There’s a real dark irony in a book about a young boy quite literally coming out of the closet to discover his true self written by a woman who might as well be a Dursley.
The irony disappears slightly when the whole slave liberation arc was literally Confederate propaganda that was so distasteful and irrelevant to the plot, it was cut from the movies.
The house elves love being slaves. It’s the natural order of things.
“The more of their accounts of gender dysphoria I’ve read, with their insightful descriptions of anxiety, dissociation, eating disorders, self-harm and self-hatred, the more I’ve wondered whether, if I’d been born 30 years later, I too might have tried to transition."
“If I’d found community and sympathy online that I couldn’t find in my immediate environment, I believe I could have been persuaded to turn myself into the son my father had openly said he’d have preferred.”
Yeah but transphobes don’t believe that. They’re convinced that confused kids get groomed into being transgender the same way socially isolated boys get groomed into incel/far right groups.
Harry Potter has no true self to discover. From the first to the last page of this pile of rags he is a wizarding Mary Sue with near-infinite privilege and the personality of an oyster. The story opens with “yer a wizard” in the first 50 pages and that’s the end of his character arc. From then on he’s a mere vessel for the reader to experience the world and the author to move the plot along.
… As a matter of fact, what even is the biggest character arc in that story? I don’t remember much, but Neville and Hermione have a glowup and Harry’s uncle dies or something? And the weasleys open a shop? I certainly don’t recall anything that lends credence to the idea that Rowling even believes that either individual people or societies are capable of profound change. The story begins and ends basically in the exact same place except the characters are 10ish years older.
And “The plot was bad, I don’t even remember what happened”. Bro, what do I even say to that?
The story wasn’t so bad that it failed to sell tens of millions of copies in dozens of languages.
Thanks, i can respond to that. It may have not had the best written story, but it was a story that resonated with people (even though we, on reflection, found a lot to pick apart in it) and that’s really, really hard to do. Tens of millions of copies each volume indeed.
From then on he’s a mere vessel for the reader to experience the world and the author to move the plot along.
I mean i’m exposing my writing naivete here but if we get rid of the word mere above, isn’t the primary job of the MC to be a vessel for the reader to experience the world and the author to move the plot? we kind of come back to the same idea. give a bland protag that the reader can feed their emotions and reasoning into and they connect a little more. the more they connect the better the book sells. it seems like a decent writing strategy if nothing else is working.
given that thought, maybe i should write a novel about me. i can’t think of anything blander. maybe that’s why they say everyone’s first novel is about themselves.
I am not saying it did not sell. That’s the one thing it did really well. But it’s hardly a hot take to say success is not a measure of quality. Plenty of mainstream slop out there. HP is slop. It’s not offensively bad, but it’s certainly not good.
Over 6+ books it’s really sub-par writing to have a character who does not really grow because they already did not have any internal flaws or conflicts. The upside is that it’s really hard to hate a blank slate MC and you don’t risk writing yourself into a corner. I’m sure this is no small part of why there is so much HP fanfic specifically – it’s hard to write those characters badly as they lack so much depth!
Tons of things did the HP formula better, with well developed characters, good worldbuilding, good plot, good themes, yada yada. e.g. The Magicians (only saw the show) or Misfits&Magic. And in all of those the protags face strong personal hardships and are drastically different people by the end. Yeah, it’s hard, but that’s what storytellers do.
I’d argue Harry is way worse than both Aragorn and Rand Al’Thor. At least there’s several attributes added to both of those characters, though Aragorn is a lot more fleshed out. Aragorn is noble, loyal, carries a deep sadness, love towards someone special, etc., you can easily describe him with other words than just “adult man who becomes king”. Rand struggles with what he should do, who he is, what will he become, who should he love? all that, he too can be described with not only surface level things.
What qualities does Harry have? He hates people who are terrible? Feels sad when he loses people he cares about? He has no feelings outside of generic things he does in his life, it’s like he’s on autopilot and just reacts to things like some standard of a person would. How would you describe his traits, other than some generic “a kid that becomes a special wizard and grows up” or his physical appearance? And I don’t think Rand Al’Thor is a very good character mind you, but at least he is one. Harry is just an empty shell
I’d argue Harry is way worse than both Aragorn and Rand Al’Thor.
That’s fine. You’re entitled to your own opinion.
What qualities does Harry have?
