Revised Editions of the HP Books, My literary critique shows a need for revisions of the books |
 Apr 26 2009, 09:05 AM
Post
#1
|
|
Being Eaten by the Pea Soup Posts: 33 Joined: 8:40am April 26, 2009  |
For most fans, a fully-revised seven books has to sound pretty good. Probably we all have different ideas on what a revised edition would look like. As for myself, I've written a book-length (80,000 word!) critique that spells out what I think Ms. Rowling should focus on in such a revision. The critique is unpublished and free to be read, dowloaded, used in the classroom, etc. The critique is posted in PDF format, broken out by chapter (but I plan to put an all-in-one PDF up soon), and can be found at
Destiny Unfulfilled: A Critique of the Harry Potter Series (http://www.migdalin.com/HarryPotter). I feel my main qualifications for writing the book are that I'm a (slightly disgruntled) fan of the series, and I've put a lot of effort into analyzing the seven books. To be clear, this is not a religious diatribe, political axe-grinding, nor do I attempt to take Ms. Rowling to school on who should have fallen in love with whom in the series. Rather, this is an examination of issues like the role of a protagonist, the writer's contract with her readers, characterization, shaggy dog resolutions, and so forth. The critique makes claims such as that Harry fails to fulfill his role as a protagonist and, ultimately, ceases to be even a necessary character. Hermione could easily have made it through Book 7 without Harry and Ron tagging along after her.... That seems like a fairly major problem, when the title character turns out to be unnecessary. I hope we can make enough noise to get Ms. Rowling's attention. We aren't asking for more books in the series, just that she fulfill the promises she made to us: that the books would star Harry as the hero and protagonist, that the books wouldn't be episodic, and so forth. Cheers, Jim This post has been edited by Pleione: May 9 2009, 01:30 PM
Reason for edit: Edited on request. :)
-------------------- |
 |
  
 
|
|
Apr 26 2009, 10:52 AM
Post
#2
|
|
Buying a Half-Kneazle Posts: 525 Joined: 10:49am October 21, 2006  |
No, no, no, no, no, no no and no again.
Re writing books has an unheard precedent, and it completely ruins the books' magic and point. You say that Harry isn't a 'hero' but survives only on luck. He should have manned up and done whatever he could to fight LV (as Dumbledore would have,and did). You are missing the essence of Harry's character. He is not on par (magically) with Dumbledore. He does not profess to be on par with Dumbledore. As a matter of fact, he always is the first to admit that he isn't. He has taken on this task because of his underlying condition of wanting to help people. He can help people, just not how Dumbledore, Kingesley, Lupin, Tonks, or Madeye Moody can. While they can defeat Death Eaters and forestall Voldemort's eventual takeover, Harry is the only hope for a world without Voldemort. Making Harry a symbol of the revolution against Voldemort and using Guerrilla Warfare tactics against Voldmeort and his DE's takes away Harry's complexity of being only 17 and having this enormous burden placed on him. How can one be a disgruntled fan? That's like saying you're a conservative democrat, or a Atheist Christian, or a carnivorous vegetarian. How can you be a proponent of something that you write a book-length criticism of? Edit: spelling This post has been edited by Zoom: Apr 26 2009, 06:42 PM -------------------- |
|
|
|
|
Apr 26 2009, 11:33 AM
Post
#3
|
|
Sundae-Nut-Chopper at Florean Fortescue's Posts: 921 Joined: 10:41pm March 2, 2007 Location: Entering the Ministry of Magic  |
I second that 'no.' Its up to Rowling if she thinks anything needs revision.
