Quote:
Originally Posted by Vicomte  I don't remember the first book in great detail, but I can't see why an author would 'villify' their protagonists. If a character is meant to be disliked, then, of course it will be described in a bad light. That's, well, literary technique, no? And rather rudimentary, at that. The 'top manager at a hardware store' is, Im sure, Harry's uncle, what'shisname Dursley, and is a generally unsavory, evil-uncle type. His reaction makes perfect sense, in the context of the story. I'm wondering, what makes hardware management such a high mark on the scale of things? A hardware manager wouldn't flip a bit over his hated nephew's introduction to a world that he utterly despises? Dursley is a prat, so he acts like one. What does his vocation have to do with this? I apologise if I'm missing something, but I find that critique to be quite laughable.
|
An author worth her salt will not paint big glowing labels "FAT!!", "DUMB!!", "EVIL!!" over the foreheads of her characters; she will leave it to the readers to figure out, and
that is what I call literary technique. Even writers for children understand that: manga and animes are never short of subtly portrayed characters with conflicting motivations, and children have no trouble relating to them. Rowling really have no excuse in doing such an abominable job in characterisation; what she lacks is the ability.
Likewise, if you want to portray a top manager, you don't just give him a sticker saying "HE IS BOSS"; you have to give examples about his shrewdness, his problem-solving skills, or failing that, at least some common sense. Uncle Dursley has this problem: he has grudgingly allowed someone in his extended family, not exactly treasure in anyone's eye, to live under his roof, and now, after many long years, someone offers to take this pain away! Imagine someone taking an interest in an useless, rusty piece of machinery in your factory, something that you never managed to dispose of. You should be jumping with joy! If I remember correctly, after his hissy fits Uncle Dursley, in an attempt to avoid the sleets of letters, is to go inn-hopping with his family,
totting the Potter boy along with them! Gotta love managers like this; he is the kind who stands by a sinking venture through full fathom five.
As to why Rowling would want to vilify her characters, I think it is an important question. Someone should have asked Rowling long ago why she piles abuses, insults and grotesque caricatures on her characters with apparently sadistic glee, given that, during that stage of its conception,
Harry Potter was supposed to be a bedtime story for her child. Unless a more convincing answer is available, I stick to my conjecture that such characters are Rowling's voodoo dolls of some real-life muggles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vicomte Again, if you've actually read the books, the insistence on blood purity and class distinction is prevalent, but not in the way you describe it. The pure-blood wizards are quite haughty and, well, evil. The Malfoys, a pure-blood noble family of wizards, are clearly villianous and depicted as such. The Half-bloods are only looked down upon by the uppity types, and Hermione, a strong protagonist, is one. Rowling surely includes such matters, but she shows how ridiculous and wrong they are, she doesn't glorify them to ensnare an audience.
|
Rowling does not have to "glorify" blood purity to ensnare an audience; all she needs is to provide an outlet for the sentiment -- after all, an audience, if it pleases him, can choose to identify with the villain. And I hasten to add I do not condemn Rowling on this ground -- Rowling, like any author, is fundamentally influenced by the time and space she finds herself in, and it is only natural that her books reflect the culture she has been living with. I was only speculating why the Potter books strike a chord with the Brits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vicomte Rowling's sob-story doesn't sell books to anyone, excepting perhaps a handful of single mothers. A literal handful.
|
Unless we have data to see, your guess is as good as anybody's. What I understand is that it is human nature to champion the downtrodden. Given Rowling's background (or, rather, the version that her publisher wants people to believe), critics are more likely to spare their vitriol and speak well for the books. Readers are more apt to overlook obvious flaws and come to the books' defense -- if only with (sym)pathetic apologetics like "the Potter books work kids' imagination", "the book pull kids away from TV and game consoles".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vicomte Really, you can't argue the validity of a fantasy story based on realism--that's, well, invalid. It's not great literature, but it's good, clean fun and rather well done. Why is it so big? Right thing, right time. Just because something is popular, it doesn't (always  ) make you cool to bash it.
Really, given a chance, you might actually enjoy them. |
Writers of fantastic literature have no special license to do away with realistic characterisation. Indeed an author who fails to create humanly, identifiable characters will (normally) die a career death. As the reader is unable to relate to the protagonists, or the situation that the protagonists find themselves in, the book will not be fun, never mind "good" or "clean". And it is wrong to assume that someone who speaks ill of something popular is necessarily trying to be "cool"; chances are that person is genuinely offended by the said thing.
