Harry Potter News and Commentary
John Granger joins me to discuss the strange revival of literary alchemy, with focus on Harry Potter, Twilight, and The Hunger Games. Part 1 of 3.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Previous post: Potter Pundits at Pace YouTube!
Next post: LOST: Ab Aeterno
Jenna St. Hilaire on Goodbye, Maurice Sendak
Charlie on Do you feel your hackles rise? Diagnosis: NERD
Tom on Horcruxes: A Summary
Moe W on Goodbye, Maurice Sendak
Steve Morrison on Jack and Tollers
Moe W on Do you feel your hackles rise? Diagnosis: NERDMoe W on Do you feel your hackles rise? Diagnosis: NERD
Arabella on Jack and Tollers
Eric on Do you feel your hackles rise? Diagnosis: NERD
Red Rocker on Jack and Tollers
Loading ...
Get smart with the Thesis WordPress Theme from DIYthemes.
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
Yay, Pubcast! Thank you!
I wonder if some writers structure their work adhering to literary alchemy principles without deliberately doing so? Is there some principle that rings true in the creative process that alchemy is just a crystalisation of?
Korg, I asked this same question of John a few years ago. He said that alchemical writing is deliberate and carefully planned out. It’s not something into which an author accidentally stumbles, or that a story takes by chance.
I think that’s a good question, yes. I agree with Arabella and John. When one is employing literary alchemy, there are deliberate choices of colors and symbols. You’re right to point out that alchemy does embody the best storytelling very well, and so you’ll most definitely see the themes and purpose of literary alchemy play out in stories that aren’t specifically alchemical. The “dark night of the soul” experience, the hero’s being stripped of everything (nigredo), a stage of purification of one’s faults (albedo) and a resolution of contraries (rubedo) are just parts of good storytelling. But the actual choices to include a black/white/red schema with a quarreling couple and resolution of opposites in a chemical union are all deliberate choices made by the literary alchemist.
Yes, I see what you’re saying.
But there must’ve been something there that the people who refined alchemy realised was correct. They must’ve thought ‘Yes. This is how the process occurs correctly’. What brought that about? Was it their understanding of chemistry and metallurgy? Or did they want chemistry and metallurgy to adhere to the alchemical process?
It was a good podcast. So, is it safe to say that many works may contain alchemical elements but only a few are deliberately built on an alchemical scaffolding?
Great cast, John and Travis! I have questions, but will wait to pose until after I hear part 2 and 3 since they could easily answer them.
{ 5 trackbacks }