Most of the objections and little inconsistencies that are cited in the HP series are due to details not lining up with the readers interpretations. There are many levels of history and myth in this series that link to the past in all sorts of interesting ways. Sometimes the 'cleaning up' and removal of all the little oddities just turns a work into a predictable and mundane read. The editing process before the book is published should be the time to edit...once its 'official,' once its printed...I don't see any reason to go back to change things (other than a spelling error or some very minor character detail that might be cited differently in two different books in the series). Also, I suppose I object to the inference that Rowling 'owes' us anything.... It seems odd to me that as readers we think we should have the right to change someone else's work or to insist that they change it for us. Fanfics are where that sort of thing is done....but that is always second hand. This post has been edited by chloe squibbulus: Apr 26 2009, 01:20 PM -------------------- "I would like to say a few words. Nitwit! Blubber! Oddment! Tweak! And now before we go to bed, let us sing the school song! Everyone pick their favorite tune...and off we go!" Dumbledore; Sorcerer's Stone. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 26 2009, 11:36 AM
Post
#4
|
|
Flesh-Eating-Slug Catcher Posts: 185 Joined: 6:07am January 24, 2008 Location: Australia |
Uh... Say what?
Firstly, I agree with Zoom and chloe squibbulus. Secondly, I enjoyed the books as they were and don't feel they need to be revised. Thirdly, J.K. Rowling wrote these books how she wanted them to be. I don't see how she broke any promises to us as readers. I feel that Harry is certainly the protaganist and hero, even if not in the traditional sense of physically defeating his enemy. Harry is the only person who could have brought about Voldemorts downfall. And I don't really see how the books are episodic? While you may feel that the books are lacking certain literary elements, I fail to see what creating a revised edition would achieve apart from changing a wonderful story that so many people love as is. It just wouldn't be the same Harry Potter anymore. This post has been edited by Rinzy: Apr 26 2009, 11:38 AM -------------------- "It's not food anymore Dean, it's Darwinism!" - Sam Winchester  |
|
|
|
|
Apr 26 2009, 01:28 PM
Post
#5
|
|
Neville's Biggest supporter  Posts: 12,289 Joined: 8:51am January 28, 2006 Location: On V.S.D.G.  |
I have to politely disagree
 . Jo could never please all her fans with her novels, there would always be something that the readers would have liked to have been done differently. And Deathly Hallows - especailly the Epilogue - could have been better. But Jo has spent many years creating one of the most well known series that is for Children and Adults. I would hate to have a revised edition of the books - it would be like saying Jo wasn't a good enough writer.
--------------------  (Slug siggy by silviera, Neville siggy by Dreamteam, Marple siggy by SnapesSister and Avatar by Hagiographer13) |
|
|
|
|
Apr 26 2009, 02:16 PM
Post
#6
|
|
Grammar Posse  Posts: 2,341 Joined: 3:59pm May 15, 2008 Location: Sunny Phoenix, Arizona("It's a Dry Heat!") |
Joanne Kathleen Rowling owes me NOTHING! I am thankful that she wrote the books she did!
Now, Migdalin, you can write all the treatises you want to on JKR's work, and that's fine. But you take it too far when you state that she should go back and revise her work, just because there are parts you disagree with. I'm sure I could think of other endings and character changes that I would like to have seen in other author's books, but I would never have the chutzpah, the immortal rind, to think that because there was something in a book that I did not agree with, whether from a literary point of view, or personal preference, that that author is/was obligated to make changes. --------------------  __________ Phoenix avatar from ofenjen; AZ Raven siggy from Victoria Page |
|
|
|
|
Apr 26 2009, 04:46 PM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Being Eaten by the Pea Soup Posts: 36 Joined: 2:37am December 29, 2008 Location: California |
J.K Rowling should not have to change anything. Harry Potter was her story and she kindly let us see into that world and become a part of it. If you don't like the way the book turned out it's not necessary for you to stay a part of the world she created for herself and kindly invited you into. To suggest she changes what she has written is ridiculous. Anyone who suggests this obviously has never tried or has failed at writing fiction. The story comes out and you usually can't do anything to stop it, the story takes on a life of its own and that's what makes it amazing.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 27 2009, 09:15 AM
