Harry Potter News and Commentary
My Portus 2008 proposals; Snape and Dumbledore: Rowling’s intent and the literary realities; news and commentary.
You can subscribe to the Hog’s Head PubCast through iTunes. Travis will (most likely) be appearing with Harry Potter Prognostications at Portus.
Pub Menu:
My Podcast Alley feed! {pca-bbeea8f7f0d45161273fe50812c0140a}
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Previous post: New C.S. Lewis Blog
Next post: The Catholic Imagination
Joivre on Tell Us a Story
Red Rocker on Tell Us a Story
Aaron Alford on Tell Us a Story
Arabella Figg on Tell Us a Story
korg20000bc on Tell Us a StoryRed Rocker on Tell Us a StoryArabella Figg on Tell Us a Story
Travis Prinzi on Tell Us a Story
PotterMom05 on Tell Us a StoryRed Rocker on Tell Us a Story
Loading ...
{ 17 comments… read them below or add one }
Artistic logic of the story vs. the author’s secret internal moral logic, eh?
Interesting analysis, but Occam’s Razor suggests more parsimonious explanations to account for the discrepancies in how the characters are described and depicted, I think.
I see some differences in the way the characters are depicted over time, of course. But that would be my point. They are depicted over time. When did JKR start writing? 1990? Why would we expect that the characters wouldn’t evolve over time, as she herself changed, grew older, more experienced, and thought about her story and her characters.
Also, we don’t know exactly when Snape became the man who loved Lily Evans, and Dumbledore became Machiavelli’s Prince. All we really know is that Harry was always destined to walk to his death, and Hagrid was destined to carry him out of the forest, just like he carried him into the story, in book 1.
Pause for a moment of deja vu: Michelangelo’s statues of the Virgin and the Child and his Pieta, book ends to another, somewhat similar story.
Back to the mundane. Did Dumbledore always know that Harry would have to die? There’s the glint in his eye in GoF. Nothing before. My guess – pure speculation until the author tells us differently – is that Dumbledore’s Machiavellianism grew as JKR wrestled with some of the issues we as readers have struggled with: how could someone so wise, so powerful, have let such dangerous, such awful things happen at Hogwarts and to Harry under his watch? Her options were, I believe, that Dumbledore was loving and compassionate but as dumb as a door knob, or that he was loving but wise and knew that sacrifices had to be made to defeat evil. My suggestion is that Dumbledore became Machiavellian over time in order to remain a credible character.
Now for Snape. When did Snape fall in love with Lily Evans? I mean in real time, not story time? Did he “always” love her? That is one of the questions I would most love to ask the author. Because although many of us had second guessed his attachment after reading HBP, I don’t know if there were any hints before then.
And even assuming that Snape “always” loved Lily, there’s quite a difference between the abstract concept, and the day-to-day reality, in fiction as in life. In writing the day-to-day stuff, over six books, the author created a living character, a fascinating character, who was much more than the Sydney Cartonesque torch he carried for Lily.
All of this makes me impatient for JKR’s encyclopedia. And I do agree with you, Travis, that what we get will not necessarily be historically “accurate” or “objective”. It will be how she remembers history, filtered through how she feels and thinks today. Such is human memory. And part of me longs to base all analyses on the relatively “objective” content of the canon. That would certainly be simpler. But that would be ignoring an important and seldom – never before? – available source of information about authorial intent.
Good PubCast. Excellent PubCast. Made me think.
Thanks for the pubcast, Travis!
Interesting stuff about fear. It got me thinking. The most scary thing to me in the series ie. what gave me the biggest fear response was how powerful and corrupt the Ministry was- shown through Umbridge. The unaccountability of the evil filled me with dread. It seemed impossible to fight. Like trying to punch an enemy in a dream and if feels like punching through blancmange.
I didn’t find the dementors frightening. I found Harry’s court case frightening… and the cave.
I’m with you on the two movie situation. Money-grabbers! But The Lord of the Rings having a movie for each book?… Sorry mate. LOTR is a six book series published in three volumes. I would have loved a 6 movie series of LOTR if Jackson had stuck to the actual story. I better not get myself worked up. No-one mention the Faramir fiasco.
Matthew
reyhan, thanks for your helpful thoughts. I’m not sure the “internal logic” is all that complex an idea, really, and I think Card’s essay does a pretty good job of explaining it. That said, you raise a very important point about time. That the Snape in the Prince’s Tale isn’t, in many ways, like the Snape of Book 6 should not be surprising, really. After all, he was much younger, and didn’t have all those extra years to stew in his bitterness.
The one point I forgot to make along the same lines was Rowling’s surprise that anyone actually liked Snape – which says to me that there’s a difference in the plot for Snape Rowling envisioned and what actually poured out on the page during her writing. Again, something that might be explained by Card’s two logics.
Matthew, of course, Tolkien wanted the whole thing published as one book, didn’t he?
The corrupted Ministry is indeed scary. Even scarier is seeing hints of it in our own government.
