#this is a narrative snape is constructing for him! by hand!

[lightningant]

snape discourse on reddit is so funny. (sorry for checking out my fandoms on reddit.) whats going on over there. guys did you perhaps think there might be some narrative significance to the fact snape personally showcased the breadth his anti-muggle beliefs to harry - which was not at all relevant to the overarching narrative of his relationship to lily - implying he is trying to convey something about his previous behaviour, and how this behaviour connected to his present devotion to her and the anti-voldemort war effort. let's think.

[seriousbrat]

it’s so interesting to see how the interpretation of teen (boy) behavior in books has changed since they were written. it’s mostly for the better, but i think it does cause some people to refuse to engage in good faith with the source material, or on its own terms. i’ve loved hp since i was a kid, but i had never interacted at all with the fan side of things until maybe a year ago, and it was very odd (on the whole — which is why i’ve mostly just stuck to a handful of blogs with great fics and meta, like yours) to see how a lot of the text is taken now, compared to how my friends and i understood it at the time. i think its totally fair — and good, on a cultural level — to point out that the boy who pulls your pigtails isn’t being cute, and your male friend being in love with you doesn’t mean you owe him anything. but it’s also like … kind of intentionally closing the eyes to how these parts of the story are meant to come across? and i am not coming in here as some kind of “boys will be boys” person, but teenagers are messy in their relationships and their friendships, and more relevantly, it’s very clear what types of dynamics are being presented by the text. and it can be fun to pick apart what kinds of narratives are meant to be taken as romantic in different stories written in different times/places and why, but to look at the story on a story level you’ve got to also work with what it gives you.

Yes I think you make a very good point! I agree and personally I think both Snape and James would be written slightly differently if they were written today. Also, imo there's an element of wishful thinking coupled with naivety (and this has always existed tbf) when people who haven't ever been cis teenage boys try to write cis teenage boys haha. Like the 'closing of eyes' isn't always intentional. I know I keep going on about the Inbetweeners but I literally think watching that as a teen myself gave me an insight that I can never take back about what teenage boys are like haha.

Like this isn't to say that teenage boys are all exactly alike, or that there's some inherent, natural difference between boys and girls in terms of mentality or personality, but there is a social difference, generally speaking, a constructed one that happens because boys and girls are raised and socialised in a patriarchy. It's obviously not universal at all, and that's not even accounting for trans kids and the complexities they face, because even among cis boys and girls or men and women there's endless variety, and gender absolutely does not determine personality, interests, etc. Unfortunately it does influence them, though, that's our reality.

In terms of fiction, especially fanfic, obv one is free to do as they please. But there is such a thing as narrative voice, which can be an important thing to consider. Again when it comes to fanfiction it Does Not Matter that much, it's for fun, but in published fiction (or if you care about quality ig) it just is something you should consider. This is where the 'Men Writing Women' thing comes in, where you read something so obviously written by a man who doesn't understand how women (generally) think or speak or act at all. And in our patriarchal society such usually ends up being offensive and has often been overlooked and accepted when it shouldn't be. I don't think it's helpful to pretend men can't write women either, since plenty of male authors write female characters beautifully and the rest shouldn't be let off the hook. If you can't write women, skill issue and you shouldn't be published.

Anyway it's vastly more forgivable and understandable, and it pains me to say it but I think you can sometimes tell when it's a woman writing a man or a boy too. I will say on the whole I think women are better at writing men than the reverse haha, probably because we've been socialised to empathise with men whereas boys are not taught (by society) to empathise with women. Maybe women even empathise a little too much tbh. Maybe that's the problem, like we subconsciously over-project our ideals onto male characters, making them too nice, too woke, too cuddly, too sweet, because that's what we want to see, and leaving out the nastier elements that are so common. Again, that's not necessarily a problem!! Only if you're trying to create a realistic, effective portrayal of a certain (average) type of teenage boy-- which you don't have to do. I'd raise my eyebrows at an unrealistic portrayal much more in published fiction than fanfiction personally.

And ofc you can always choose to write a character who diverges from the accepted norm, but to do so effectively has to be a deliberate choice and done thoughtfully. For a boy like James, who is very average, the norm, he's decent enough but no Woke Feminist King haha. He's not meant to be.

