In response to my post which mentioned my rethinking on the Best Novel Ever, Dan Brown (no, not that Dan Brown; this one) noted that not only was my elevation of Pride and Prejudice unwarranted, but that my critical facilities are suspect because of a willingness to entertain the possibility that the Harry Potter series has the potential to be categorized as a classic. Apparently in some circles, thinking highly of Harry Potter is a sign of critical failing. Now, Dan’s comment is particularly odd since it was Dan Himself, in a conversation he has probably forgotten, who convinced me that I should read Harry Potter. After talking with him, I bought volumes 1-4 (volume 4 was only recently released at that time) and Emma and I started reading through them. (Emma would read it before bed every night, then after she was asleep I would go up, get the book from her room, and read what she had read. We would talk about it at breakfast the next morning.) The rest is history. Dan Brown;
But, Dan’s comment has prompted this post, documenting the case for the Great Book status of Harry Potter. First, carefully note that all I am asserting here is that Harry Potter is a candidate for Great Books status. I hold steadfast to the 50 year rule—no book can be considered a Great Book until at least 50 years after publication. The jury is thus out on Harry Potter.
Also, as a preliminary note, the case for Harry Potter being a Great Book will hinge in part on the eventual status of The Lord of the Rings and the Chronicles of Narnia. If the Lord of the Rings is inherently decreed to be something other than a Great Book merely because of its genre, then Harry Potter is most obviously also not a Great Book. Narnia presents an even bigger challenge. I am not a big fan of the Narnia series (insert expressions of horrified shocks); I like the books, and there are parts that are interesting, but as a whole, their failings are too big to ignore. But, even though I am not a fan, they at least belong in a conversation of greatness; people have been rereading them for pleasure and profit for quite some time; I wouldn’t call them Great Books, but I would not be averse to participating in a conversation on whether they are Great. More importantly for the present discussion, I think the virtues of the Harry Potter series exceed those of Narnia, and I think the failings of Harry Potter are not as serious as those of Narnia.
And so, without further ado, the case for Harry Potter being a Great Book will, I suspect, run along the following lines:
1. There is a Dante-like merging of non-Christian world (medieval wizardry) and Christian symbolism and message. This is a deeply Christian work. Indeed, it has been interesting seeing how often people completely miss the deeply Christian nature of this work. (The churches which protested the whole series for encouraging the occult showed a striking lack of literary sensibility.) The Christian allegory here is arguably stronger and deeper than that in either Narnia or Tolkien.
2. There is a well-developed discussion of how to live one's life. To take one example, think about the four houses of Hogwarts. Each is devoted to a different character type: the natural ruling elites born to their station; the most well-developed intellects; the nicest, most pleasant; and the brave, courageous and loyal. The books are quite clear which of these characteristics is the most important. Loyalty and bravery are more important that any of the other traits. Quite Odyssean.
3. Combine 1 and 2 and we have a Homeric figure triumphing in a Christian world—which is really intriguing. None of the heroic kids fit into the mold of a Christian hero, and yet, the triumph is the triumph of the gospels, not the Greek epics.
4. None of the characters is pure. Every character has a deep character fault which results in some cases in the character's death, and in others is the near-triumph of evil. Cf. Sin nature.
5. The battle between good and evil is well-done, but the interesting addition to the battle is the Ministry of Magic—people who steadfastly try to stay on the sidelines. What is interesting about these people is that if forced to do so, some would presumably side with good (Fudge, Scrimegour), some with evil (Umbridge), and yet they do their best to avoid taking sides in any meaningful way. Such sidestepping has consequences, however—it aids evil. The message is clearly that in the battle against evil, there are no bystanders. Percy is an interesting figure here.
6. The development of the writing style as the main characters age is also intriguing. The first book is clearly a children's novel; by the last book, it is no longer so. The genre of children's literature in which the books are written limits the ability to display extraordinary literary talent; however, as children's literature goes, these books are extraordinary. I suppose there is a legitimate debate about whether any children's literature can ever be a Great Book, but I have never actually seen anyone arguing this case one way or the other. (That is interesting to me.) I also suspect that these books are better because they are written as children's literature than they would be if they were written as standard fantasy literature—that also is intriguing.
7. Rereadability. This is not necessary for Great Book status, but it helps. I reread Books 1-6 right before 7 came out—and they were very rereadable. The last time through, I noticed more things and thought about more things than I ever had before. The way the plot is woven together is much like the way Eliot wove the plot in Middlemarch (this is not to say that Harry Potter is comparable to Middlemarch in overall quality—Eliot’s book is much better). They are, in other words, even better books on rereading. I suspect they will be even better still when I reread them some year having already read #7, but whether that is true is the biggest question still lingering in my mind about whether Harry Potter is Great.
