By Tanya Gold - Wed July 13, 2011, The Guardian
I am reading Critical Perspectives on Harry Potter (Part 2), in time for the release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Part 2). The film is the second half of Joanne Rowling's seventh book, which Warner Bros have cut in two, to thrill the fans or increase their $6bn gross, depending on how magnanimous you think global corporations that cross-market wizards can be. By the end of this week, Potter on film is done; it is a beginning of an end.
I bought Critical Perspectives on Harry Potter (Part 2), not because I can't get hold of Harry Potter and International Relations, which actually exists, but because I think it is the best example of the response to the mad existence of the Christ Wizard from Surrey. Harry is duller even than Frodo Baggins of Lord of the Rings, the hobbit equivalent of a coffee table, and more successful too, because Warner Bros, which is owned by the entertainment monster Time Warner, has used its publishing and internet arms to build his brand. It is above all a piece of marketing wizardry. Potter has conjured up court cases, book burnings, a theme park in Florida, sales of 450m and a pile of academic texts. This is the impact of Potter on earth and part of it, like a Horcrux, is in the British Library.
The many authors of Critical Perspectives on Harry Potter (Part 2) take Rowling's world intensely seriously, which I suppose is why they didn't stop at Critical Perspectives on Harry Potter (Part 1). They write like very
intelligent children, wandering the corridors of Hogwarts seeking meaning and, although they don't explicitly admit it, more of the contents of Joanne Rowling's head. (I refuse to call her JK. Her British publishers, Bloomsbury, insisted on initials back in 1998 because they feared boys wouldn't read a book by "Joanne".) It is essentially Quidditch played with opinions in university common rooms. The economists seek clarity on the organisation of financial systems: "What is the wizarding economy based on?" The feminists are angry, because they believe gender stereotypes are rampant.
"The 'Fat Lady' in the portrait at the entrance of Gryffindor tower . . . has no personal name and is never called anything but the 'Fat Lady' or a very fat woman," I am told. Did female weakness lead to the creation of evil wizard Voldemort and catastrophe? (Like Eve?) "If she [Voldemort's mother Merope] had been emotionally stronger and been able to maintain better boundaries in her relationships,"
Read the full piece at The Guardian.
The many authors of Critical Perspectives on Harry Potter (Part 2) take Rowling's world intensely seriously, which I suppose is why they didn't stop at Critical Perspectives on Harry Potter (Part 1). They write like very
intelligent children, wandering the corridors of Hogwarts seeking meaning and, although they don't explicitly admit it, more of the contents of Joanne Rowling's head. (I refuse to call her JK. Her British publishers, Bloomsbury, insisted on initials back in 1998 because they feared boys wouldn't read a book by "Joanne".) It is essentially Quidditch played with opinions in university common rooms. The economists seek clarity on the organisation of financial systems: "What is the wizarding economy based on?" The feminists are angry, because they believe gender stereotypes are rampant.
"The 'Fat Lady' in the portrait at the entrance of Gryffindor tower . . . has no personal name and is never called anything but the 'Fat Lady' or a very fat woman," I am told. Did female weakness lead to the creation of evil wizard Voldemort and catastrophe? (Like Eve?) "If she [Voldemort's mother Merope] had been emotionally stronger and been able to maintain better boundaries in her relationships,"
Read the full piece at The Guardian.
No comments:
Post a Comment