Post
#8
|
|
|
Being Eaten by the Pea Soup Posts: 33 Joined: 8:40am April 26, 2009 |
QUOTE(Zoom @ Apr 26 2009, 10:52 AM)  Re writing books has an unheard precedent, and it completely ruins the books' magic and point. Actually, as I pointed out in the Introduction to Destiny Unfulfilled, revised editions have in fact been put out. Stephen King did one for The Stand and mentioned in a recent interview that he might undertake a revision of one or more books of his Dark Tower series. Also, John Fowles did a revised edition of his book The Magus. QUOTE(Zoom @ Apr 26 2009, 10:52 AM) He is not on par (magically) with Dumbledore. He does not profess to be on par with Dumbledore.... Harry is the only hope for a world without Voldemort. Well, we agree at least on Harry's general lack of ability. The point where we don't line up is that Harry is the only hope. I maintain that Harry is unnecessary in Book 7. The author has laid things out so as to make him totally irrelevant. Hermione could easily have carried the day. In fact, in the last fight, any one of us could have taken Harry's place. You don't need to know magic, just be able to wave a stick around and shout "Expelliarmus." In Book 6, starting at the Horcrux cave, Harry could be eliminated entirely without affecting anything. His one substantial contribution to Book 6 was to obtain the memory from Slughorn, and to do that, Harry needed bottled luck. And this, from a fellow whose name is on the cover of seven books.... QUOTE(chloe squibbulus @ Apr 26 2009, 11:33 AM) I second that 'no.' Its up to Rowling if she thinks anything needs revision. Agreed. However, as fans, I think we're in our rights to ask Ms. Rowling for such a revision. QUOTE(chloe squibbulus @ Apr 26 2009, 11:33 AM) Most of the objections and little inconsistencies that are cited in the HP series are due to details not lining up with the readers interpretations. True, but I tried to avoid that sort of thing, honest. I'm not talking about who got romantically involved with whom, but about things like Dumbledore leaving Harry lying about unprotected on a porch step at the start of Book 1, when we know the situation is terribly dangerous. I'm talking about things like Book 1 focusing much of the first 80 pages on Vernon Dursley rather than on Harry. Things like Harry growing up in an abusive environment, and then walking away totally unaffected by it. Things like Harry at age 11 killing Quirrell with his bare hands, and then being totally unaffected by it. At least to me, these aren't minor issues. QUOTE(chloe squibbulus @ Apr 26 2009, 11:33 AM) I don't see any reason to go back to change things (other than a spelling error or some very minor character detail that might be cited differently in two different books in the series). Also, I suppose I object to the inference that Rowling 'owes' us anything.... Ya, the term "owe" is a poor choice, though it does at least get people's attention, which is my justification for using it. Hard to get noticed in a place like this if you're too politic....  However, on the subject of going back to change things: Given the complexity of the series, to expect any writer, no matter how talented, to have everything line up through seven books, that seems a bit unrealistic. I at least want Ms. Rowling to know that we'll continue to support her if she decides, with the benefit of having written the seven books, that she has a better understanding of events, characters, etc., and wants to come back and revisit the series. If Ms. Rowling did that, you wouldn't turn on her, would you? This post has been edited by Pleione: Apr 27 2009, 10:41 AM
Reason for edit: Edited by Pleione to combine consecutive posts. :)
-------------------- |
|
|
|
|
Apr 27 2009, 09:47 AM
Post
#9
|
|
|
Being Eaten by the Pea Soup Posts: 33 Joined: 8:40am April 26, 2009 |
