Harry Potter thoughts

[grinninfoole]

I've been reading Order of the Phoenix at my parents' house on weekends when I have been back there visiting M's mom in the hospital. (Who is, incidentally, much recovered, and will soon be able to start rehab.) I still haven't finished the book, but I am ejoying it and I think it really is quite good.

A few things that have struck me:

1) It's interesting that we never see how Malfoy does in potions, or in any other subject. Snape always favors him over Harry, but we have no idea if this is pure bias, or if Malfoy actually is good at making potions.

2) I think learning to be a witch or wizard would be rather hard, quite aside from the whole issue of magical ability. The magic presented by Rowling doesn't appear to have a coherent internal logic or grammar. How, for example, would one go about modifying the summoning charm "Accio" to have the object fly to someone else's hand? Rowling doesn't appear to be attempting to create a coherent 'magic system' in the way that someone writing a 'gamer novel' might do, and the details of magic aren't her focus, yet I think it's significant that in five books we don't have any idea how spells, potions, etc are constructed.

Since it is magic, Rowling doesn't need to have an internal logic for it, of course, and I don't see it as a weakness if she doesn't. Rather, my point is that it makes learning the art much more difficult. If there's no rhyme or reason to why you have to say "Wingardium Leviosa" with one emphasis instead of another, much less why you have to say those words at all, or why you have swish and flick your wand so, then learning magic isn't a matter of coming to understand principles and laws, however abstract or difficult, but rather a matter of rote memorization, the hardest kind of learning. If so, it becomes clear that Hermione's talent for magic is that she has a fabulous memory and is one of those few people who are really good rote learning; equally clear is why Neville, with his horrible memory, is so bad at everything except Herbology.

3) Related to this, is the political reality Rowling has created. Because almost every human in wizard society is a wizard or witch, they are all enfranchised in a way that people in our society (and more so in Britain) are not. Everyone with a wand is effectively armed with a deadly weapon. This means, of course, that the state has no monopoly on force, which helps explain the Ministry's paranoia about power bases outside of its control. Much as in pre-industrial Europe, a fear of mob violence looms large for any government which can not deploy a small cadre of loyal troops and quell a large riot. Today, we muggles can call out the national guard, which shows up with tanks, APCs, machine guns, grenade launchers and other heavy weapons. Even the cops have heavy weapons, and less-lethal options like tear gas, mace and rubber bullets.

Wizards like Voldemort, Dumbledore and others are scary because they can wield destructive powers that the state may not be able to counter. If there are wizard equivalents to WMDs, Voldemort has them, not the Ministry of Magic.

A further contrast to our lifestyle in the wizard world is that it's much more DIY than ours. Yes, there are products offered for sale, but the commercial culture of wizards pales compared to ours. The mass media appears to be limited to one crappy newspaper, advertising seems like only a small part of wizard childrens' lives, and who needs to buy home appliances when you can charm up a supper with a few words and a flick of the wrist?

So, we have a population that really doesn't need a lot of complicated and expensive stuff, that can be largely self-sufficient and seems to have no barriers except interest and talent to any or all individuals having 'the bomb'. No wonder there seems to be no wizard government at all except the Ministry, which seems at times a national, and at others an international, organization.

Again, I know that Rowling isn't trying to write a political screed a la Robert Heinlein in Starship Troopers (to pick one example), but I'm really interested in how the wizard world differs so radically from ours.

(I'm not even going to get started on what, to me, would be the most fascinating part of this secret world: that there are non-human intellects with whom one can actually converse. A big part of what's so interesting about SETI is the idea of finding out just how differently one can view the universe, and what the limits of human thought might be. But, why build radio telescopes when you can just walk into the forbidden forest and just ask. Xeno-anthropology, for lack of a better term, awaits....)


OH, and SPOILERS:









1) I commend Rowling for showing us that Harry's dad was an even bigger bully than Malfoy when he was a kid.

2) I suspect Snape stopped following Voldemort because V is mudblood, not out of any real moral objection to him. This may well be the basis of his instant dislike for Harry. Also, Snape at 15 reminds me of Mike from Something Positive
(see, for example, this: http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp08082003.html )

Comments

Re: magic as memorization (in two parts)

[millari.livejournal.com]

I have not read the books, but only saw the movies, so my reflections may be irrelevant if the books are doing things quite differently than the movies. That said, the impression I get is that the magic seems to be this thing that is one part memorization, but also two parts an intuitive facility not unlike athletic excellence. How do you teach someone to be Mark McGwire or Andre Agassi or Mikhail Baryshnikov? You can teach them specific moves, how to position themselves, how even to "see" what it is they must in the gameplay in order to become a good athlete. But only a few "get it" to the point where they become very, very, very good, or to hint at the HP books - superior And that to me seems to be what Hogwart's is supposed to be about - the cream of the crop. Yes, students are better than one another at the magic, and I think you're right; a good memory must be key.