Naivete, isolation, and confusion that gives way to optimism and comradrie in Book 1. If you ever read any Roald Dahl novels, he’s got much of the same youthful curiosity and compassionate cheerfulness of James from the Giant Peach and Charlie from the Chocolate Factory.
Much of Harry’s early personality is informed by his struggle to understand his parents and his parents’ friends, picking up and discarding their habits and traits in pursuit of self-actualization (Book 3/4/5, in particular, have him latching onto Remus Lupin and then Sirius Black as idols, only to lose them and himself in turn). Over the course of the series Harry’s initial optimism is poisoned by cynicism and hatred, frustration at the failure of his elder peers, and ultimately a depressive death spiral. He matures, discarding the childish qualities of the early books and adopts more mature (often toxic and reactionary) views and motivations by the end of the series. As a case in point, Book 1 Harry would have happily joined SPEW, while Book 5 Harry considers it an annoyance. I’d say Harry’s arc really peaks in Book 6, when he uses black magic on Draco Malfoy and Snape has to rush in to save him. He’s gone from a cheerful, generous, naive little kid to a battle-hardened child soldier.
Like, if I was to really describe Harry’s story progression, that’s it. Its a look inside a child that’s forced to fight a war for survival. You get a similar (abet much better written) character trajectory for the Animorphs. But to say nothing is going on with the central character? That’s blatantly rage-bait.
Also my suspicion that book 6 is the last book that Rowling had more than a few token notes on. By book 7, you can really feel the ghostwriters crowding in and WB taking a heavy hand in editing/finalizing (although it’s clear they’ve been around since book 4). Forcing a Disney-style happy ending on a wizard civil war betrayed so much of what Rowling had set up in the early novels.
Well that is a good analysis! You honestly got me more convinced of Harry’s personhood than the books ever did. I guess I just really, really hate Harry as a protagonist, which blinds me to the other points. I’ll blame Rowlings writing style for that one though.
And yes, I fully agree about the later books; after the fifth one, I can barely remember anything that happens in them, outside some biggest plot points. Compared to how I can still fairly well recall what happens in books 1-4, and mostly 5 as well despite there being more time passed after reading them, the contrast is huge.
I guess I just really, really hate Harry as a protagonist
If Rowling had just stuck to sports YA novels about wizard high school, instead of sticking her withered claw into politics, I doubt anyone would have more to say about Harry Potter than they’ve said about Luke Skywalker.
after the fifth one, I can barely remember anything that happens in them, outside some biggest plot points.
It’s just crazy to introduce “The Three Big Magic Items That Change The World” in book 7. Like, you haven’t finished playing with the Seven Evil Relics That Keep Voldemort Alive and you’re already injecting this other shit? Save it for a different series.
Compared to how I can still fairly well recall what happens in books 1-4, and mostly 5 as well despite there being more time passed after reading them, the contrast is huge.
The first three movies are, in my opinion, really nice happy little Christmas movies. Been watching them on and off since I was in high school. So the plot is burned into my brain. I honestly think books 2 and 3 are the peak of her writing. Genuinely really good kids stories. Fun antagonists. Clever riddles. A few twists at the end.
And then she blew up in popularity, and the whole franchise went off the rails. Ah well…
Moral of the story, never let a good author write a fourth book.
Literally “the pre-destined future leader who just needs to walk forward and automatically wins”.
What’s his biggest hurdle through the entire three-book adventure? Picking which hot princess he’s going to marry? Politely asking some ghosts to defeat half the Dark Lord’s army in an unwritten side adventure? Literally walking up to the Black Gates of Mordor and telling the Eye of Sauron “Made you look”?
Come on. The most difficult fight Aragorn has in the entire epic adventure happens in the first half of the first book.
He struggles with his identity and guilt over isildur’s failure with the ring, he straight up fails to save frodo after getting stabbed who would have died if Arwen didn’t show up, and that final stand against Sauron’s army was basically a suicide mission that only worked because he taunted Sauron into sending the army out of the black gate before ever heading out there.
At least it’s not more explicit. It’s not like there’s some potion that lets you change your physical appearance at will that is even capable of turning you into a furry. Or a type of witch/wizard whose special ability is to change their appearance at will, as shown by a slightly androgynous woman who regularly changes her appearance based on how she’s feeling in the moment.
There’s a real dark irony in a book about a young boy quite literally coming out of the closet to discover his true self written by a woman who might as well be a Dursley.
The irony disappears slightly when the whole slave liberation arc was literally Confederate propaganda that was so distasteful and irrelevant to the plot, it was cut from the movies.
