I am of the view that there is no pursuit that is more noble and no task that is more worth doing than writing novels. Call me romantic; call me deluded; call me a fuddy-duddy; call me a pseud. I will stand by this statement and only nuance it by adding that the most noble type of novel-writing is fantasy fiction. The real world will look after itself. Factories will be built, medicines will be administered, trucks will be driven. But the ability to complete a story in 400 pages which provides an avenue to escapism and wonder is something which we need great talents to provide for us.
JK Rowling is not a great writer in the strict sense. But she is what I would call a brilliant one. She has not defined an era or created a distinctive style or influenced the way in which novels are written - she is not William Golding or JRR Tolkien or Marcel Proust. Yet she has done something equally as important and impressive: she has given people space to imagine and dream.
One resorts to The Shawshank Redemption with great trepidation. But I will do it: the scene in that film in which Andy says to Red that people need to know that 'There are places in the world that aren't made out of stone' is I think, here, apt. People, in other words, need hope. And really good fiction provides that. It says: people can do great things, and don't have to be bound to the humdrum, the mundane, the quotidian. They can live beyond and above.
It does this on two separate levels: in substance and in the proof of its own existence. A really good fantasy novel tells the reader two things. That great things are possible in the world of imagination (a hobbit really can bring down the Dark Lord; a boy from suburban England really can bring down the..er, Dark Lord). But also that great things are possible in the here and now (a woman writing in a cafe can produce something as good as this just by trying). There are two layers of inspiration nested together, and the result is powerfully explosive.
I am a latecomer to Harry Potter. The first books came out when I was about 15 of 16 and I was too old for them. I was also snooty about anything popular (a trait I still have). I have only read them all because my daughter was interested and it was something for me to read to her at bedtime. They are all flawed; the plots don't quite make sense; the writing can here and there be clunky. But it doesn't matter - the heart of the project is good. It is the right kind of story to be telling, and it is told well enough (and with wonderful charaterisation and dialogue) that it fits the bill for what brilliant fantasy fiction requires.
Earlier this week I was at the Warner Bros Studio Tour in Tokyo, which is dedicated to the Harry Potter film. And I was gratified on JK Rowling's behalf to see so many people from all around Asia (mostly Japanese, of course, but many from Thailand, the Phillippines, China, etc.) who were embracing her world and her creation. I found it very moving; what a thing it must be to write a story which transcends borders in that way and can unite people from across a vast continent in sheer pleasure. Good for her.
I don't suspect that the great Crocodile Memory Palace novel will ever have its own Warner Bros Studio Tour in Tokyo - or Timbuktu. But one can nonetheless dream. Good luck to you, Ms Rowling. And thanks for the inspiration.
It's 2026. What the hell is wrong with you?
ReplyDeleteThanks for the kind sentiment!
DeleteGross. What a shame.
ReplyDeleteThis post is so vacuous that it's hard to read as anything else except for a dogwhistle.
ReplyDeleteIt’s genuinely funny to me that I just wrote a positive post about fantasy fiction inspired by a visit to a Harry Potter theme park in Japan without even realising people would be upset about the JK Rowling thing. That’s how out of the loop I am when it comes to such matters.
DeleteYou can interpret it as a dog whistle if you like but the truth of the matter is I stopped giving a shit about the culture war years ago and sort of forgot about it. I wrote this entirely in good faith.
In a way it’s kind of quaint to realise people are still invested in these things either way. I really, genuinely couldn’t care less what JK Rowling’s opinions are about anything. She wrote some great kids’ books which inspired some good films and my kids like her output. Why on earth wouldn’t I thank her for that? She could be a Maoist for all the difference it makes to me.
It's just pure virtue signalling. Vice signalling. Something like that. It would be pathetic even if he didn't mean it.
DeleteI want to be a little more specific. This post amounts to "Harry Potter! What a wonderful achievement (although I have my reservations about the writing) and magnificent international transmedia phenomenon!"
DeleteThat's a fine (if vacuous) thing to say, and something that has been said, repeatedly, for about 29 years now. But, as you seem to realize, it's a little out of character for your blog. And the lack of any more specific or novel analysis or observation, combined with the explicit praise for JK Rowling, does make it seem like that praise is the real point of the post.
More generously, maybe you had a nice time at a theme park while on vacation and in a good mood and in your feelings about genre fiction and just felt moved to post even though you didn't have much to say.
But it doesn't hit that way.
OK, I gave you the benefit of the doubt earlier and wrote a good faith response to your comment.
DeleteNow I’m going to tell you what I really think: you’re a pompous, sanctimonious arse and I don’t give a shit how you think the post ‘hits’. Fuck off and don’t comment here again. Do you think I write this blog to be insulted? Vacuous? Do one.