Yet, if it were only about memorization, it seems that all of the faculty at Hogwart's would have to be about equally skilled, since at some point in magic training, one must reach the end of all known magic to memorize. But clearly, not all faculty seem to be equally skilled, for example Dumbledore, who seems to be head and shoulders above everyone else. Or what about that teacher I remember in the first movie, who passes out in the dining hall at finding out that the forbidden dungeon had been breached? He seems clearly less talented than others around his age, such as Snape.

Re: magic as memorization (in two parts)

[grinninfoole.livejournal.com]

Well, I would guess that people can have a knack for it that goes beyond an ability to memorize, but I can't recall seeing anything that would lead us to any understanding of what that knack is.

The kids at Hogwarts might be the cream of the crop, but if so, I have no idea where the rest of them are going. Hogwarts is the only wizarding school we have heard of in Britain--all the others appear to be overseas. There aren't that many kids in each year, though, so either the wizard population of the UK is really small (which is quite possible) or there are kids who are going elsewhere.

The wizard who passed out was Professor Quirrel, who was secretly possessed by Lord Voldemort. He's not a good example of a poor wizard, sadly.

part two

[millari.livejournal.com]

Also, what about the sorting hat? The sorting hat seems to know who has exceptional potential as a wizard and who doesn't. Hermoine is clearly very talented at this stuff, and yet no mention of her as being exceptional is made by the hat when she is sorted; yet it is of Harry (at least in the movie). How can this be so unless part of magic ability involves a "je ne sais quoi" factor that can't easily be measured except perhaps by magical hats?

Furthermore, if magical ability were about memorization, then why would people have so many expectations for Harry before he even arrives? His parentage should give him no particular monopoly on memorization. In addition, Harry doesn't seem a particularly lazy student; Hermoine is clearly so much more accomplished than him. Yet *he* is the one that is special. Why?

Rather, I think the high expectations for Harry is similar to the way the racing industry try to predict excellence in horses. The offspring of a champion parent is expected to be a champion himself, although I don't think anyone can explain rationally why they should believe so; but it does pan out successfully just often enough, people use that as a working theory to make decisions.

In fact, now that I think about it, the fact that heritage seems to play such an important part in the expectations of certain students (like Malfoy, for example) does seem like an attempt to grasp at some coherent system for predicting who will be an exceptional wizard and who will not. This may be because magical ability is about more than simply remembering exactly how to say the right magic words and in which direction to wave your wand. It's perhaps about both of these things, plus something more, an intuitive understanding of exactly the right lilt in your voice, just the right way to move, and who knows what else?

Nobody can come up with just the formula for creating a great athlete, nor it seems, a good wizard. I'm particularly remembering the scene in the movie (which again, I don't know if it's in the book, so I may be full of shit on this) where all the students are trying to get their broomsticks to rise up into their hands. They only have to say one word, and they all know how to hold their hand in position to accept the broom. But still, some can't do it. I think it's because in order to succeed, there's an unquantifiable intuition about the way magic works that the successful wizard must have, an intuition that goes beyond learning the way to stand and the words to say. To use the athlete analogy again, I can hit a tennis ball standing in just the way Chris Evert Lloyd does, using the same move with my racquet that she uses, but it still won't win me the U.S. Open because in order to be as good as her, I have to be able to see the ball coming in the way she does and understand intuitively the exact moment and position in which I must move my body when I hit that ball.

Wow, I can't believe I was so fascinated by this question to go on and on like that, especially when I haven't even read the books. Perhaps that's a sign that I should read them, eh?

Btw, I enjoyed your other reflections on the politics of wizardry and wizard-muggle relations quite a bit. They remind me of a few conversations we've had about magic on the Cloth, actually.

Re: part two

[girl-in-reverse.livejournal.com]

given my lack of intuitive (athletic/scientific/mathematic/dozens of other subjects) ability, i'm glad i wasn't born into rowling's wizarding world! i'd totally be a neville... unless of course half the spells were in chinese. ;)

Re: part two

[grinninfoole.livejournal.com]

Well, why shouldn't they be? Do you suppose that the wizards and witches of China have to learn spells in bastard latin? There are probably multiple magical traditions, and Rowling's only showing us the one the kids are actually learning.