1. There is a Dante-like merging of non-Christian world (medieval wizardry) and Christian symbolism and message. This is a deeply Christian work. Indeed, it has been interesting seeing how often people completely miss the deeply Christian nature of this work. (The churches which protested the whole series for encouraging the occult showed a striking lack of literary sensibility.) The Christian allegory here is arguably stronger and deeper than that in either Narnia or Tolkien.
2. There is a well-developed discussion of how to live one's life. To take one example, think about the four houses of Hogwarts. Each is devoted to a different character type: the natural ruling elites born to their station; the most well-developed intellects; the nicest, most pleasant; and the brave, courageous and loyal. The books are quite clear which of these characteristics is the most important. Loyalty and bravery are more important that any of the other traits. Quite Odyssean.
3. Combine 1 and 2 and we have a Homeric figure triumphing in a Christian world—which is really intriguing. None of the heroic kids fit into the mold of a Christian hero, and yet, the triumph is the triumph of the gospels, not the Greek epics.
4. None of the characters is pure. Every character has a deep character fault which results in some cases in the character's death, and in others is the near-triumph of evil. Cf. Sin nature.
5. The battle between good and evil is well-done, but the interesting addition to the battle is the Ministry of Magic—people who steadfastly try to stay on the sidelines. What is interesting about these people is that if forced to do so, some would presumably side with good (Fudge, Scrimegour), some with evil (Umbridge), and yet they do their best to avoid taking sides in any meaningful way. Such sidestepping has consequences, however—it aids evil. The message is clearly that in the battle against evil, there are no bystanders. Percy is an interesting figure here.
6. The development of the writing style as the main characters age is also intriguing. The first book is clearly a children's novel; by the last book, it is no longer so. The genre of children's literature in which the books are written limits the ability to display extraordinary literary talent; however, as children's literature goes, these books are extraordinary. I suppose there is a legitimate debate about whether any children's literature can ever be a Great Book, but I have never actually seen anyone arguing this case one way or the other. (That is interesting to me.) I also suspect that these books are better because they are written as children's literature than they would be if they were written as standard fantasy literature—that also is intriguing.
7. Rereadability. This is not necessary for Great Book status, but it helps. I reread Books 1-6 right before 7 came out—and they were very rereadable. The last time through, I noticed more things and thought about more things than I ever had before. The way the plot is woven together is much like the way Eliot wove the plot in Middlemarch (this is not to say that Harry Potter is comparable to Middlemarch in overall quality—Eliot’s book is much better). They are, in other words, even better books on rereading. I suspect they will be even better still when I reread them some year having already read #7, but whether that is true is the biggest question still lingering in my mind about whether Harry Potter is Great.
The case against Harry Potter:
1. The quality of the prose. That is really the only serious problem in my mind. But, it is a very serious problem. As a prose stylist, Rowling just isn’t that great. And this isn’t just a children’s literature issue—she isn’t good even when compared only to other great children’s literature. It is quite possible that the Great Books status of Harry Potter is doomed on this ground alone. Again, that is the sort of thing I will only be able to estimate after rereading the books in a decade or so.
So, in the end, I think the case for the Great Books status of Harry Potter is solid, but not overwhelming. But, that comment needs to be put into the context that it is impossible to make an overwhelming case for the Great Books status of any contemporary work—at best we can make serious arguments for contemporary books.
(Hello Professor Hartley! I've never taken a class with you, much to my chagrin, but we had dinner the night Kelli Carender visited MHC! Love your blog!)
ReplyDeleteI think something worth noting in regards to the evolution from Book 1's clear-cut child literacy style to Book 7's blurred lines is that Rowling wrote to a maturing audience. Speaking as one who grew up on the books (which clearly lends itself to being biased) each subsequent book increased the difficulty of subject matter and reading proficiency as her readers grew in their capabilities of comprehension. To me, this is also interesting, because I don't know of any other series encountering the same kind of growth. I'm also curious to see what happens in the fandom/fan culture as my generation grows up in addition to the status of HP as a Great Book.
That is interesting that you think of the writing style as maturing with the audience. I think of it as maturing with the characters. As Harry et al get older, the narrative gradually loses its child-like simplicity.
ReplyDelete