Comments on: Cave. Hic Dragones.

By: G. DeeDee

G. DeeDee — Wed, 06 Aug 2003 19:56:49 +0000

Thank you Henry, I don’t know you, but I like you all the same. ” Byatt isn’t saying “If it’s popular, it must be horrible” at all. She spends a good chunk of the piece extolling Terry Pratchett’s work – he sells millions upon millions in the UK, where Byatt is from (a single figure percentage of all books sold in the UK are Pratchett books), but doesn’t get any critical recognition whatsoever, apart from the occasional sneer-in-passing. ” This what I have been waiting and praying for someone, with a louder voice than my own, to say. Byatt has clearly read the book. She’s also written a few. Even if you don’t like her work, she’s still a respected academic with the creds and the chops to make the criticisms she does. She has no reason to look at her Booker and think, “I wish I were Joanne Rowling”. I am sure she doesn’t lack either praise or cash. The fact that many have dismissed Byatt’s comments as literary snobbery made me worry that none of these readers had ever even heard of Terry Pratchett. Did they just skim over that name and think “must be some boring high minded tripe”? I admit I’m not much of a fantasy reader in general, but I do know who he is. Any reader of fantasy would. Good Omens is hardly considered Ivory Tower Library material. But it is hilarious. So if the only fantasy (magical realism or otherwise) that you have read is Potter, then how can you judge what fantasy can be? So thanks for saying what has been bugging me since I’ve started reading reactions to Byatt’s article. She’s not jealous. She’s not against popular books. She just wants us to start thinking again. Order of the Phoenix was enough to get me thinking again. It got me wondering why I even liked Potter. The answer – Byatt was right about one thing. I liked it because it was mindless entertainment. However, that being said I like mindless entertainment. I think for a living and it nice to have someone else entertain me for a while. . But Phoenix attempts to be so much more which is why it fails. It fails because underneath the boarding school romp there wasn’t anything more important to tackle. So yes, Phoenix deals with sexual feelings, government control, mortality and the media. But it doesn’t do any of those things well. There are few good scenes. The one with Molly over her dead children is good. However, to get those one or two good moments (not great mind you) I had to slog through hundreds of pages of preachy, uninspired dreck of teenage melodrama and one-dimensional political musings. Those adult themes are simply ham fisted in the extreme. You see the trick of a great book is that after thinking up relevant themes (adult or otherwise) the author has to then to write about them with insight. Rowling hardly ever achieves anything even passable in her latest. When she does, it is not enough to garner praise for the book as a whole. This book shrank rather than expanded Rowling’s secondary world by having it be duller than the real world (enchanted paper airplanes are nothing when you’ve seen oldfashioned communication tubes at work – that is magic!) and having her experienced adults behave as though they had received lobotomies over the summer. The magical world has become as dull as Rowling’s literary style always was. The thestrals (and no I am not capitalizing it because I don’t capitalize ‘dog’ either) both say nothing and symbolize even less. They are exactly what Byatt means when she claims the world is only dangerous because Rowling says it is. Rowling has tamed her wild beasts as used them as carriage horses. In addition, they say nothing about how death changes a person who sees it. That is because Rowling isn’t a particularly subtle or insightful writer (I’m tempted to say ‘thinker’. But I really don’t know her. Bad writers can also be incredibly intelligent and insightful people. She is probably both.). That is fine. She’s not into the darker mysteries of life. But if you aren’t able to conceptualize the profound, don’t try to write about it. Be the Candace Bushnell of kid’s fantasy. Stay shallow. Rowling I suspect has nothing to add to the myth and reality of the teenage landscape. Will I keep reading? Maybe. But I am not going to pay for the privilege.

By: dan

dan — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 22:00:12 +0000

The ambivalence of our age’s communication technology, the displacement of writing and reading, and the overwhelming influences of Consumerism feed the fires of the debate over Rawlings and Byatt. Yet, from the written page’s ashes, Rawling like Fawkes seems to rise with a flash of enthusiasm inpired in bright children and some gray adults.

