Harry Potter, Books 6 and 7

The Half-Blood Prince

Par for the course, with the exception that this book, unlike its predecessors, seemed much more of a "series novel" than a stand-alone, inasmuch as the ending did not satisfy the reader with sufficient closure. It clearly led toward a sequel, instead of being self-contained as are the others. Rowling's forte is obviously plot, as her characters are fairly interesting caricatures and her themes are only superficially developed. She, much like Stephen King, is a page-turner. She does not ask much of the reader except for patience and endurance. The novel is predictably over-written and slow at times, but Rowling's ability to tell the story using multiple perspectives is improving. More on her overall writing ability in the next section.


The Deathly Hallows

This novel eventually provided sufficient closure for the series, and the final, climactic scene delivered a barely-believable, complicated resolution. The denouement was quite fast for the final installment of a heptology, and Rowling must be commended for it. Rowling's writing ability continues to sparkle like a bowling ball. She attempts to be literary at times as she tries to incorporate symbols and play around with character complexities, but since her symbolism is heavy-handed and her characters more similar to cartoons than humans, the novel falls short. The plot starts fast with an interesting chase scene, but almost immediately slows to a crawl during the middle third. For a novel as long as Hallows (759 pages), this means the reader slogs along for about 250 relatively boring pages.

For me, the creation of a believable fantasy world--a textured, multi-dimensional setting--is critical. However, the more detailed Rowling tries to be, the more difficult the job she has in closing the loopholes and filling in the gaps. Rowling falls far short on this. The resolution of the series is based on a carefully worked-out magical system, and her justification for the plot is painstakingly clarified for the audience. She has gone to great lengths to outline her "wizarding" world and to establish the "rules of the game". However, when she gets stuck, she resorts to the literary equivalent of the simple excuse, "Well, it's just magic, that's all!" which, if overused, pushes the reader out of the story by requiring an excessive suspension of disbelief. She definitively separates the "wizarding" world from that of the "muggles," by explaining any cross-contamination (the wizards erase the memories of the muggles whenever anything unusual happens). She injects humorous comments about the difficulty some wizards have dressing as muggles, although she simultaneously explains that all the Hogwarts students must change from their muggle clothing to wizard/witch robes on the train to the school. Wizards are shown driving and walking, talking, or otherwise intermingling freely with muggles, yet she jokes about the fact that the wizards cannot dress like proper muggles and do not know their ways. One major character is infatuated with all things muggle, specifically, outlandish muggle contraptions such as cars and motorcycles, going to ridiculous lengths to 1) establish his ignorance of them and 2) learn about them, when clearly a muggle library can only be a broomstick's ride away.

Am I being too harsh? Nitpicking too much? Perhaps. However, the effectiveness of a fantasy novel is based on the principle of suspension of disbelief, from which all else should proceed normally, once the rules have been established. If an author continually calls the reader's attention to a "rule", then the author risks losing the reader who sees the holes in the logic, thus effectively destroying the carefully constructed (and fragile!) relationship between reader and text. Fantasy, science fiction, and horror are all particularly susceptible to this risk. It's like Edith Wharton says in The Age of Innocence: "Good liars give lots of details; the best liars don't give any." The more elaborate the lie, the less likely a reader will buy it. Bottom line: The most important job of the fantasy author is to create the fantasy milieu and ensure that the reader remains in that world. The moment the reader discerns a flaw or contradiction in the fantasy world, the author risks failure.
Rowling's system of magic is based on simplistic stereotypes (wands, pseudo-Latin incantations, colorful rays) which often bend or break the laws of physics. Contrast this with Tolkien whose fantasy world is incredibly textured, highly believable, and remarkably detailed, and whose system of magic is limited in the extreme (only a handful of wizards exist). Or David Eddings whose magical system ("the Will and the Word") is not only detailed and well-explained, but highly believable and original.  Or Lev Grossman's physics-based system of magic which can only be used by innately talented wizards with either incredible intellects or superbly-developed intuitive understandings of magic: the genius and the artist.

In addition to an original and interesting system of magic, fantasy novels all but require a "Good vs. Evil" conflict basis. This dichotomy presupposes an Everyman in the role of the "Good Guy". Harry Potter fills this role nicely, even if his character is inconsistent between--and sometimes within--novels. Voldemort is the Evil entity. Nice, neat, clean: a Boethian interpretation of evil as an intrinsic force. No playing around with ambiguous nature, no cleverly complex or sympathetic antagonists, no exploration of human nature. The closest Rowling comes to creating a complex antagonist is Professor Severus Snape, whose over-the-top personality is straight out of the Adam West/William Shatner school of acting. This oversimplified presentation of human nature is typical of escapist fiction and is the main reason these novels can never be considered anything more than idle and harmless diversions.

You may be asking why, if I seem to have such harsh feelings toward the Harry Potter books, have I read all seven novels. Good question. Part of it has to do with the closure element (I started the series and determined that I would finish them, no matter what). Another part has to do with the genre (fantasy is my favorite type of literature). Also, I want to have read them because many of my students have read them. Finally, as I mentioned above, Rowling is a good plotter. Her novels are escapist fantasies with some clever twists, and they are very easy to read (Hallows--all 759 pages of it--took me two days to read). As an aside, I must admit that I really wanted to like the Potter books when I began the series, but I am inherently mistrustful of anything that is too popular (i.e., if so many people like the books, then something must be wrong with them).

As a final note, I will say that I have not forgotten that I am not the target audience. These books were written for young readers who are much less discerning than I and who have much lower expectations. I should give her a break, right? Maybe I should. However, I can't read a fantasy novel without comparing it to Tolkien. The Potter books are written for an audience similar to that of Tolkien's The Hobbit (and it's influence on Rowling is unmistakable), and I don't think there is a serious fantasy reader in the world who would say that The Hobbit is inferior to Potter. And Tolkien's brainchild also succeeds as literature, proving that great books can be written for young audiences and that fantasy can be seen as serious literature.