Anyway, I think that's why the Marauders et al (including Death Eaters lol) are nowadays often portrayed like sweet little babies who all cuddle and take care of each other and respect women LOL. Like whatever, it's escapism haha, it's understandable. But sometimes I do think a lot of these people have never really interacted with many gay men or know what their culture is like. lmao. straight men maybe, but in a limited way. if you've ever had the misfortune to be with a group of cishet men who are talking freely with each other you'll know what I mean. again this is GENERAL. and socially constructed, not inherent. but very common nevertheless.

[orpheus-type-beat]

Shoebox Project Day 2

I was going to write about Lupin — about how well he’s written here and how much his character resonated with me (more than I’ve resonated with a fictional character in forever). But then I got curious and read the end of the Shoebox Project. So now I have to talk about Peter Pettigrew.

Just by way of contrast, let’s look at how Fantastic Beasts handled the subject of radicalization and the spread of fascism and regressive politics. In part 1 of the series, we are introduced to feminist flapper mind-reader Queenie. She’s a hyper feminine love interest for the Muggle character, but she also has a sense of agency and independence about her, and a depth to her personality that makes her somewhat nuanced.

So of course part 2 totally ruined that. Now, Queenie is entirely defined by her relationship with literal random Muggle Jacob Kowalski, to the point of drugging him with a love potion so that he’ll agree to fly to Europe and get married. What an impressive non sequiter! It totally flattens her character because her entire arc in the movie revolves around “I want to marry this muggle dude.” That’s bad enough, but on top of it her arc is stupid. First, she gets lost in the rain and is confused and sad. Then, Johnny “I need to get a Spray Tan” Depp shows up and is like “hey, sorry you had a bad day, and not being able to love who you love sucks (ignore the queer baiting hehe). Do you wanna come to my Neo-Nazi rally?” THEN SHE SAYS YES, and literally brings her Muggle boyfriend to the Neo-Nazi rally. That’s like someone in the 1950s taking their black boyfriend to a KKK rally. It makes no sense. Anyway, Jacob “Analysis Penguin” Kowalski realizes this is really bad and dangerous for him, so he’s like “hey we should dip,” and she’s like “I love you babe but I think Imma hang out with Hot Topic Hitler for a little bit he seems chill as fuck” and JOINS Grindelwald, leaving her Muggle boyfriend behind (despite this being her original motivation to listen to Grindelwald???).

This is literally incoherent as a character narrative, but it’s used to basically say two things. One, we shouldn’t punch Nazi’s or break up their rally’s because they’ll use violence as a recruiting tool. Which like, is a good point I guess, but why is that the thesis of your movie about facism in 2018?  But the other point, more importantly, is two: that it’s feminist women who are defecting to the alt-right and causing all the problems.

Of course there are alt-right women, some of whom used to identify as much further left (or at least, there’s one — Laci Green — and maybe that’s it?). But it’s men, in particular young men, who are joining fringe alt-right groups in droves and fueling their activity. That doesn’t invalidate Queenie’s arc in Fantastic Beasts but the movie is pretty clearing making a statement about modern politics (Grindelwald’s rallies are just goth trump rallies). So Queenie’s arc is supposed to be making some kind of point about modern politics but it just sort of fails at doing that. It doesn’t engage with the societal trends that are actually affecting the political landscape, which leaves whatever point was being made about facism hollow.

The Shoebox Project does not do any of that.

Peter Pettigrew’s fall from grace in the last entry of the Shoebox project is gripping, horrifying, and emotionally realistic. The audience is confronted with the paucity of Peter’s life in direct contrast to the happiness James, Lily, Lupin, and Sirius are experiencing. Peter has nothing, basically is nothing, and is rejected as an inconvenience by friends that have completely moved on from him. Peter suffers a crisis of identity — he doesn’t have passions, or preferences, or opinions, or any sort of personality. He’s just sort of alive and there, and in this final chapter he becomes aware of his own lack of identity. After trying to reach out, and failing, someone reaches out to him — a complete reversal of what Peter’s used to. He’s given time and space to express his feelings, and made to feel seen and (at least in some sense) valuable. Then, when the discussion turns political, Peter goes along with his companion’s blood supremacy becomes it is slowly revealed in pieces, and because at every step Peter just wants approval and to pay back the kindness he’s received. Peter just wants to follow, to be part of something, and to be given an identity rather than constructing his own. This means that, in a moment of crisis, he becomes willing to latch on to whatever identity is in the vicinity. It’s telling that Peter doesn’t really think about the implications of engaging in this blood supremacy until he’s already mostly sucked into it — and even then it’s halfhearted. Because as much as scapegoat theory is talked about, and is valid, in my experience (at least in today’s world) its much more about identity. The scapegoat tendency comes after the identity is in place, and while it’s convenient and comforting for those people, it isn’t the impetus. It’s the feeling of being part of something, being handed an identity, a set of slogans that, if repeated blindly, will turn you into a real person, that drives recruitment numbers.