By: Ruth Feingold

Ruth Feingold — Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:47:41 +0000

Given the now-complicated set of nesting posts, I’m not sure which context “ruth,” above, is talking about (my comment? Sol’s comment? Henry’s post? Byatt’s article?). Just for the record, I want to make it clear that I didn’t take a position on whether the Rowling books are sexual or asexual (or, more precisely, whether they do or do not link magic in any way to sexuality/potential sexuality). And yes, the fact that Harry’s chronologically on the cusp of adolescence when he gets invited to Hogwarts does seem like an indicator that Rowling may be following the puberty=magic line; at any event, she’s certainly not reserving magic for children alone. Actually, given the real-world parallels Rowling creates in other areas, one could probably make a convincing argument for magic as being a metaphor for sexuality in her books: they start making you learn about it in school when you’re old enough to understand it, but you’re not allowed to actually USE it till you’re an adult—and if you rebel and do dabble in it, even if you have good reasons, they prosecute you for practicing while underage. Sound familiar? This doesn’t exactly tap into the mysterious powers of sexuality, and puberty’s associations with change (a la Mahy’s Changeover, for example)—but it sure as hell fits in with Rowling’s overall take on the power structure.

By: Ruth

Ruth — Mon, 14 Jul 2003 07:48:09 +0000

This is a paltry observation, but I can’t help but remark on Ms. Feingold’s observation (and Mr. Farrell’s enthusiastic second) about Susan Cooper: “Sol says that Cooper’s books are “utterly unsexual”; I assume, though, that what Henry’s referring to is that fact that Will comes into his power on his 11th birthday — so that his acquisition of power is, precisely, a marker of adolescence.” I am confused that this is remarked upon in this context as a way to distinguish Cooper from Rowling, because Potter too comes into his power and knowledge precisely on his eleventh birthday.

By: cafl

cafl — Mon, 14 Jul 2003 05:35:37 +0000

AS Byatt in the Guardian last December on fairy tales, magic, and the deficiency of the modern imagination: http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,12084,865620,00.html She covers the same territory as her HP review. Despite being the mother of four, I think she doesn’t spend much time around children.

By: chand

chand — Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:34:11 +0000

I think this thread has drifted from its starting point. Byatt’s op-ed piece is an expression of her inability to imagine how a book could be simultaneously popular with children and adults. She rhetorically asks, “Surely one precludes the other?” My daughter, now almost 17, taught herself to read. She did so because her mother was taking too long getting through Laura Ingells Wilder’s Little House series. My son, now 9, taught himself to read because we were too slow with the Harry Potter books – we were only able to deliver a chapter per night. The whole family read these books aloud to eachother (is that too “Leave it to Beaver” for you all or what?). Both series are remarkable in that they can engross children and adults. Some adults still get enjoy things most often associated with children. I prefer to characterize this as ‘childlike’ rather than Byatt’s pejorative “childish.” This leads me to the major problem with Byatt’s essay; it is so insulting. Although my son is a bit of an exception, none of the rest of my family watch cartoons, and none of us watch “the exaggerated (more exciting, not threatening) mirror-worlds of soaps, reality TV and celebrity gossip.” To characterize the millions who read Potter books thus is simple cultural bigotry. She is not unique in this; I myself felt something like righteous indignation welling up in me at being associated with soap opera watchers. But this is the point. Rather than focus on the Potter books, her critique is aimed at their readers. She writes that adults that read Potter books “regress” or are “reverting”, are ignorant of a “real sense of mystery,” and are of limited imagination. It is hard to feel that any of these are meant as compliments. It is Byatt that personalizes the issue and that is why so many are responding to her piece. For this reason, I think that Byatt is reacting to the Potter books in more than a simply academic way – it must be personal for her as well. I can psychobabble with the best and speculate that Byatt is cut off from her ‘inner child.’ But perhaps she is one of those adults, who for whatever reason doesn’t really like kids. The ones who go to dinner parties and ignore those shrieking whirlwinds except if their wineglass is imperiled. I don’t imagine she ever gets down on the floor and plays anymore, but I may be wrong. It may be that she is envious of Ms. Rawlings material success or it may be an ideological disagreement. Byatt writes that “being taught literature often destroys the life of the books.” She implicates “dumbing down and cultural studies” as part of the problem but also states that even before the modern era, there were problems with the literature establishment. (As an aside, cultural studies, along with political correctness are convenient scapegoats as are often taken to extremes. They are reactions to institutionalized racism and state patriarchy, however, so critics should honestly examine their own motivations prior to casting stones.) Clearly Byatt most highly values “amazing sentences.” But in the absence of a good plot, why not write poetry?