Travis, about what we find frightening: you raised the interesting distinction CS Lewis made about different kinds of fear. I can’t remember the different types you cited (and Google doesn’t help). Could you remind me?
With regards to time. I wasn’t talking as much about fiction time as real world time, the time JKR had to let the characters evolve in her mind – and in the books.
The point you raise, about how surprised JKR is that anyone actually liked Snape, is very important to this discussion, I agree. If she wrote him meaning to elicit unmitigated repulsion, but bits of her subconscious leaked in and made him more attractive than she meant him to be, then I can see your (and Card’s) point. But she didn’t write him as unmitigatedly repulsive. She wrote him as a fairly negative man (resentful of the Marauders, contemptuous of Harry, and sadistically cruel towards some of his students) who was also capable of undying love and self-sacrifice. The positive parts weren’t subconscious “leaks”, they were boldly and skillfully plotted. I think the furthest I can go along with the two logics argument is that JKR underestimated how much people would focus on the positives and minimize the negatives in their overall evaluation of the character. And why is that, one asks?
Resentful, sadistic, hygienically challenged creep on the one hand. A man who sacrifices himself out of remorse for having betrayed the woman he loved, on the other.
How do you feel about this person, Ms. Rowling?
Matthew, one of my copies of LOTR is as one book. I like it better that way. But I think the best way to film the book would have been as a television series, because it’s structure is very episodic.
But what’s this about Faramir?
So, how is it possible to do an analysis of the books & take into account any authorial statements, when admittedly her recollections can change from time to time? How can we take into account that she might have developed a character in a certain direction but then later saying that’s not how she meant it at all? I guess what I’m saying is how can we trust the author’s comments when her memory of how things happened may have changed? And what ends up being definitive for her? Will it be the Scottish book? What if she keeps making comments after the Scottish book comes out & they conflict with what she’s written in that book?
Just questions I have. Which is why I still hold the position that analysis has to be based primarily on what the books say themselves while not totally ignoring authorial commentary but also not holding it to be a super text over the actual written text itself.
Shhh, reyhan, we weren’t supposed to mention the Faramir fiasco! Which I remember I took to be a fiasco as well, the fact that all his nobility & higher purpose is basically reduced to pettiness & fear & rule following. The Faramir on screen is totally different than the one in the books. It was The Two Towers movie that made me totally reject Peter Jackson’s ‘vision’ of LOTR.
reyhan, there really only is so far that one can go with Card’s thesis, and that’s kind of the point. None of us are in Jo’s mind, and Jo probably doesn’t know a ton of things about herself which spill out onto the page. My point is that Card’s thesis is not only true, but necessarily true of any human being – which leads me away from the authority of authorial “intent” and more towards the view that meaning is constructed between the page and the reader (or community of readers) in a sociocultural context.
The five fears in Lewis’s essay:
A fear which is twin sister to awe
A fear which is twin sister to disgust
Taut, quivering fears
Dead, squashed, flattened, numbing fears
Fears not of danger at all
For me, the scariest image in the series is Nagini coming out of Bathilda Bagshot’s body in DH. Twin sister to disgust. But the Dementors are up there, especially the way they’re portrayed in the movies. And something about Christian Coulson’s portrayal of Tom Riddle in CoS is very disturbing. I know he’s a memory, not substantial, but every time I watch that movie, I watch him to make sure he doesn’t actually touch Harry. It bothers me when he picks up the wand, not because of the inconsistency but because it increases the danger. It’s funny, but Ralph Fiennes doesn’t evoke the same kind of fear. In fact, the only time I found him scary was the shot of him standing on the train platform. That’s the only time he seems to have a supernatural quality. The rest of the time he’s a typical megalomaniacal super-villain.
Watching the movies with my 7 year old is an education in what children find scary. He hates the hand lopping off scene in GoF, so I always warn him ahead of time and he looks away until it’s over. Also hates Voldemort tracing a dark mark on Harry’s arm, so he doesn’t watch that either. Or babymort being dumped in the cauldron. In fact, that whole grave yard scene is pretty much a write-off for him. Doesn’t like Nagini attacking Arthur Weasley – the blood bothers him. What all these things have in common is they show bodily harm. He doesn’t like the Dementors, but isn’t as bothered by them. He’s also very scared of Gollum. Suspects he’s a cannibal (I don’t know where he got that from, but it’s probably not too far off the mark). I think it’s the fact that Gollum is humanoid but not quite human that bothers him. He also doesn’t like Ralph Finenes’ nostrils (or lack thereof). It’s a good thing that he’ll be 9 by the time DH comes out in film so he can better handle the Nagini/Bathilda scene. Not to mention the thing hiding under the bench at King’s Cross.
I think that will scare me too.
Reyhan, I agree about Ray Fiennes and the platform scene in OotP. Part of the issue is that Voldemort has never really been filmed in a way that was particularly frightening in the movies.
Movies often rely on disorienting the viewer to begin the sense of fear. The platform scene is, I think, the first time the movies really tried that trick with Voldemort — and despite objections by some, I liked the suit — it was an especially nice touch wherein the Wizarding World and Muggle World seemed to collide in an especially frightening way.