[Side note: It’s interesting that Pettigrew here is sort of the inverted double of Snape. Pettigrew hates Lily, because she represents the end of childhood and the forces that have pushed Peter out of the Marauders. It’s this hatred, despite his admiration for James, that leads Pettigrew down a dark path. This is a really cool parallel, and it makes sense how Peter’s identity issues could lead to radicalization — his anger simply has to be focused on Lily’s blood status specifically.]

This is a real story about how radicalization really happens, and about how people are lead down dark paths in general. It’s a coherent arc for Peter, makes sense with his character, and reflects broader societal trends. Basically this is really good socially aware fiction writing. It’s really too bad that this isn’t the social commentary set in the Harry Potter universe most people are getting right now.

[roxilalonde]

Vriska Serket and the Antihero’s Archetype

In other news, I am endlessly fascinated with the Spidertroll. So I wrote an essay about gender, social perspective, literary archetypes, stages of morality, and Vriska Serket. 

First off: I’m not here to argue that Vriska is perfect. She fucks up. In some cases, she fucks up to the point where she seriously hurts others, mentally and physically, and becomes seriously toxic company. I’m not here to excuse her behavior wrt Tavros, or to justify her treatment of others’ emotional needs, because neither is healthy or defensible. But what I am interested in is how she ended up being the Fandom Recognized “worst troll ever” in a group with (a) a murderous bigot, (b) an abusive murderclown, and (c) a racist with a penchant for bestiality and a characteristic lack of regard for consent. 

The answer: It’s a long story.

Let’s talk about Vriska.

Absolutely necessary in any constructive discussion of Vriska’s character is an examination of her upbringing. Her lusus, a.k.a “Spidermom,” is demonstrably the worst parent of any of the trolls. Keeping her alive requires Vriska to routinely kill or be killed, and it obviously strains her; the psychological effects of having such a huge burden placed on her at a young age are demonstrated here; she voices a strong dislike for her lusus here. Further, Spidermom fails to care for Vriska to any extent you would expect from a parent, and Vriska seems delighted to be rid of her once the game starts. When confronted with the task of killing her parent, she is neither frightened nor even unhappy about it - her only concern is whether she’ll be able to do the job.

Your surroundings as a child define how you view the world and relate to it. Changing that perspective is difficult, and takes years of work and support. People in fandom like to characterize Vriska as a suave manipulator, cruel and unfeeling to the plight of others unless it benefits her to be concerned. But reading her pesterlogs, you would only believe that if you took everything she said at face value, which is a thin reading. A face-value reading implies that Dave likes puppets, Rose hates her mother, and Caliborn is a tactical genius. The impression Vriska gives is that of a person with a fundamental inability to connect with other people, who struggles with empathy in particular. She experiences sympathy - feeling bad that others are suffering - just fine. (Terezi and Kanaya, for example, are both recipients of her sympathy, after she does them harm.) But empathy, or the emotional understanding of others’ emotions as they experience them, she lacks, which evidences that her emotional intelligence never developed as a child (or she can’t do empathy, generally; neither is a character deficit so much as a product of circumstances outside of her control). Passages I think are useful reading here: these pesterlogs with Aradia and John, and the famous pirate cave monologue.

