Potternama

The Potter bug is a bug like no other. Once bitten you remain smitten! There are also those who steadfastly maintain that there is no fate worse than being bitten by the Potter bug. You are either doomed to eternal infantilism (this is from the intellectual types who criticise the books as being childish, lacking in imagination and worst of all mediocre English) or to eternal damnation (this is from the religious right wingers who accuse Rowling of encouraging sorcery and other pagan rituals). Therefore, the question remains: Is Harry Potter’s popularity a figment of marketing gimmicks only or is there an engaging yarn hidden behind the hype?

I got introduced to Harry through a friend after I borrowed the first book (Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone) from her. I turned the first few pages and I fell in love. Although the intensity of that love has mellowed with time (especially after the first three books) it remains strong enough for me to care about what happens to Harry and his pals and also his enemies (what IS Snape’s story?). Harry’s life at Hogwarts is like a kid’s (and many adults who remain kids at heart) day dream come true! There’s action, adventure and fun mixed with just the right dash of personal problems to make life interesting. Harry is likable precisely because he is neither brilliant nor too holier than thou. For me, Harry also resonated a bit on the personal level since to some extent I am also a loner and never really fit in a crowd (unfortunately, for reasons that lie in my shortcomings than anything as exciting as Harry’s life).

Rowling of course has profited enormously from the series, becoming one of the richest women in the world. Her royalties add up to £365m while merchandising and film income take Rowling to £450m. The hype that surrounds each release of is nothing short of phenomenal. The marketing machinery leaves no stone unturned while targeting Harry’s fan base -- from midnight bookstore openings, trivia contests, costume contests, magic shows, essay contests in which the winner gets a trip to Harry’s homeland to ensuring that the books reach the fans on time. The buzz starts months before the book is released and as the D-Day nears fans work themselves up in frenzy.

While the gimmickry cannot be denied, could a book retain the interest of that many people (especially attention deficit children) if the books themselves did not have something worthwhile? This point has been debated threadbare by a large number of critics and fans. Critics contend that the books have very little literary merit in themselves. The stories are a clever patchwork of derivative clichés from a variety of children’s fiction -- science fiction, boarding school stories, Enid Blyton mysteries, and above all the universal appeal of good and evil. However, it does not answer the question why adults are equally fascinated by the books. According to A.S. Byatt, a well known novelist, adults read these books for comfort. While she finds redeeming qualities in books of other science fictions writers such Philip Pullman, Ursula Le Guin, Susan Cooper or Alan Garner, she condemns Rowling’s books as devoid of such merit. She calls it the substitution of heroism with celebrity and the levelling effect of cultural studies which has led to comparing the Brontës with bodice-rippers.

I agree with parts of Byatt’s criticism. Harry Potter is obviously not great literature. But I do not agree that the books lack imagination. While some may say it is not as imaginative as Ursula Le Guin or JRR Tolkien, I think it takes some talent to create a parallel world which is similar enough that one can feel at home in it and at the same time be as fascinatingly different from our “muggle” world as possible. If you can show me one person who would not like to be part of an universe where owls deliver letters or port keys can be used for long distance travel or talking hats sort you into the right house, where magic wands can produce beautiful petronases to ward off dementors or kill with the aveda kadevera curse – I would be ready to eat one of Bot’s magical sweets that taste like vomit or ear wax!

My problem with Rowling is not with the breadth of her imagination, I think she has plenty. I also don’t worry about why adults are not reading enough of Le Guin and too much of Rowling. Yes, Le Guin is excellent no doubt but she lacks a sense of fun, as does Pullman’s Dark Material trilogy. Except for Douglas Adams (Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy), who has the most amazing sense of humour and imagination, and to some extent Terry Pratchet there are few science fiction (SF) authors (or ones that I have read) who have written books where people crack jokes or have a have a whacky sense of humour or where the characters do not seem so burdened by the weighty task of saving the world from evil forces! I also do not subscribe to the idea that adults who read Harry Potter are regressing into infantilism. Every SF book in one way or the other is infantile. The stories do not just have imaginary people but completely imaginary worlds too. That’s as infantile as you can get. I would say SF does exactly what a child fantasizes. Whether it is to fight cosmic battles or to fight in a school “quidditch” match is a matter of semantics. For that matter, not just SF, every fiction is a product of the imagination of the author. They are about as unreal as you can get. So why not classify reading of any fiction as infantile or childish?

My problem with Harry Potter is slightly different. On the face of it, Rowling not only tries to uphold values such as honesty, courage, ability to stand for what is right, she also makes a strong statement against racism. Among the four houses of Hogwart School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, the Slytherin house with its preference for pure blooded witches and wizards is singled out as the villain. In the wizard world, pure blood does not equate with skin colour; it means that witches and wizards born of parents who are both wizards rather than “mud bloods” who are born of non-wizard parents. But that is about all the social commentary she makes though she does throw in some bits about acceptance of all magical creatures as equals and of the value of free-will. Where she falters is her caricature of women. The only strong female student is Hermione, who is a swot and has to win Harry and Ron’s approval by breaking rules. She does not seem to have any other female friends, in fact there does not seem to be female students of importance in Hogwarts. Among the professors, only Prof Mc Gonaggall is a strong female character although she defers to the superior wisdom of Prof Dumbledore, the headmaster. Prof Trelawney teaches prophecies and is a complete kook and a fraud. Only one of her predictions has come true in her entire life. And the only two students who cannot see through her fake prophecies are the Indian girls, Padma and Parvati Patel. Is there a particular reason Rowling made such a characterisation or am I just reading too much into it? But it seems to me a perpetuation of the stereotype of India being a land of astrologers, snake charmers and magic carpets!!

Also, all her key characters are white (there’s no ambiguity in that as physical features of all key characters are outlined). Since it’s a SF, she could have easily peopled her make believe world of witches and wizards with much more “colourful” people. Was she scared that too much multiculturalism would not appeal to her audience? The celebration of Christmas but of no other festival is also a dead giveaway that she is willing to go only that far in her effort to be inclusive.

While all these points do not deter the books from being highly entertaining, they do deter them from meaningfully challenging stereotypical notions of race, colour and ethnicity. Rowling’s imagination is good enough to have conjured an interesting parallel magical world. However, her marketing instincts (I would blame that since imagination does not seem to be the problem) stopped her from exploiting the true potential of her book. Instead of offering groundbreaking social commentary on many of our contemporary problems, these books remain at the level of children’s fiction enjoyed by adults for a rollicking ride without making us sit up and think!