CCBC-Net Archives
Harry Potter
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Kathleen Odean <KOdean>
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 08:54:40 -0500
When I saw the phrase "arbitrary magic," what I thought of were the centaurs, creatures from Greek mythology, that appeared in the presumably British forest in the first Harry Potter book, in conjunction with the unicorn, which is not generally associated with Greek mythology. I found it jarring. Some fantasy series weave in elements from one general mythology such as Welsh or Arthurian. To me, that makes for a richer book.
Someone suggested that anything that moves the story forward isn't arbitrary. But I think from a literary point of view, something that moves the story forward AND fits seamlessly into the whole works better.
Another part of the first book that seemed arbitrary to me were Ron and Hermione's tests of skill at the end. Were we given some reason that the chessboard and the logic test were perfectly suited to Ron and Hermione's strengths? I found it a let-down, it was so unlikely and so pat. Or were we to suppose that the villains planned that so as to get Harry alone?
As I've said before, I'm happy about the Harry Potter phenomenon, and have promoted the books in my own wasy. I just wrote a column to be published in Book Magazine about other fantasy series to try while waiting for the fourth HP book. I've given it good reviews, given the books to children, etc. But having read all three books, and re-read the first one--although not aloud--I feel the same way I did when I read the first book before it gained in popularity -- fun to read but not something that resonated deeply.
Kathleen Odean kodean at compuserve.com
Received on Thu 11 Nov 1999 07:54:40 AM CST
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 08:54:40 -0500
When I saw the phrase "arbitrary magic," what I thought of were the centaurs, creatures from Greek mythology, that appeared in the presumably British forest in the first Harry Potter book, in conjunction with the unicorn, which is not generally associated with Greek mythology. I found it jarring. Some fantasy series weave in elements from one general mythology such as Welsh or Arthurian. To me, that makes for a richer book.
Someone suggested that anything that moves the story forward isn't arbitrary. But I think from a literary point of view, something that moves the story forward AND fits seamlessly into the whole works better.
Another part of the first book that seemed arbitrary to me were Ron and Hermione's tests of skill at the end. Were we given some reason that the chessboard and the logic test were perfectly suited to Ron and Hermione's strengths? I found it a let-down, it was so unlikely and so pat. Or were we to suppose that the villains planned that so as to get Harry alone?
As I've said before, I'm happy about the Harry Potter phenomenon, and have promoted the books in my own wasy. I just wrote a column to be published in Book Magazine about other fantasy series to try while waiting for the fourth HP book. I've given it good reviews, given the books to children, etc. But having read all three books, and re-read the first one--although not aloud--I feel the same way I did when I read the first book before it gained in popularity -- fun to read but not something that resonated deeply.
Kathleen Odean kodean at compuserve.com
Received on Thu 11 Nov 1999 07:54:40 AM CST