Now, let’s throw in Mindfang. From the onset, Vriska has two clearly established models in her life: a neglectful (arguably abusive) lusus, and an inaccessible, deified ancestor who glorifies violence and unlawfulness. Her value of Mindfang seems to come from Mindfang’s “coolness,” i.e., the fact that Mindfang is never awkward or incompetent. Of course a socially inept child is going to deify someone who’s always in control of their self-presentation. Especially since the Mindfang narrative that Vriska reads is entirely written by Mindfang, so there’s probably some severe manipulation of the facts going down to make her seem cooler than she is. 

And then Doc Scratch. An omniscient deity meddling in the affairs of a prepubescent girl from a young age, informing her that she has no choice in most of her critical decisions, and pushing her towards the decisions that will make possible the Alpha Timeline. He humors her desire for attention and importance by predicating his attention to her on her obedience; when she rebels, tries to develop an independent conscience, he criticizes her. From a young age, Vriska is being told that morality is impossible because everything in the universe is predetermined. That her choice doesn’t matter. Her life is a series of desperate grasps at free will, which has been denied her since birth. So she exerts her control over others to mimic the ways of her role models, Mindfang and Scratch. This is where Tavros comes in. 

That said: Vriska’s treatment of Tavros is inexcusable. It’s degrading, physically harmful, and toxic. Again, I’m not trying to defend it. But I want to point out that it comes from her trying to “improve” him, to change what she perceives as a flaw - his cowardice and indecisiveness. Already, Vriska is an improvement on her predecessors in that when she exerts control over others, she does it out of a misguided belief that she’s improving society - not solely for selfish reasons. And she points what she perceives as flaws with Tavros’ character. (Her comments about his disability, notably, which are ableist and inexcusable, do not fall under this category.) In trying to play Mindfang, and make him into her Summoner, the inept Vriska ends up hurting him. It doesn’t stem from malignancy; it stems from instability, and a lack of emotional intelligence. That’s where virtually all of her problems come from.

Additionally, her egotism in thinking she can “fix” Tavros can be traced to Spidermom and Mindfang, too. Her need to step out of her idols’ shadow leads to a desperate search for recognition, first and foremost a positive one. She’s a neglected child who desperately wants attention. What she does to get that attention is coached in the norms of a brutally violent society, but is a cry for help nonetheless.

Let’s talk about antiheroes.

Contrary to popular belief, an antihero is not just “an imperfect hero” or “a hero who doesn’t always do the right thing.” The antihero, specifically, is a person with ethical principles designed to contrast the protagonist - whom you root for even if they make the wrong choices. The AH has the same goals as the Protag, but a different set of ethics from whence they derive those goals. From TV Tropes:

“An Archetypal Character who is almost as common in modern fiction as the Ideal Hero, an antihero is a protagonist who has the opposite of most of the traditional attributes of a hero . . . often an antihero is just an amoral misfit. While heroes are typically conventional, anti-heroes, depending on the circumstances, may be preconventional (in a "good" society), postconventional (if the government is "evil") or even unconventional. Not to be confused with the Villain or the Big Bad, who is the opponent of Heroes (and Anti-Heroes, for that matter).”

Aranea is a villain. She directly opposes the goals of our protagonists (winning the session, and/or bodily autonomy). Gamzee is a villain: he directly opposes the goals of our protagonists (staying alive, not dying). The Condesce is a villain: she directly opposes the goals of our protagonists (staying alive, winning the session). Vriska is not a villain, archetypally: she does not oppose the goals of our protagonists, most of the time, and in fact helps in achieving them. Putting aside the question of whether she’s a bad person, she’s not a Bad Guy.

Her code of ethics most closely aligns with an Antihero - in this case, a preconventional one. There’s a neat article to be written about Vriska’s advancement along the Kohlberg stages of moral development, but for our purposes, “preconventional” just means “I do things for me, and to the extent that doing things for others will do things for me.” Her main goal: fame and glory. Subsidiary goals: help her teammates to win the game, and create a new universe. Unlike traditional preconventional actors, she doesn’t care about her own life and wellbeing, or if she does, only insofar as they can aid her ultimate goal, which is attention and acclaim.

AG: I only ever wanted to do the right thing no matter how it made people judge me, and I don't need a magic ring to do that.

Let’s talk about gender.