Re: part two

[girl-in-reverse.livejournal.com]

that is true... they did mention the ancient egyptian wizards...

Re: part two

[grinninfoole.livejournal.com]

Oh, right in book 3, because Bill has to break their curses.

Hey, what did you think of OotP, as folks are abbreviating it?

Re: part two

[girl-in-reverse.livejournal.com]

i thought harry's character development into an angry, angsty, whiny character with sudden issues keeping his food down was a bit contrived. he's been so adaptable to change and voldemort-is-back issues up to this point - why the sudden mean streak? a friend suggested that this is actually more accurate and that harry is going through his 'terrible teens', but it just made me hate him. it was really hard keeping him in mind as the intended protagonist through the first four books simply because he had everything handed to him and had no real special abilities of his own. the fact that he genuinely didn't want all the recognition he received was the only thing that kept me on his side (i always tend to root for the underdog). but after the fifth book, there was nothing left for me to like about his character in any sense whatsoever, and i found that disappointing. i was angry when i finished the book and felt that the pressure to publish caused rowling to completely fudge the last several hundred pages.

Re: part two

[girl-in-reverse.livejournal.com]

i like all your points but i actually disagree... i think i identify with snape more than any of the other characters and have never seen him as a horrible person (and not just because his character is hot in the movie). i totally understand where you're coming from, but i just can't shake the feeling that harry's a spoiled little piece of shit. kissing cho (which, when said in the fourth tone, means 'stinky' in chinese) doesn't show much concern for poor fallen cedric - just another selfish act of a snotty little boy out for his own interests alone. it sounds really mean but i'm just being honest... i'm rooting for the side that accepts muggle-borns, of course, but much more in the way of dumbledore than harry. i read what you said earlier about snape possibly carrying resentment because he's pro pure-blood, but just the fact that he's working hard under dumbledore's wing to promote his message kind of undermines that possibility. i think we both think too much about people who don't exist. :b but it's fun!

Re: part two

[grinninfoole.livejournal.com]

Interesting. I agree with your friend that Harry's anger makes him, and the story, much more believable. Anger management is a very common problem for abused children, and aside from all the shit Harry's had to put up with in the books (repeatedly libelled in the only national newspaper, for one), he's got a lot rage built up from his years with the Dursleys.

Also, Goblet of Fire marked a big departure from the first three books. Harry escaped alive, and thwarted Voldemort's goal of killing him, but Harry didn't really beat Voldemort, who is now fully corporeal again, and this time somebody died. Cedric's death is really eating at Harry, which I thought entirely appropriate. Harry didn't emerge unscathed that time, and he hasn't had to deal with that in the first three books.

And, Harry's anger seems to come from the realization that a lot of 15 year olds have: a lot of the adults are full of shit, and really horrible people. Snape has always been a prime example, but Umbridge, Fudge and now Percy provide more fuel for that fire. Hell, for a lot of the book, so do Sirius and Dumbledore to some extent.

I also like that fact that Harry is the hero because Voldemort made him the hero, that Voldemort in trying to squelch a prophecy actually bound himself to it, and transformed Harry into his nemesis. He's no more special than Neville, except that Voldemort made him so.

Whew. All that said, I do see your point about the book feeling quite different. Harry ISN'T as likeable as before, because he's really mean to his friends sometimes, because of his misery. (Like when he's really rude to the kid who's parents don't believe Harry at the start of the book, despite the kid's willingness to believe Harry. ) I really liked the bit where Ginny catches him up short, when he's worried Voldemort's been possessing him and he's been avoiding everyone else, and she points out that, actually, she HAS been possessed by Voldemort and can tell him what it's like if he can his head out of his ass long enough to ask. Still, he is trying to be a good person, and he's far less of an asshole (with far more excuses for being one) than his father at the same age.

Re: part two

[grinninfoole.livejournal.com]

The question of what is it, if anything, that makes Harry special is an insightful one; for one thing, it's one that Harry and some of the other characters return to again and again in the books. I think your athlete analogy is a good one (especially since Harry is a gifted Quidditch player), but the one caveat I'd offer is that anyone can throw or kick a ball, while most people in the world of the books are muggles, and simply can't ever do the simplest magical thing, no matter how much training the receive. For them, it's like baseball for the blind, or for paraplegics.

That said, I'm not sure I understand Rowling's magic any better, but, as I said, magic doesn't have to be intelligible, it just has to work. It's a bit like the world is a computer operating system, and magic are the macros, the shortcut key stroke commands, that make it work. Somebody else set them up, so they don't make any sense to you, but if you learn them, they work.

I'm really happy you were so interested in this that you posted. I bet you would like the books.