The first thing that struck me that I hadn’t noticed before was Voldemort’s response to Snape’s information about Harry’s departure from Privet Drive:
“Saturday … at nightfall,” repeated Voldemort. His red eyes fastened upon Snape’s black ones with such intensity that some of the watchers looked away, apparently fearful that they themselves would be scorched by the ferocity of the gaze. Snape, however, looked calmly back into Voldemort’s face and, after a moment or two, Voldemort’s lipless mouth curved into something like a smile.
The eyes fastening, the others looking away, and Snape’s calm response all suggest that Voldemort is in the habit of regularly performing Legilimency on every one of his Death Eaters, every time they bring him information. This says a few things to me: (1) Snape was a tremendous Occlumens; (2) Snape was in incredible danger every moment he returned to Voldemort; (3) Dumbledore was right not to divulge his entire plan to Severus. [click to continue…]
by Travis
If you want to read a take on social justice issues in the series that is polar opposite of my own – but is a good read from the other point of view – Mary has a new essay up at her livejournal. Mary finds Rowling terribly lacking in her portrayal of social justice issues, having something of an uncritical habit of accepting the white, middle class norms of her 19th century literary favorites.
I’m of the opposite opinion – that Rowling has written a very nuanced view of many social justice issues, that much of what people think is prejudice in Rowling’s part is really her commitment to portraying social justice issues in all their vast, ugly complexity, and that she embraces a Fabian gradualism, paired with a libertarian respect for free will, which does not satisfy modern and postmodern revolutionaries. All of this is spelled out in detail in my book.
But in the meantime, do read Mary’s essay, 19th Century Mores. Like I said, it’ll give the other point of view, with which I know some readers here agree. We’ve had some pretty heated debates along these lines in the past, but Mary’s essay is a well-written example of the position opposite my own; I may interact with it in a forthcoming podcast.
by Travis
I promised folks at Prophecy 2007 that I’d get this post up before the end of August. I apologize for the terrible delay. This is the content of my discussion at Prophecy 2007.
At Lumos 2006, and in his book Unlocking Harry Potter, John Granger enumerated the evidence that J.K. Rowling has written distinctly postmodern literature in the Harry Potter series. John writes:
The fictional world she has created is a troubled place whose Grand Narrative excludes groups from power in its mythology and imposed rational order, the hierarchy of blood, wealth, and race. (Granger 6)
The postmodern nature of the books is one of the many things that causes it to resonate so deeply with readers. But what exactly is postmodernism? It’s by no means an easy concept to wrap one’s mind around, and pop expressions of postmodernism do its complexity no justice whatsoever. One tires quickly of hearing things like, “Postmodernism just means everything is relative and that there’s no absolute truth.” The best way to begin wrapping our minds around this subject is to observe the definition of postmodernism as given by Jean-Francois Lyotard in The Postmodern Condition: [click to continue…]
Social Justice a peripheral theme; Dumbledore’s mistakes; the Dursleys and 12 Grimmauld Place; E-Owl: Will Voldemort be redeemed?
Hog’s Head PubCast is available through iTunes.
Pub Menu
Podcast: Play in new window
| Download
Joivre on 
Red Rocker on 
Arabella Figg on 
korg20000bc on 
Travis Prinzi on 
PotterMom05 on 
Loading ...