Take a moment and tally up all the male antiheroes in popular media you can remember. (Count them twice if they get a redemption arc.) Off the top of my head: Zuko, Lestat, Derek Hale, Nico di Angelo, Severus Snape, Jason Todd, Captain Jack Sparrow, Han Solo, Spike, Tyrion Lannister. That’s without a single glance at the TV Tropes page, either. Those are all from some of the most popular media of the past twenty years: ATLA, IWAV, Teen Wolf, Percy Jackson, Harry Potter, Batman, PoTC, Star Wars, Buffy, Game of Thrones. 

Now count the women. (Count them as half if their “alternative code of ethics” is “I sleep with and lie to men to get what I want, which is almost exclusively money, until I met Protagonist, who changed my evil ways.”) Personally, I’ve got a decently sized list, but at least half are from Homestuck, with others being characters I go out of my way to explore: Arya Stark, Princess Bubblegum, Marcelline, most women from House. I’d give it to Furiosa, too, although that’s arguable. Maybe you have a long list; if so, please tell me what you’ve been reading/watching lately, because these women are either sidelined in the popular media they appear in, or aren’t depicted in popular media to the same level that their male counterparts are at all. (Note: the one-off female antihero, on the other hand, is incredibly popular, perhaps because the writer doesn’t need to develop her character or give her a substantive arc: see Jyn from ATLA, Calypso from PoTC, Narcissa Malfoy from HP.) 

Here’s why: people are much more inclined to forgive a man for doing bad things than they are to forgive a woman. You can chalk this up to any number of stereotypes about women in media: that they have to be nurturers, or that their “purity” is an important aspect of their being. Regardless, if you look over the TV Tropes page for the antihero (even with the obvious miscategorizations), and you’ll find the vast majority are men. Writers have realized that audiences are far more interested in a morally grey, badass, complex, tragic-backstoried man of action than a woman of the same persuasion. 

Let’s go back to talking about Vriska.

Contrast the fandom’s reception of Vriska with its reception of Eridan. To clarify: Eridan, ultimately, isn’t an antihero. He’s a villain. He murders people. He wants to commit genocide. Furthermore, he has no discernible motivation for this except being a bigoted asshat. But you don’t see 2,000-word callouts for Eridan, despite there being a large portion of fandom that wholeheartedly stans him. This doesn’t mean you can’t be interested in Eridan as a character, or even that you can’t like him, although I don’t understand the appeal, personally. But it means that condemning Vriska, all of whose mistakes are clearly motivated and regretted, probably isn’t the hill you want to die on.

I envision a hypothetical world where Vriska is written a boy. And I guarantee you, in that world, there’s a dedicated group of fans who - unironically - call him “a perfect sinnamon roll” and “my innocent son.” His trauma is openly discussed and sympathized with in fandom. Vrisrezi is in the top 5 most popular Homestuck ships on AO3. The Scourge Bros are the most popular troll ship, period. 

We forgive Terezi for manipulating Dave. We forgive Terezi for manipulating and murdering John. Because hey, narratively speaking, they end up fine, right? (Just like Tavros does.) But Vriska is where we draw the line in the sand. Because she’s an antihero, whereas Terezi has always been a nice, comfortable female protagonist. She doesn’t conflict with John & Co. She is clearly motivated by the Greater Good. Vriska is not.

Conclusion

Vriska isn’t simple. Female characters who aren’t simple inevitably cause controversy, to a much lesser degree than male characters of the same nature. Furthermore, the fact that she isn’t a protagonist in the classical sense - whereas most of her group, in contrast, are clearly written as protagonists - makes her appear “worse” than the others, or even, at an extreme “the worst.” Disliking her is perfectly understandable. Thinking she’s a bad person is reasonable. But please don’t do either without considering why she does what she does, and evaluating for yourself whether she deserves the reputation she has. 

[aion-rsa]

J.K. Rowling is One of Our Best Serialized Storytellers

https://ift.tt/2vptdKr

In a media age defined by long-form narrative, Harry Potter creator J.K. Rowling is one of our best storytellers.

facebook

twitter

google+

tumblr

Feature

Books

Kayti Burt

j.k. rowling

Jul 31, 2018

Harry Potter

Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them

When people talk about the great storytellers of the modern era, J.K. Rowling should always be included on the list. The narrative of her writing of the Harry Potter series is one often defined by good luck, creativity, and — yes — a little bit of magic. However, that muse-centric, fairy tale structure is a lazy, simplistic way of talking about Rowling's skill with story. It takes away from the extreme intelligence, capacity for hard work, and storytelling genius that Rowling possesses.