Well, since you missed it, she's gleefully using her wealth and fame to attack a vulnerable minority, to the point where her money and mates have been forcing groups like the women's institute and girlguiding to change the policies they chose to have under threat of endless litigation funded by the books and films that made her rich. She's attacked everyone in reach, she's shut down women's shelters, she's literally become a holocaust denier and enthusiastically teamed up with and celebrated neo-nazis and wife-beaters, because they hate the same minority she does.
ReplyDeleteShe's also been very clear that promoting her works funds and supports this campaign.
But I'm sure you didn't know any of that, and just posted this little innocent pile of words to say… what, exactly? She sold a lot of books? "Excellent characterisation?" Vapid blithering padding out the word count so you can claim it was sincere?
Yes, I know, I've fallen for your master plan by getting upset at you. Oh ho, what a loser I am.
JK Rowling is a holocaust denier!?!? I feel like that would have been in the news…
DeleteI’m sorry to have to tell you that I had no master plan. I had a nice time at Warner Bros Studios Tour and wanted to post about it. Sometimes people just like things.
Yeah, Joanne feels like certain parts of the holocaust don't count because she thinks the nazis had a few good ideas. Posted as much on twitter, but the entire British media loves her and her hate campaign, so why would they cover it?
DeleteWeird that you don't like this post being called vacuous. It wasn't a word I would have chosen, but damn if it doesn't fit well.
When you start claiming a woman famously known as both a survivor of and outspoken opponent against domestic abuse has "enthusiastically teamed up with wife-beaters", you just know you're a few knuts short of a sickle...
DeleteJ K Rowling breezily denied (on Twitter, naturally) that the Nazis persecuted transgender people. She was wrong and I don't think she's ever admitted she was wrong. Calling that Holocaust denial is rather misleading though.
DeleteTo me, Harry Potter was a sort of "gateway drug" into fantasy, folklore, and mythology. For example, it's got things like a werewolf being called Remus Lupin, which is far too on the nose when you're an adult, but as a kid it felt like depth and niche referencing to me. It felt clever in a way that other kids books weren't. It put me on the trajectory of learning more about what she was referencing, which no other books (except LotR and primarily The Silmarillion) have done since for me.
ReplyDeleteI think I was 9 or 10 when the Goblet of Fire book came out, and the dragon on the front cover caught my attention at a school book day, so I read that first, then loved it so much that I had to get the first (sadly smaller) three as well. It hooked me. 4 years later, I was actually an extra in the film version of that same GoF book, standing 50ft in the air on a half-built arena set in the freezing cold, pretending that same dragon was swooping about and breathing fire (and they really did shoot fire out of a cannon thing towards us).
It's influence on me has never dulled. Sure, the writing is fairly tacky, repetitive, and a tad twee, and it's clear she took a whole lot from other authors (particularly Jill Murphy's The Worst Witch series), but the overall impact was a cultural phenomenon, and it cannot be said that her stories weren't and aren't still beloved by many. That's a hell of an achievement for a sub-par writer.
I've been to the studio tour twice (built just beside the actual studio they'd filmed at when I was there), and despite being a grown man, I still got a little choked up when I walked into that bit with the big model of the castle, with all the windows lit up and the music swelling. All because Rowling had planted a seed of hope when I was a kid, that I'd get a letter through the post one day inviting me to Hogwarts.
Great comment - thanks. And an extra in the Goblet of Fire film! We are in the presence of greatness! ;)
DeleteI have read the Harry Potter saga twice. The first time was in 2009ish (when my daughter was first reading the saga) so she and I could talk about it. The books--which I had expected to be shallow--immediately impressed me as morally weighty and profoundly Christian (making it ironic that certain sub-sets of Christians inveigh against the books without, of course, having read them).
ReplyDeleteA theme that runs throughout the series that I find particularly edifying is that every man is defined by his actions. He is not defined by his genetics nor by his environment nor by both together. "Nature" and "nurture" are merely sirens tempting each of us to act in ways beneath us. What makes us who we are is our use of our free will. Tom Riddle ("Voldemort") and Harry Potter had similar "nature" and similar "nurture", but by their choices Tom damned himself and Harry made himself into a hero. The same stark choice confronts every man every day of his life: Will I be righteous, or will I be wicked?
An excellent examination of the Harry Potter books is John Granger's (yes, that's his real name) How Harry Cast His Spell.
Ignoring everything else going in the comments right now, I'm not sure your point really bares out in the writing. Tom Riddle was literally a rape baby who's magical parent was a scion witch of an infamously foul and racist family while Harry, despite the circumstances he grew up in, is the son of two heroic, noble-hearted, well-loved Gryffindors and is described as being just like his parents despite never meeting them. Add that everyone's magical powers are literally determined by their genetics, and it's pretty clear that your fundamental nature is a huge part of defining you in the Wizarding World of JK Rowling.
DeleteYes, I would agree with anonymous. Geoffrey, I like what you describe but I don't think it is the world JK Rowling created...