QUOTE(Rinzy @ Apr 26 2009, 11:36 AM) Thirdly, J.K. Rowling wrote these books how she wanted them to be. I tried to address this issue of "intent" in Chapter 4 of Destiny Unfulfilled, where I talk about the potential interpretations that are opened up by the vague and contradictory information we're given. While interpretations like "Harry is a Pacifist" and "Dumbledore is the true Hero" might not seem so terrible, if we look a bit deeper, they really do become hateful and depressing. QUOTE(Rinzy @ Apr 26 2009, 11:36 AM) And I don't really see how the books are episodic? At what point did Harry take on a life-directing goal? At what point did he overcome his laziness, apathy, mediocrity, lack of empathy toward others (such as toward Winky, Kreacher, Cho Chang, and even toward Ginny at the start of Book 3)? Episodic: Every book starts with Harry at the Dursleys. Every book except the last has him return there. Even in the gap between Book 6 and Book 7, Harry spends two months at his Aunt and Uncle's house. This, at a time when Dumbledore is dead, Voldemort is running amok, and theoretically Harry is the chosen one. And yet, he shuts himself off from the world, distances him from the Fight, and spends his time doing what he always does: little or nothing, other than perhaps feeling sorry for himself. At the end of Book 1, Harry kills Quirrell with his bare hands. And yet, when we see him at the start of Book 2, it's as if that event never happened. It has had NO effect on him. That's what I mean when I say episodic. QUOTE(Rinzy @ Apr 26 2009, 11:36 AM) While you may feel that the books are lacking certain literary elements, I fail to see what creating a revised edition would achieve apart from changing a wonderful story that so many people love as is. It just wouldn't be the same Harry Potter anymore. I agree Harry Potter wouldn't be the same, given the hypothetical revised edition I'm hoping for. However, I don't see why this would hurt anyone. People would still have access to the original version. Those uninterested in a revised edition needn't purchase it.... QUOTE(JaneMarple9 @ Apr 26 2009, 01:28 PM) I would hate to have a revised edition of the books - it would be like saying Jo wasn't a good enough writer. Let me reiterate that I think Ms. Rowling is a master artist and a great writer. In asking for a revised edition, I'm not trying to undercut either her abilities nor the power of the series. Rather, I prefer to talk about it in terms of growth and insight. Did Ms. Rowling remain stagnant, locked in place as a writer, over the course of writing seven books? I personally see her growing, her abilities expanding as the series progresses. Certainly, I can't imagine how she could write seven books and not gain deeper insight into characters and events along the way. Even if you personally have no interest in a revised edition, you wouldn't hold it against Ms. Rowling if she undertook something like that, would you? This post has been edited by Pleione: Apr 27 2009, 10:42 AM -------------------- |
|
|
|
|
Apr 27 2009, 10:08 AM
Post
#10
|
|
Grand Pooh-Bah of the Poking Sticks Emporium Posts: 7,063 Joined: 3:53pm January 4, 2008 Location: Fine-tuning her Spambot Magnet |
First off,
 to Leaky, Migdalin. Second, your topic is an interesting one Now for some thoughts. Literary critique of books isn't unique, and Harry Potter is no exception. So I applaud your efforts, since it seems that it took a lot of your time, but I believe what you want is a brand new HP series in order to correct so called "flaws" in plot and character development, that you yourself didn't like. There are many who love the books, just as they are, flaws and all QUOTE(Migdalin @ Apr 27 2009, 10:47 AM) I agree Harry Potter wouldn't be the same, given the hypothetical revised edition I'm hoping for. However, I don't see why this would hurt anyone. People would still have access to the original version. Those uninterested in a revised edition needn't purchase it.... I have to politely disagree with you here, since being "hurt" isn't the issue with a revised version. Asking (or better yet, hoping) an author will revise something that took 17 years to write is a bit presumptuous IMO, since it is essentially saying that your own critique (or even that of others) is valid enough to warrant such a task, and in essence diminishes what Rowling wrote the first time around. About Harry as a futile protagonist. Yes, he isn't the perfect hero, but who wants to read about perfection? And I don't know how you can say that we don't need Harry in book 7. I'm sorry, but Hermione couldn't kill Voldemort on her own, any more than you or I could (we're not wizards by the way, and Muggles can't wield wands and perform magic even if we were to pop an aneurysm in the process  ).The story is ultimately about love, friendship, courage, sacrifice, death; very real concepts. And Harry loved in abundance; so much so that he was willing to sacrifice himself for the betterment of the Wizarding World. So, in summary, I wouldn't begrudge Rowling if she did write a revised Harry Potter, but I think her doing so is highly unlikely. After all, she understands her books and her characters pretty well, and I'm sure she's more than happy with the results. --------------------  |
|
|
|