Maybe that’s the disorienting trick that works best in the scene. For the first time, Voldemort looks like he could step out of the fictional world of HP and into the theater. Placing it at King’s Cross helps, too. It’s as though the director is trying to reinforce what is human about Voldemort and remind everyone he’s not purely a cardboard villain devoid of anything human. He is not Joker, or Sauron. He’s more than a concept.
Dave,
I think you’re right. The scene at the train platform (I didn’t know it was King’s Cross)does suggest that the two worlds (wizarding and Muggles, and by extension, our world) are coming closer. And the suit emphasizes the same point. Suddenly he is more than a concept. And for some strange reason, the fact that he just stands there, arms at his side, is especially menacing.
Fiennes can do evil – remember Amon Goeth, Tony Angel and Francis Dolarhyde? But he’s choosing to show Voldemort more as cartoonish, exaggerated evil. Except when he stands there.
Reyhan,
I think your son is very perceptive about Gollum. He is an opportunistic feeder and the rarer-the better. Tolkien suggests through Gandalf that Gollum is not above sneaking into houses to rob cradles. That’s yuck.
You went and mentioned the Faramir Fiasco! Now I’ll be swinging at the walls for the rest of the day and its only 9AM here! In the books Faramir, like Aragorn (and not the movie Aragorn) understands the lure of The Ring but also understands the peril it represents. He’s not weak-will like the movie suggests but extremely disciplined and wise- a fact that his father derides him for ie. wanting to appear wise and noble also comparing him to Boromir who was “no wizard’s pupil.”
This thing that stuffed the movies for me was that the Nazgul were rendered impotent in the early stages; they held no fear. On Weathertop Aragorn fights off five of them all by hisself… right. Why should we fear them now? In the book they depart to let the morgul knife-shard do its work on Frodo once some resistance is given against them. Gandalf had been put to flight a few days before by the same five.
Anyway, I have a list of gripes as long as my leg and this is a Harry Potter blog.
Matthew
reyhan,
I like your thoughts on how Fiennes is playing LV. More cartoonish & movie villany than actually seriously evil.
I guess for me what makes Voldemort more horrific in the books is his plain callousness & nonchalance about all the evil & killing he’s doing. In some cases it almost seems as if he’s done so much killing that he’s bored with it & just does it without thought. The Muggle Studies teacher & even Snape! For me the scene in Godric’s Hallow on Halloween is most telling & chilling where he contemplates AKing a trick or treater but decides not to just because he’s so close to the Potter’s house & his ultimate goal.
I also get chills watching Coulson’s performance in COS. He just nails LV spitefulness & disregard of other human beings. He also nails how LV is handsome as a youth but his handsomeness is overshadowed & destroyed by his actions & overall demeanor.
korg/Matthew,
Maybe Travis could grant us an indulgence to gripe about the LOTR films?
It’s actually been so long since I’ve seen the films, & I never saw ROTK, that I’ve fortunately repressed a lot of my memories of them.
Travis,
Just had a chance to listen to the pubcast today. Great stuff once again. I don’t have too much to say on it since I basically am of the same position you are on authorial intent. Thank you, though, for the kind words about reyhan & myself & our contributions. I really enjoy the discussion here.
I’m still trying to talk my wife into letting me go to Portus, but she’s holding out pretty firmly. I think because I couldn’t deduct it from taxes like I could a theological conference. Sigh! Ah well, in most things she’s really quite indulgent of my Potter mania, so I shouldn’t complain too much. Again, thanks for the great pubcast.
Matthew,
Faramir was always one of my favorite characters, but I guess I wasn’t as invested in his story being accurately told as you were. Good thing too, because he hardly left a mark on our consciousness, didn’t he?
I think that the whole balance between the family of the Steward of Gondor and Aragorn was not very well worked out in the movie. The actor who played Denethor was repulsive. Not only could I not see any remnants of the noble man Denethor had to have been, I wanted him dispatched quickly so I didn’t have to look at him any more. Paradoxically, the actor who played Boromir – Sean Bean – was too attractive. He seemed too strong and charismatic for the role. And there was real chemistry between his character and the character of Vigo Mortensen. The actor who played Faramir seemed to recede into the background in comparison with three such foreceful and virile men. My fancy, when I first saw The Fellowship was that Bean would come back to play Faramir, so reluctant was I to see him go.
Good death scene, you have to admit.
The link to Potter?
That is the kind of death I would have liked for Snape, not with a whimper but with a blast of horns and taking out a dozen Death Eaters with him before succumbing to his wounds with the word “Always” upon his lips.
Very interesting discussion of Rowling writing thing that perhaps she herself didn’t consciously know. I realy got yhat feeling after hearing all her post-DH comments. She was definately looking at the work with different lenses than I had.
I believe she was also surprised that readers saw chemistry between Neville and Luna, since she had never seen it herself.
As for Snape, I have to admit I saw the first two movies before reading the books and was biased by the ‘Alan Rickman’ attraction