The house elves love being slaves. It’s the natural order of things.
The real dark irony is Jo saying they probably would have transitioned when they were younger if they were aware of gender expression.
Wait what? Did she actually say that?
“The more of their accounts of gender dysphoria I’ve read, with their insightful descriptions of anxiety, dissociation, eating disorders, self-harm and self-hatred, the more I’ve wondered whether, if I’d been born 30 years later, I too might have tried to transition."
“If I’d found community and sympathy online that I couldn’t find in my immediate environment, I believe I could have been persuaded to turn myself into the son my father had openly said he’d have preferred.”
Ah, so not sincerely. Just part of another transphobic rant insinuating that trans people are corrupting the youth.
It could be both. But yeah she’s clearly weaponizing it at minimum
She said this at the very beginning of her going terf for what that’s worth. And cis people can’t be persuaded to transition.
Yeah but transphobes don’t believe that. They’re convinced that confused kids get groomed into being transgender the same way socially isolated boys get groomed into incel/far right groups.
Harry Potter has no true self to discover. From the first to the last page of this pile of rags he is a wizarding Mary Sue with near-infinite privilege and the personality of an oyster. The story opens with “yer a wizard” in the first 50 pages and that’s the end of his character arc. From then on he’s a mere vessel for the reader to experience the world and the author to move the plot along.
… As a matter of fact, what even is the biggest character arc in that story? I don’t remember much, but Neville and Hermione have a glowup and Harry’s uncle dies or something? And the weasleys open a shop? I certainly don’t recall anything that lends credence to the idea that Rowling even believes that either individual people or societies are capable of profound change. The story begins and ends basically in the exact same place except the characters are 10ish years older.
And then he grows up to become… a cop.
I disagree.
:-/
that really doesn’t add much to the conversation. you’re just
-ing. why do you disagree, Jo?
It’s a generic critique of any fantasy novel protagonist. Potter isn’t any more of a Mary Sue than Aragorn or Rand Al’Thor.
And “The plot was bad, I don’t even remember what happened”. Bro, what do I even say to that?
The story wasn’t so bad that it failed to sell tens of millions of copies in dozens of languages.
Thanks, i can respond to that. It may have not had the best written story, but it was a story that resonated with people (even though we, on reflection, found a lot to pick apart in it) and that’s really, really hard to do. Tens of millions of copies each volume indeed.
I mean i’m exposing my writing naivete here but if we get rid of the word mere above, isn’t the primary job of the MC to be a vessel for the reader to experience the world and the author to move the plot? we kind of come back to the same idea. give a bland protag that the reader can feed their emotions and reasoning into and they connect a little more. the more they connect the better the book sells. it seems like a decent writing strategy if nothing else is working.
given that thought, maybe i should write a novel about me. i can’t think of anything blander. maybe that’s why they say everyone’s first novel is about themselves.
I am not saying it did not sell. That’s the one thing it did really well. But it’s hardly a hot take to say success is not a measure of quality. Plenty of mainstream slop out there. HP is slop. It’s not offensively bad, but it’s certainly not good.
Over 6+ books it’s really sub-par writing to have a character who does not really grow because they already did not have any internal flaws or conflicts. The upside is that it’s really hard to hate a blank slate MC and you don’t risk writing yourself into a corner. I’m sure this is no small part of why there is so much HP fanfic specifically – it’s hard to write those characters badly as they lack so much depth!
Tons of things did the HP formula better, with well developed characters, good worldbuilding, good plot, good themes, yada yada. e.g. The Magicians (only saw the show) or Misfits&Magic. And in all of those the protags face strong personal hardships and are drastically different people by the end. Yeah, it’s hard, but that’s what storytellers do.
I’d argue Harry is way worse than both Aragorn and Rand Al’Thor. At least there’s several attributes added to both of those characters, though Aragorn is a lot more fleshed out. Aragorn is noble, loyal, carries a deep sadness, love towards someone special, etc., you can easily describe him with other words than just “adult man who becomes king”. Rand struggles with what he should do, who he is, what will he become, who should he love? all that, he too can be described with not only surface level things.
What qualities does Harry have? He hates people who are terrible? Feels sad when he loses people he cares about? He has no feelings outside of generic things he does in his life, it’s like he’s on autopilot and just reacts to things like some standard of a person would. How would you describe his traits, other than some generic “a kid that becomes a special wizard and grows up” or his physical appearance? And I don’t think Rand Al’Thor is a very good character mind you, but at least he is one. Harry is just an empty shell
That’s fine. You’re entitled to your own opinion.
