The fans did it better
Aug. 5th, 2010 12:34 pmAnnotating HP Philosopher's Stone, I think I've put my finger on one of the major points I have long felt make Rowling a bad writer. (Often charming, sometimes engaging, but still bad.) She makes a lot of use of exaggeration, which is a perfectly useful approach, and one often employed in children's lit. Unfortunately, she only uses it about half the time. Having Harry completely unaffected by what would, realistically, be vicious abuse from the Dursleys, and then turning around and having Draco and Ron play out class conflict absolutely straight, to take only two examples, just confuses the narrative. When using that kind of style, one needs to either exaggerate with sideways touches of realism, as in Roald Dahl, or else use realism with sideways touches of exaggeration, as in Dickens. Splitting it half and half doesn't work.
It doesn't help that she also deliberately opens up the question of moral ambiguity and mistaken perceptions by presenting Snape, who is very nasty to Harry and clearly dislikes him immensely and incidentally looks unappetizing, yet is still a good guy (thus breaking the otherwise thick streak of "your looks equal your character" in the book)... she presents this, as I say, but only for that one character. Everyone else is equally beaten with the black-and-white allegory bat of Harry's moral perception, but the implications that likable people are good and unpleasant people are bad are let to stand. In light of this, it once more fails to surprise me that so many fans went to such lengths to explore the space Rowling opened by implication but never carried through on, to recuperate Draco or show Dumbledore's darkness.
In a nutshell, Rowling is desperately inconsistent, and anyone who wants to engage with her books on more than a surface level is going to have to do all the world-building work themselves. She left it, not just unfinished, but barely started.
(But I am not, not, not going to be drawn back to working on "The Bells of Rhymney", despite the fact that the whole issue of house elves [see brownies] and enslavement and Hermione really does want attention. Not.)
It doesn't help that she also deliberately opens up the question of moral ambiguity and mistaken perceptions by presenting Snape, who is very nasty to Harry and clearly dislikes him immensely and incidentally looks unappetizing, yet is still a good guy (thus breaking the otherwise thick streak of "your looks equal your character" in the book)... she presents this, as I say, but only for that one character. Everyone else is equally beaten with the black-and-white allegory bat of Harry's moral perception, but the implications that likable people are good and unpleasant people are bad are let to stand. In light of this, it once more fails to surprise me that so many fans went to such lengths to explore the space Rowling opened by implication but never carried through on, to recuperate Draco or show Dumbledore's darkness.
In a nutshell, Rowling is desperately inconsistent, and anyone who wants to engage with her books on more than a surface level is going to have to do all the world-building work themselves. She left it, not just unfinished, but barely started.
(But I am not, not, not going to be drawn back to working on "The Bells of Rhymney", despite the fact that the whole issue of house elves [see brownies] and enslavement and Hermione really does want attention. Not.)