjured up mounds of cash.

Posted by Duncan Kinder | July 25, 2007 9:04 PM