By: Danny Yee

Danny Yee — Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:14:43 +0000

Another good read for those not overcome by the hype is Philip Hensher's review in the Spectator. I've only read the first two Harry Potter books (review of the first), but I think Byatt (and Hensher) are reasonably balanced and pretty much spot-on.

By: biz

biz — Fri, 11 Jul 2003 03:28:38 +0000

This latest book is going to warp some young minds but good. I heartily endorse it. What other children’s literature teaches you that newspapers are lies and you can’t trust the government? (Outside of “The Snarkout Boys and the Avacodo of Death” by Pinkwater that is…”

By: John Casey

John Casey — Fri, 11 Jul 2003 03:21:39 +0000

Two of the things I like about HP: 1. Harry inhabits an absolutely Godless universe. No one has ever attended a religious service of any sort at any time, nor taken a deity’s name in vain or otherwise. Why have I not seen this remarked upon elsewhere? 2. ‘Magic’ isn’t. It’s technic. It’s accessible to anyone with a basic knack, and can be learned. Not unlike C++, I suppose. I suffer from an overdeveloped need to know what happened, so I zoom through books driven to uncover plot. So I read them again, more slowly, to see who happened, and where it happened, etc. Harry Potter is rewarding in this way. JC

By: ogged

ogged — Fri, 11 Jul 2003 00:11:02 +0000

Just a couple of brief points: as some people have all but said, the fact that there’s magic in the books doesn’t make them fantasies. The proper comparison, in my frame of reference, is Judy Blume. Second, we shouldn’t confuse the popularity of the books as measured in sales with the popularity of the books as measured by individual devotion. I’m an adult and I read and enjoy them, but a large part of my enjoyment is participating in the mass phenomenon. Ok, I can’t resist a little substantial defense. Severus Snape is a great character. A man who has turned from evil without becoming in any way soft or likable (which distinguishes him not just from likable heroes, but the stock gruff-but-heart-of-gold characters in so many books and movies). I think you have to go to “respectable” adult literature to find a similarly challenging portrayal.

By: Paul

Paul — Thu, 10 Jul 2003 17:16:52 +0000

I think Byatt’s article is flawed for a whole bunch of reasons, not least of them being the unnecessary psychobabble—ironically followed by the truly insane assertion that the Tolkein books are devoid of sexuality. She needs to look again at the Frodo/Sam/Gollum triangle. But I do agree that something is oddly lacking for me about these books. I would write all this off as a matter of personal preference were in not for the near-religious devotion that these books have inspired. I think part of the reason why these books are so insanely popular with some people is that they are primarily derivative not of fantasy children’s novels like the Narnia series but of a body of literature, boarding school novels, which many people, especially in America, aren’t really familiar with. So perhaps it seems them like an extremely clever, “magical-realist” approach to the child’s fantasy novel, where to me is seems like a relatively pedestrian boarding school novel with a Saturday morning cartoon sort of magic grafted on—the game they play (forget the name), for example, is really just the obligatory cricket match on broomsticks. The magic in these books also seems oddly…technological. The broomsticks have even have brand names. This may be a clever attempt to appeal to a generation that associates magic most closely with their Playstation, but it leaves me cold.