DeleteI can understand anonymous's counter-points. What I was getting at was how often others and even Harry himself noticed how similar he and Tom Riddle were--even so far as the Grey Lady thinking that Harry was in fact Tom. That's what I referred to as "nature". For "nurture", I was referring to the fact that both Tom and Harry had abusive upbringings (with Harry's physical growth literally being stunted by the Dursleys not feeding him properly).
DeleteSo both Harry and Tom started with basically the same "raw material", and both were abused as children. Tom chose to become Voldemort, and Harry chose to become a hero.
I think you're fine on the 'nurture' point. But I do think there is a huge dose of 'nature' in there which is hard to ignore. You could read the entire series as a meditation on the importance of genetic factors in determining life outcomes. Harry has magical parents who were also wonderful human beings and turns out to be...a magic-user and wonderful human being.
DeleteI was already an adult when the books were published. I enjoyed books 1-3 and very much enjoyed books 4-6, but I found the final book unsatisfactory. I thought the films were well done, and I liked the pictures in the recent illustrated versions. She is a talented writer, although, as you say, not a "great" writer.
ReplyDeleteI've read the books many times but I have no desire to reread them now, because I've come to dislike J. K. Rowling as a person. It's not her specific views on transgender people that annoy me so much as the fact that she pig-headedly believes that anyone who disagrees with her - on any issue - must be either be brainwashed or have bad motives, and also that she sometimes seems to get a kick out of being mean and petty. She claims to be an advocate of free speech but I'm sure she'd love to be able to "cancel" everyone who disagrees with her. I think it's partly just her natural character and partly the result of her spending so much of her time on social media.
This may be true. I honestly don't massively care. I find the views of most authors, artists and musicians repugnant and silly. But it doesn't stop me appreciating what they produce for the most part.
DeleteId suggest deleting this blog post and moving on. She is a stain on everything she touches and would hate to see this blog get caught up in her poison.
ReplyDelete"The real world will look after itself. Factories will be built, medicines will be administered, trucks will be driven."
ReplyDeleteAlso, I strongly disagree with you that the real world will look after itself. Sometimes, good things don't happen unless clever and determined people make them happen, or stop bad things from happening. Societies can stagnate, or go backwards, or fail disastrously. There are novelists I hugely admire, but I do believe that doing things that save or significantly improve large numbers of people's lives is more admirable than writing a book, even if it's an amazing book read and loved by millions. Who knows, maybe The Lord of the Rings would never have been written if someone in the past hadn't invented Norfolk four course crop rotation or something?
Ha, I like that idea. Yes, you're right in a sense. What I meant by the real world looking after itself was that yes, we can take it for granted that clever and determined people will try to make things better in the material world because the rewards will be obvious.
DeleteI think that what you're getting at here is a that a lot of "brilliant" fiction is a sponge. That means that it's full of holes in which a reader's imagination can fill, just like a sponge fills up with water. This means that everyone's experience reading a book like Harry Potter is different since everyone fills it up with their own imagination and it's hard not to look back on your experience reading a book like Harry Potter (if you come at it at the right age, which doesn't apply to me, I was too old at the time) with fondness since a lot of what you're looking back on is your own imagination. Even things like Harry Potter (the character's) blandess can be an advantage here since the very holes in his personality allow the readers to seep into him better.
ReplyDeleteAnd this is harder than it looks, getting the right balance between having a sponge full of holes but also the structure to not be just an empty mess isn't easy the books that hit that balance right aren't that common. And it is easy to do all of this with text than with film since text leans on your mind's eye to fill in the details while film gives you an unbroken surface of visuals (although this isn't a hard and fast rule, see Star Wars for example, where the first movie goes out of its way to carve out holes for the viewer's imagination to fill).
I find J.K Rawling to be an odious bigot, but she's not STUPID. Lots of bigots are smart.
I see what point you are making but isn't all fiction (brilliant or otherwise) a 'sponge' in that sense?
DeleteI was assigned the first Harry Potter book for Fantasy studies in my first year of university. An odd inclusion among such luminaries as Tolkien and Ursula LeGuin, but I guess the lecturer wanted to get something modern in there that wouldn't be the size of the phonebook. I liked it well enough, but I can distinctly remember that when our lecturer said that Rowling was planning 7 books, one per school year... I scoffed and said "Yeah, but what are the odds of that happening." Fast forward a few years, and I was proven very wrong. Jumped back on with the release of Book 4 (which I loved), thought the series dipped a bit for books 5-6, but brought it home strongly for the finale. Odds are good that this series will enter the canon and far outlive its author and her political views, as many great fictional works have done before.
ReplyDeleteI was mystified by the success of the series having read the first one a few years ago, for the first time. It was...ok. Nothing to write home about though, I thought. It improves a lot from Book 2 in my view.
