I’ve become a big fan of the TV show Heroes. Tonight, I read an article by Jeff Jensen for EW with which I largely disagree,* but there’s an interesting quote embedded. The series’ creator, Tim Kring, said the following:
There’s a premise to the show that we are actually trying to get back to more and more — the idea that ordinary people have been chosen for something extraordinary. It’s what made the Harry Potter series so great, the idea that the most disenfranchised kid — the kid who lived under the crawl space of the stairs — could be chosen for greatness. That’s an archetypal idea that has tremendous resonance.
I find it interesting that TV shows are already taking cues from Harry Potter as they write their storylines and choose their themes.
Thoughts? Is this the key to the greatness of the Harry Potter stories? Are there other important keys? In what ways do you see Harry Potter influencing future TV-making, movie-making, etc?
*For Heroes fans, I thought I’d add a footnote about my disagreement with Jensen’s article. Jensen, though he has some very fair criticisms, largely complains about TV conventionalities – what makes for “successful” TV, and how Heroes isn’t meeting some of those requirements. In my opinion, the good shows don’t care. They tell their story and let the story rise or fall. House, M.D., for example, put its viewers through hell for seasons 2 and 3, as Gregory House plummeted into self-destruction. But this was altogether necessary for the plot. If TV is ever going to be good TV, it needs to be willing to go through the nigredo, the dark night of the soul, and push us through to the other side. Heroes is in the middle of that now, as good guys look like bad guys, and redemption becomes available for the worst of characters. What they’ve done with Sylar this season is simply storytelling genius, and it redeems any of the quirks and problems Heroes is facing as it tries to get back on track after last season’s being so short.
Joivre on 
Arabella Figg on 
Red Rocker on 
Tom on 
Loading ...
{ 13 comments… read them below or add one }
I went to hear Melissa Anelli speak at Borders on Wednesday and one of the things that she said (in response to a question about the success of the Harry Potter novels) is that publishers and movie studios are watching the Harry Potter phenomenon with great interest and hope to replicate that.
The Jensen quote is interesting. I agree with what he said, but we all know that other things have made the Harry Potter series great as well. Themes of love and sacrifice, of dealing with death, the importance of friendship, and more. I think the fact that Harry was disenfranchised (he had no idea of his inheritance, of his parents’ history) and his treatment by the Dursleys, endeared readers and drew them into the series. They cared about Harry Potter and wanted to read what happened next as though they were going through Harry’s experiences with him.
Stories where ordinary people do great things are not new. You can talk about the Hobbits in Lord of the Rings and their bravery in the War of the Ring or even the Penvensie children who take on the White Witch in The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe and become kings and queens of Narnia. Oliver Twist also comes to mind as well. These stories have considerable power in inspiring people, and Harry Potter is in that tradition.
Johnny said, “Stories where ordinary people do great things are not new. ”
Don’t forget Luke Skywalker from Star Wars or Lone Star from Spaceballs.
One of my favorite stories of an ordinary guy doing extraordinary things is Silver Streak with Gene Wilder.
Give me paw, revgeorge!
Let me point to a couple of examples outside of Harry Potter for a moment on this subject of the hero’s journey.
Another point that is important to consider is not only that the ordinary person can do extraordinary things in this life and in story, but to show and portray the fact that the “hero” is flawed with many of the same failings we all go through in the walk of life.
Travis used a good example of this point in House, M.D. , Gregory House is an individual who is a medical “genius” in many respects saving lives on the brink, yet he does battle with his internal demons, his physical handicap and his addiction to pain killers, yet a “hero type” nonetheless.
In LOTR, Frodo faces his flaws along the dark path to take the Ring of Power to its destruction in Mordor. The dark force behind the Ring begins to play with Frodo’s
weaknesses. He regrets the task he has become entrusted to and tries to pass the Ring unto others, he becomes paranoid with those around him on the journey (and with good reason i.e. Boromier) not trusting even his closest companion, Samwise. In the end at Mt. Doom, even after suffering through all of the trials of the task at hand, he gives in to the evil thirst for power behind the Ring and desires to keep it for himself.