Naivete, isolation, and confusion that gives way to optimism and comradrie in Book 1. If you ever read any Roald Dahl novels, he’s got much of the same youthful curiosity and compassionate cheerfulness of James from the Giant Peach and Charlie from the Chocolate Factory.
Much of Harry’s early personality is informed by his struggle to understand his parents and his parents’ friends, picking up and discarding their habits and traits in pursuit of self-actualization (Book 3/4/5, in particular, have him latching onto Remus Lupin and then Sirius Black as idols, only to lose them and himself in turn). Over the course of the series Harry’s initial optimism is poisoned by cynicism and hatred, frustration at the failure of his elder peers, and ultimately a depressive death spiral. He matures, discarding the childish qualities of the early books and adopts more mature (often toxic and reactionary) views and motivations by the end of the series. As a case in point, Book 1 Harry would have happily joined SPEW, while Book 5 Harry considers it an annoyance. I’d say Harry’s arc really peaks in Book 6, when he uses black magic on Draco Malfoy and Snape has to rush in to save him. He’s gone from a cheerful, generous, naive little kid to a battle-hardened child soldier.
Like, if I was to really describe Harry’s story progression, that’s it. Its a look inside a child that’s forced to fight a war for survival. You get a similar (abet much better written) character trajectory for the Animorphs. But to say nothing is going on with the central character? That’s blatantly rage-bait.
Also my suspicion that book 6 is the last book that Rowling had more than a few token notes on. By book 7, you can really feel the ghostwriters crowding in and WB taking a heavy hand in editing/finalizing (although it’s clear they’ve been around since book 4). Forcing a Disney-style happy ending on a wizard civil war betrayed so much of what Rowling had set up in the early novels.
Well that is a good analysis! You honestly got me more convinced of Harry’s personhood than the books ever did. I guess I just really, really hate Harry as a protagonist, which blinds me to the other points. I’ll blame Rowlings writing style for that one though.
And yes, I fully agree about the later books; after the fifth one, I can barely remember anything that happens in them, outside some biggest plot points. Compared to how I can still fairly well recall what happens in books 1-4, and mostly 5 as well despite there being more time passed after reading them, the contrast is huge.
If Rowling had just stuck to
sportsYA novels about wizard high school, instead of sticking her withered claw into politics, I doubt anyone would have more to say about Harry Potter than they’ve said about Luke Skywalker.It’s just crazy to introduce “The Three Big Magic Items That Change The World” in book 7. Like, you haven’t finished playing with the Seven Evil Relics That Keep Voldemort Alive and you’re already injecting this other shit? Save it for a different series.
The first three movies are, in my opinion, really nice happy little Christmas movies. Been watching them on and off since I was in high school. So the plot is burned into my brain. I honestly think books 2 and 3 are the peak of her writing. Genuinely really good kids stories. Fun antagonists. Clever riddles. A few twists at the end.
And then she blew up in popularity, and the whole franchise went off the rails. Ah well…
Moral of the story, never let a good author write a fourth book.
Aragorn…you had all of literature to pick from and you chose Aragorn as your first example?
Literally “the pre-destined future leader who just needs to walk forward and automatically wins”.
What’s his biggest hurdle through the entire three-book adventure? Picking which hot princess he’s going to marry? Politely asking some ghosts to defeat half the Dark Lord’s army in an unwritten side adventure? Literally walking up to the Black Gates of Mordor and telling the Eye of Sauron “Made you look”?
Come on. The most difficult fight Aragorn has in the entire epic adventure happens in the first half of the first book.
He struggles with his identity and guilt over isildur’s failure with the ring, he straight up fails to save frodo after getting stabbed who would have died if Arwen didn’t show up, and that final stand against Sauron’s army was basically a suicide mission that only worked because he taunted Sauron into sending the army out of the black gate before ever heading out there.
Aragorn is not a- hhrrrgh I’m gonna angry cry, I’m gonna barf right now how dare you
👎
At least it’s not more explicit. It’s not like there’s some potion that lets you change your physical appearance at will that is even capable of turning you into a furry. Or a type of witch/wizard whose special ability is to change their appearance at will, as shown by a slightly androgynous woman who regularly changes her appearance based on how she’s feeling in the moment.
Write what you know.