I was in WH Smith yesterday to buy a copy of The Guardian, and saw copies of a new Harry Potter book everywhere. I was aware that some sort of Potter mania was going on, but wasn't sure if it was a new book out, or a new movie [and as i've subsequently been told, it's both - does anyone else find that self-defeating?] As part of the "Pottermania" series in said Guardian, Megan McArdle (an economics writer) expresses her frustrations. In doing so I've realised precisely why i've never *got* Harry Potter: it conflicts both with my economic and political beliefs. According to Meg:
- Magic must have rules and limits in order to leave the author enough room to tell a story. In economic terms, there must be scarcity: magical power must be a finite resource.
- To the extent that there is any system at all, it is the meanest sort of Victoriana, ... There is a hereditary aristocracy of talent, and I [Harry] am secretly at its apex. There is an elite school almost nobody can go to, and I am one of the chosen. People fall quite neatly into the categories of good, bad, or clueless, we are the good ones who get to run things in the end.
Not only does this show why I found the couple of Harry Potter films I saw a let down, but it also explains The Guardian's infactuation - it's bad economics and illiberal!
Update: Matt contradicts some of these points in the comments
See, I'm not a fan, but I've been involved with two people (in a row) who really are, and I've had many a discussion with them about the appeal. To whit, I know that this point: People fall quite neatly into the categories of good, bad, or clueless is completely off base.
Part of the over-arching arc is that it's not about black/white, good/bad, but all about shades of grey, motivation and conflicting interests. That basic message, if it's well told (and I'm assured it isn't becuase she's an awful writer) would itself be a good thing.
One of the other basic themes is that the 'bad guys' are genetic purists trying to keep the talent pool only to the select, the 'good guys' are frequently "mudbloods", which means that they may have been born to non-aristocrat families, or be of mixed parentage, and similar.
It's still quite poor, but that interpretation is off base. From what I'm given to understand as a non-reader.
Posted by: MatGB | July 22, 2007 at 03:12 PM
Well, I really enjoy reading Harry Potter. It is an enjoyable escape into a world of magic. The basic message is a good one and you can be fairly confident that things will come out fairly right in the end. I am a lover of all kinds of fiction and I think there is a place in out lives for entertaining, unlikely, somewhat over simplified fiction. As a story it's no worse than The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, though not coated in the nostalgic past and with less admirable prose.
Pottermania is a bit OTT but I went out and bought my copy first thing on Saturday morning and indulged myself for the rest of the day...
Oh and the movie was for book 5, the book launch for book 7. So it feeds itself and is good marketing.
Posted by: raiqi | July 24, 2007 at 12:38 AM