In honor of the author's birthday, let's talk about the elements of storytelling that the British author demonstrates such an impressive command of in the Harry Potter series. And let's think about how, in a media age increasingly defined by long-form, serialized storytelling, Rowling is one of the very best...

Story structure in Harry Potter...

Rowling's true genius lies not in prose, but in story structure, which is perhaps why the books have translated so well into film form. Even when you take away Rowling's signature wit, the story itself can stand on its own in any medium. (We're looking at you, too, The Cursed Child.) 

Pictured above is one of Rowling's many notes for the crafting of plot in Harry Potter. This specific spreadsheet is from the outlining of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, the fifth book in the series, and includes separate columns for most of the book's major subplots, including: what's happening in the main "prophecy" plot, what's happening with Cho and Ginny, what's happening with the Order of the Phoenix, what's happening with the unraveling of the Snape/James Potter backstory, what's happening with Dumbledore's army, what's happening with Hagrid/Grawp, etc.

See related 

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them Review

Sure, this is typical authorial outlining stuff, but anyone who has read the Harry Potter series can explain to you how Rowling started foreshadowing the end of the series from the very beginning, especially picking up in The Chamber of Secrets. The Horcruxes were always integral to the story, hidden in plain plot sight — one example of the many narrative subthreads developed throughout the series and throughout each book. This development was rarely done in a heavy-handed way, which made the eventual reveals in The Deathy Hallows that much more rewarding.

For example, Harry spots The Vanishing Cabinet that Draco Malfoy would later use to get the Death Eaters into Hogwarts in The Half-Blood Prince way back in The Chamber of Secrets when he ends up in Knockturn Alley's Borgin and Burkes. In Prisoner of Azkaban, Professor Trelawney "reads" that Harry is born in mid-winter, even though his birthday is in July. As we later find out, she is actually seeing Lord Voldemort's birth in Harry, a sign of his Horcruxian tie to the Dark Lord.

The examples go on: Dumbledore tangentially mentions his brother Aberforth in one of the early books. We "meet" the Grey Lady in book one, only to learn about her importance to the founding of Hogwarts and the destruction of the Horcruxes in the seventh books. We could sit here listing the detail-payoff patterns in this series all day.

The fact that these narrative crumbs were spread over not just a trilogy, but seven books, is particularly impressive. The amount of forethought and adherence to planning that Rowling demonstrates in pulling off this series is mindboggling in its focus. Pair that with the patience it took to introduce extremely relevant plot points early on in the series, and have that greater relevance revealed later on, and genius of Rowling's plotting starts to take shape.

Characterization in Harry Potter...

Plotting is important, but the Harry Potter series would not be what it is without Rowling's command of characterization. The author creates a rich interpersonal world within the wizarding community that is so important in exploring the coming-of-age story's main themes of love, family, and loss. We care if Harry defeats the Dark Lord because we care about these characters. It's a simple narrative necessity, one that demonstrates emotional intelligence, but a skill that far too many storytellers don't actually have.

For me, one of the best examples of characterization in the Harry Potter series is Ron Weasley. Rowling's skill in articulating character is so well demonstrated with Ron because he is the character that is generally characterized the poorest when other writers take him on. In the movies (and, to a lesser extent, in The Cursed Child, too), Ron is too-often flattened for comic relief. We lose the rich texture of this character, the way his struggle to get out of the shadow of his many brothers and, now, Harry, is balanced by his intense goodness and loyalty to the ones he loves. 

Ron isn't perfect by any stretch of the imagination. He's not great at expressing his feelings and he is often petty and stubborn when he is feeling slighted (e.g. his fight with Hermione in Prisoner of Azkaban or his fight with Harry in Goblet of Fire.) But he would do anything for his friends, and matures an immense amount over the course of the series, while still maintaining his distinct Ron-ness. When we meet Ron, he is a bumbling, yet good-natured kid who has some outdated views of a world he is very much still trying to figure out. By the end of the series, he is destroying Horcruxes and worrying about house elves, even whilst still occasionally succombing to his jealous, insecure side. 