Frodo in the end is saved only because Gollum’s greed overtakes his own.
Are these “hero’s” disqualified because of their flaws and failures? Not in the least.
Each character learned something from their errors and we (the reader) have gained by the knowledge and examples given by the author of the story.
We face various trials and journeys in this life personally and right now as a nation, but we should not give up in the despair of the moment. Consider the words of a famous Wizard back in the eons of time, to a place called, Middle-Earth,
‘I wish it need not have happened in my time,’ said Frodo.
‘So do I,’ said Gandalf, ‘and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.’
I don’t interpret Kring’s comment as purely a tribute to Harry Potter’s greatness. It’s more a tribute to what he calls “an archetypal idea”. It’s two ideas, actually: the idea of a secret or hidden king (as in Arthurian legend or of course the story of Christ), and the related idea of a hero who rises to greatness from humble beginnings (as in many fairy tales involving three brothers, the least of whom wins the kingdom and the hand of the princess). Kring references Harry Potter because HP is currently the most famous example of that myth.
What I really take from Kring’s quote is how well-known HP has become, how it has entered the cultural lexicon. It seems to have taken the place of the Great Books of yore, books like Pilgrim’s Progrss which all members of a culture would have some knowledge of.
But even as I write this, I ask myself: will HP keep its place in the heirarchy of well-known books? Will the next generation of children read it as compulsively as did this one? They will after all have the movies, surely a much less effortful way of imbibing the story. To me, that would be a true test of its greatness: whether it can endure from one generation to another.
Red Rocker, we’ve discussed that a bit before, of course. I’m inclined to say that everything we’re seeing now points to the stories lasting, and I’ll even go out on a limb and say “canonized.” I’m inclined to say that while fandom will fade into something of a Star Trek-like entity, academia’s noticing of the series will continue to grow.
I thought the recent podcast I liked with John Granger, John Mark Reynolds, and Paul Spears was really fun to listen to. Sounded much like conversations we’ve had here about what makes a book “great,” how “great” (or “not great”) Rowling really is as a writer, etc.
revgeorge, how can I forget Star Wars?!? Thanks
Red, you and I are on the same wavelength re: Kring’s reference of HP. These archetypes are his reference point, and comic book types have been driving these home for decades.
Travis, unfortunately, you and I will have to agree to disagree about Heroes. I loved the first season, but since…meh… I mean seriously — no one is raising questions about HRG living in a sweet, massive house and paying for it by working at Kinko’s!? I thought the EW article made a few good points.
Biblical king David surely has to be an archtype for this type of character. From shepherd to king via giant, lion and bear (?) slaying and many adventures besides. A great heroic arc to his story. Also in the best selling book of all time.
Dave, I thought the EW article made a few good points, too, but like I said, missed more important positives that I think outweigh the negatives.
I just made the assumption HRG was a wealthy guy with massive savings. A guy that concerned about protecting his family would be a safety net kind of guy.
Travis, that was the explanation I came up with, too. But, it still seems a plothole to me — someone wouldn’t notice the incongruity there? A neighbor wouldn’t see the uniform and scratch his head a bit? To me the character inconsistencies are starting to add up, and the number of characters we need to follow causes the plot to drag a bit too much.
Unfortunately, I don’t get to watch it that much because it is half over on Mondays before I’m finished teaching night class. And I miss Chuck, too! Aarrgghh!! My nerd tendancies are thwarted again!
Dave, yeah – I think they need a few deaths of beloved characters to shake things up and simplify a bit. Or even deaths of non-beloved characters. Maybe they have someone could actually succeed in killing Nathan? I could live with that just fine.
I think at least a few of the inconsistencies are about this season’s theme – the hero within vs. the villain within.
But they really need to settle down Suresh’s character. I like him, but he changes personality whenever the plot needs to go a certain way.
I’m glad they dropped that female hero from New Orleans. And especially her annoying best friend.
For what it’s worth – I’ve come to agree with many criticisms of Heroes in the last couple weeks. I’m still holding out hope for the show, but it’s a little out of control at the moment.