By: Avedon

Avedon — Thu, 10 Jul 2003 00:40:26 +0000

I think Rowling is really slick with exposition and I also think there was always some darkness in her work. Prisoner gave me nightmares. I read the first one because I like good fantasy/sf kidfic and I wanted to see what the buzz was about. I read the rest because I liked the first. And I think Geoff Ryman is right when he says there’s nothing wrong with escapist fantasy. But I don’t think HP is purely escapist. I think there are a lot of issues that people – not just kids – have to deal with that are usefully illustrated in these stories, and I’m not the least bit disturbed that so many kids are having their little adventures in these books. I also note that once kids find their way to the fantasy shelves for HP, they are also discovering Diana Wynne Jones and a number of other good fantasy authors, which is good for them and for us. Never did think much of Byatt’s articles, though.

By: clew

clew — Wed, 09 Jul 2003 21:32:51 +0000

Byatt not only defends Pratchett, but judging by her own novels – A Whistling Woman most recently – she thinks Tolkien is valuable. She is not an automatic pop-loather. The charge against Rowlings that sticks hardest is that her magic isn’t an enlargement of the world; it’s a lot more like next year’s consumer electronics, or a game of Pokemon. It should at least be as gripping as research electronics, for heaven’s sake; but that’s much harder to write. Think of the difference between bad and good nature writing. (Similarly, it may be impossible to film the exaltation of computer hacking, so we get third-water kung fu instead.) So, if they aren’t really books about magic, they’re boarding-school stories, and they aren’t that far from other boarding school stories: I think the more-complex-as-the-characters-age is not unprecedented (Camp Fire Girls?). I find them mildly enjoyable, though I think I enjoy them mostly because so many other people are reading and writing about them. I read some of the better fanfic first, and the diffraction halo of wildly conflicting interpretations makes the simple originals a lot more interesting. But I can’t say they’re unusually good; say I broke my knees and wept like a woman, but I will not swear. There’s a lot of everything that isn’t very good but still justifies its existence by bringing people happiness. Only if one lies about it and claims that it must be just as good as anything else anybody likes is it dangerous. I know there are arguments for that last claim; a lot of what’s hitting Byatt is not argument, but the fretful belief that anything that does not echo one’s choices is a personal attack.

By: Emma

Emma — Wed, 09 Jul 2003 16:25:50 +0000

Not to interject a muggle comment here, but…has everyone forgotten that the folk that made these books popular were CHILDREN? I heard about Harry Potter from a 9 year old neighbor, who saw my collection of fantasy books and said, “there’s this new one out…” Whatever she does well or badly from our adult standpoint, Rawlings resonates with children. Reading them as adult literature is as misguided as reading Tolkien as religion. IMHO she continues to “grow” Harry and his friends very well indeed.She walks them through feelings of loneliness, otherness, fear of abandonment, the anger at being abandoned, the discovery of parents as human beings, and the headiness of the nerdy runt finding out he was good at something. AND the growing up into sexual beings. I knew this latest one was going to be popular with kids the moment I wanted to slam Harry against the wall for being such an obnoxious git…

By: RatherWorried

RatherWorried — Wed, 09 Jul 2003 14:57:48 +0000

One last comment about the Potter series. My initial impression after finishing Phoenix was of slight disappointment. I felt it lacked some of the original imagination of the prior books. It is however the most sophisticated plot with far better character growth than any prior book in the series. This series is very different from every series that has been ponied up for comparison in that the characters are not rapidly changing within a book, they are slowly growing up and as they become more sophisticated understanding the world better. The Ministry of Magic was just as political and nasty an environment in book number 1 but Harry at 11 years old was too young to understand this. If you don’t get this, you’ve missed entirely what Rowling is doing. As he has grown older the sophistication of the plot lines and the reduction of adult wizards from heros to flawed mortals demonstrates far better control over characterization than any other author of children books that I have ever read, and certainly better than any mentioned by Byatt! After reading the posts here it became apparent that some readers were looking for a book that Rowling wasn’t interested in trying to write. It also is obviously apparent that some posters need to read the book again (or read it for the first time). I do appreciate the differences in taste that exist and understand that a reader can prefer one writer over another, but the reader needs to try and understand what the author is doing with a book, or in this case a series. The books have nothing whatsoever to do with fantasy or science fiction and increasingly less to do with children’s literature. Rowling is telling a wonderful story that increases in sophistication as her characters have the ability to understand it. It is a pretty unique series.