DeleteI felt much the same at the time. I enjoyed that first book just fine, but I really was taken by surprise when it blew up. For me it's Book 3 where it really jumps up in quality.
DeleteI feel torn about posts such as this one, but will attempt to engage in good faith. I don't know if you didn't know noisms and are that out of the loop (which is weird and kind of hilarious to me as I think you live in the UK?). But J.K Rowling has become much loathed for her anti-trans activism. It should be noted that I don't just say 'opinions', I say 'activism'.
ReplyDeleteI am pretty sympathetic towards your views of wanting to separate the artist from the artwork. There are many artists whose work I own who have problematic views or have done problematic things in the past that I enjoy.
J.K Rowling has become a little bit different in recent years not because of her private anti-trans views or opinions but her anti-trans activism. That is, spending millions of her own personal fortune to setup anti-trans foundations and funds and use her platform to engage in anti-trans advocacy. This isn't just an artist with problematic private opinions who has been lambasted by the media because they've let them slip or expressed doubt at liberal views at times. This is someone who has made it part of their core mission to use their power and money to advocate in the social and political arena against a marginalized group of people. These aren't just opinions. They are actions.
This article is a pretty good timeline: https://theweek.com/feature/1020838/jk-rowlings-transphobia-controversy-a-complete-timeline
To this end J.K Rowling tends to rile up people more than other authors who are problematic.
I personally think that it's fair that if someone is going to become an activist (for or against whatever cause) and going to spend their time and money to engage in the public sphere in a way where you're literally trying to change laws and reshape society, it's pretty fair to criticize them and no longer really see their views or opinion as merely 'private' and something that can be overlooked.
Artists are complicated people, perhaps more so than your average person. They leave complicated legacies. Every artwork is a product of it's time and author, I don't think anyone would deny this. There is also no true objectivity or way to avoid bias in the analysis of art either. While I do think it's okay to like complicated and problematic things, I do think it's impossible to truly separate the art from the artist in the discussion of their works, even more so with complicated problematic artists. It's kind of like pretending you are analyzing or writing from a purely objective unbiased view when such a thing is impossible.
Even if a person claims to not be bothered by an artists thoughts or actions, to be able to truly separate the artist from the art, the fact that they are and so many people are not, says a lot about a persons socioeconomic status, their life, what they value, their personal history, their political opinions etc.--in general their bias. Trying to claim objectivity in this case just feels kind of disingenuous, like a person is trying to claim they don't have a bias and are an objective authoritative viewpoint instead of just acknowledging their bias and maybe interrogating why they like a certain work and don't have as many problems with it despite the fact that others clearly do.
That's fair - we all have issues that we care about enough that it becomes impossible to separate art from artist. But for me, the bar is extremely high. Quite a few of my favourite authors would describe themselves as Marxists and some would even be politically active in that cause. Actually existing Marxism has contributed to the deaths of millions of people around the world. Yet I can still enjoy their work.
DeleteIt seems that HBO agrees with you. The Harry Potter TV series does not air until December 2026 but it has already commissioned a second series. If the TV show works it will mean that the story will have crossed generations. So the timing of your post would be spot on.
ReplyDeleteSJB
I'm not banking on the HBO series' success. My best guess is that it'll be a lot like the Netflix Amazon show: basically competent but with a lot of the humor drained out and treating the viewer as dumber than the movies or book did.
DeleteNothing to do with Harry Potter, sorry, but I just read this book review and think it's the sort of thing you might like:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.thepsmiths.com/p/review-50-years-of-text-games-by
Oh, thanks for this. It is indeed the sort of thing I like, and I did like it!
DeleteLove the monster ecology you have built here. It is the kind of detail that makes a world feel lived-in.
ReplyDeleteThanks! But I wonder if this comment was for another post?
DeleteYou can talk about separating the art from the artist all you want but wishing a person who is spending her money and fame on trying to get trans people in line for the ovens is disgusting.
ReplyDeleteIn line for the ovens? Are you possibly exaggerating just the teeniest, tiniest bit?
DeleteAmen, awoman, anit :)
ReplyDelete""...the notion that inspired play (even when audacious, offensive, or obscene) enhances rather than diminishes intellectual vigor and spiritual fulfillment, the notion that in the eyes of the gods the tight-lipped hero and the wet-cheeked victim are frequently inferior to the red-nosed clown, such notions are destined to be a hard sell to those who have E.M. Forster on their bedside table and a clump of dried narcissus up their ass. Not to worry. As long as words and ideas exist, there will be a few misfits who will cavort with them in a spirit of approfondement--if I may borrow that marvelous French word that translates roughly as "playing easily in the deep"--and in so doing they will occasionally bring to realization Kafka's belief that "a novel should be an ax for the frozen seas around us."
-"In Defiance of Gravity" by Tom Robbins, Harper's Magazine Sept 2004