Questions: On Harry Potter (NO SPOILERS)

NO SPOILERS BELOW

Bill asked:

Question one: did you see the NY Times review that appeared earlier in the week of publication? [snip] I was intrigued by the reviewer’s mention of all Rowling’s literary sources and antecedents, some of which I’d caught and some of which I hadn’t. The reviewer seemed to treat her writing as “literature”. So my real question (query two, et seq.) is, Do you think of Rowling’s Harry Potter cycle as “literature”? What do you like about it? And what (if anything) don’t you like?

Bill, you’re asking the Lit major who wrote her senior thesis on James Hilton’s Lost Horizon. What do you think?

I love the Harry Potter books. I started reading them my senior year in college and I loved them from the first. My favorite book is the third one, Prisoner of Azkabaan. There is a scene near the end of that book which remains one of my favorite moments in all of literature. I think Rowling is a top-notch storyteller, and the world she writes about is richly drawn, endlessly imaginative, and a gorgeous reinterpretation of cultural legends.

It owes to much to an entire tradition of children’s literature that came before it (boarding school stories, Roald Dahl, fairy tales) and spawned an enrmouse explosion of children’s literature. I read the New York Times article today (link — WITH SPOILERS: here) and I found it very interesting. I agree with much of what the reviewer said. I’ve actually been talking about her Dickensian way with names for years. I doubt it will surprise anyone that I think taking something and remixing it and making it new is one of my favorite things about great literature. (Once again, I reference Lost Horizon.)

I’m also in awe of her ability to write sport. I remember skipping over action sequences and “battle scenes” in books when I was a kid because I just never found them very interesting. Not so with Rowling’s Quidditch matches. They were so well-written, so thrilling!

Are there things I don’t like about the books? Certainly. Nothing’s perfect. There were plot developments that weren’t my favorite and there are certain aspects of Rowling’s writing style
that I’m not fond of (she really likes adverbs in her dialogue tags). But I don’t know how much was me thinking about it as a storyteller and going, “Well, I wouldn’t have done that.”

Now, about “literature.” I’m really glad you put that in quotes. I hate that question. How silly is it? What’s literature? Who decides? Haven’t we gotten over the whole “but is it art?” thing in the last century, or do we need new mind game artists to come in and skewer critics on their own biased kabobs? Does it depend on what particular branch of literary theory you’re hanging out on today? A few weeks ago, I hung out with a young woman who was writing her master’s thesis on Harry Potter and reader response theory.

Here’s what I think about “literature”: I think it’s decided by posterity, who is in a much better position to figure this stuff out. I wonder if Harry Potter shall be viewed in the future much like Robinson Crusoe is now, as a seminal turning point in its time for the development of the novel.

What do you all think? (Please refrain from revealing any spoilers in the comments section.)