From the book's main protagonist to the seemingly most minor of supporting characters, Rowling has a gift for creating immediately distinct, relatable characters. Mrs. Dursley is a nosy gossip. Hermione Granger is a socially-awkward brain. Remus Lupin is a weary and mysterious, yet trustworthy authority figure. And, as with Rowling's plotting, these characters have arcs within the individual books and the series as a whole. We understand how they exist within the wider community, how they are seen by those who are closest to them and by those who only know their family name. 

More than that, the steady adherence to characterization exists not only in the individual character arcs, but in the relationships between characters. We understand why characters do everything they do — and that's down to consistent characterization and the carefully-constructed relationships between characters. ("'Always,' said Snape.")  

World-building in Harry Potter...

You can't talk about J.K. Rowling as a storyteller without discussing her skill for worldbuilding. Rowling's ability to create a just-out-of-sight magical world with its own system of lived-in logic may be the most impressive thing about the Harry Potter series. Rowling created an entire subculture, complete with economy, government, media, sports, history, lore, educational system, etc. Sure, it is very much based on the British social order, but it still exists as its own vividly-realized world.

As the Harry Potter For Writers website points out, Harry's first introduction to the wizarding world doesn't happen at Hogwarts, but rather at Diagon Alley where he visits the Leaky Cauldron, Ollivanders, Gringotts, and a slew of other shops. It is a mini-tour of the wizarding world, both for Harry and for the reader. We learn about wizarding money, customs, and the trappings of how Hogwarts works through the purchasing of Harry's school supplies.

This worldbuilding extends to Hogwarts in The Sorceror's Stone, then to the larger wizarding world with The Goblet of Fire's Qudditch World Cup and Triwizard Tournament and, eventually, Hermione and Harry's tour of wizarding England in The Deathy Hallows. 

Rowling slowly broadens the scope of this world from The Sorceror's Stone onward, weaving setting and wizarding culture. However, its depth is apparent from day one. Like any good writer, Rowling exudes confidence in her writing, a promise that she knows where she is going, that every detail has meaning and value, that this narrative journey won't end in disappointing, disatisfying chaos. She doesn't break that promise. 

The difficult importance of an ending...

It's hard to end a story in a satisfying way — especially a story that takes place over the course of seven books. You can't just hope for the best. An ending needs to have its roots in the beginning. It needs to be present in everything that has come before. It needs to be a truth illuminated in the final moments, but a truth that has somehow been there all along. 

Epilogues and canon-extending plays aside, Rowling sticks the landing of the Harry Potter series, and she does it in an unexpectedly bold way by sending the Golden Trio away from Hogwarts to go on a dark, depressing adventure that not only calls into question the strength of their own relationships with one another, but the motivations of Dumbledore, a character that — up until this series-ending book — had been painted as a somewhat uncomplicated trustworthy mentor.

These challenging choices prove just how sure of her narrative Rowling was from the very beginning. She always knew where she was going, famously writing out the last chapter and keeping it hidden away in a safety deposit box, and it shows in the ending. If an ending needs to be informed by everything that has come before, then The Deathly Hallows is a parade of the Harry Potter series greatest hits, but a parade that never feels like a tired retreading of what has come before. 

If many of the questions, characters, and settings are the same, they are maturing and deepening in necessary ways. Can love conquer evil? What does it mean to grow up divorced from your past and identity? Do the ones we love ever really leave us? The answers get more complicated, their potential relevance more immediately dire, in The Deathly Hallows. 

But Rowling never lets the narrative heavy-lifting show. She makes the moving and fitting together of the many, intricate moving parts of this story look simple, doing so much work through her plotting, characterization, and worldbuilding that we never doubt for a second that she knows what she's talking about, that this world — and its meaning — is real in some sense of the word. In the way that any fiction is real: in the expression of theme and the exploration of humanity.

Dumbledore tells Harry at the end of The Deathly Hallows: "Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?" With Rowling, that master of narrative, moving us through this story, how could we ever believe otherwise?

Join Amazon Prime - Watch Thousands of Movies & TV Shows Anytime - Start Free Trial Now

from Books https://ift.tt/2v6r9rk