This blog has not been forgotten.
I’m on a temporary but rather long break from demanding albeit exhilarating subjects which have been addressed over 3 years on this blog.
I decided to go for some lighter reading, and revisited J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, and Ms. J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series.
Yes, this middle-aged man has taken an avid interest in the Harry Potter series for well over 10 years.
I think I first came across the films in 2009 or 2010.
Saw the last one in a cinema hall in 2011.
And after that, read all the books.
Same with LoTR ... I first saw the films, about 2009-10, and then read the books.
In my mind, it is impossible to dissociate the characters in the books from the actors who played them in the films – even though there are a few important distinctions.
In the novel, Frodo is a 50 year old man when he sets out with the ring... in the films, Elijah Wood doesn’t look a day older than 25.
Though the novel says that Frodo looks remarkably young for his age because of the ring, this theory doesn’t apply to the film.
What shall I say about these great ... or rather, influential ... books?
I don’t want to be too harsh or too indulgent, too severe or too casual.
Yes, well into my 30s, I was a Crack-Potter alright :)
The films (of both series) had mesmerized me completely ... but only because I wasn’t employing a shred of critical thinking.
But today, I have a very different view of these powerful, impacting works – and I think I’d be more positive about Tolkien, than about Rowling.
I will deconstruct them as well and as objectively I can, but I must clarify at the outset that with tremendous drawbacks, they’re both splendid authors.
It’s not easy to write a good short novella, let alone a whole series of novels which captivates the imagination of millions and millions of people across the world.
I certainly don’t intend this blog-post to be an official proclamation & denunciation of either author, or their definitive magnum opuses.
This is no critical analysis of LoTR or HP.
Just a few general comments I felt like making, since it’s been a long time since I posted.
I also read a few books, like Terry Pratchet’s brilliant “The Colour of Magic”.
(Yes, they’re all fantasy works.)
I’ll repeat myself: I gladly admit that both Tolkien and Rowling are geniuses.
One can’t deny them the high honor of prodigious imagination and sparkling inventiveness.
They have both created worlds that pull us in – and fill the heart with delight & wonder & indeed, all emotions possible.
They are master “world-builders” – as everyone knows.
Tolkien’s scope is much larger, and he has something of a cosmic-metaphysical vision.
Rowling’s ambition has narrower limits.
Also, as far as LoTR is concerned, Tolkien doesn’t seem particularly focused on entertaining or selling.
Strangely enough, there seem to be no clear statistics on the sales of the LoTR books, but I doubt if they’re read half as much as The Hobbit, or any of the Harry Potter novels.
They’re not exactly gripping, either in pace or content.
Teenagers might find them soporific.
The LoTR films might have done more to make Tolkien a household name, than the fat printed tomes.
Lotr (I’ll use that word from now on!) is an prodigious, overwhelming feeling, or sentiment, or “vibe” – which has been experienced internally, and then expressed in story form, by Tolkien.
It embodies a whole world-view, or rather, a world-feeling – and the articulation of that sense of existence was Tolkien’s primary purpose.
The Harry Potter series has been clearly written with a view to entertain & sell, though I wouldn’t call Rowling strictly “commercial”.
Rowling has no distinct world-vision: there is no psychic metaphysical strain underlying her universe – if anything, her work is fundamentally “social” in nature – a work with a clearcut political, social message (against all forms of discrimination, for example).
On the other hand, one may extract some socio-political message from Lotr, but it would be very lame & unsatisfactory.
The epic makes little sense, as history or politics, and would fall into the realm of crass propaganda, if viewed in realistic socio-political terms.
Tolkien may at best be called a sort of Luddite – an ardent plant lover – a Treehugger – and yet his love for Nature is also ambivalent, and barely extends to animals.
He seems to notice principally one animal – and that is the horse.
Yes, he has eagles (not to forget the two monsters, including the gigantic spider Shelob; and a few other creatures, mostly “fell”) – but they don’t appear directly in Lotr and though they have a role to play – Tolkien uses them as deus-ex-machina, not because he’s deeply invested in them as he is, in musing about trees & wild forests.
It’s not as if he doesn’t know animals – but except these 4 – horse & eagle, squid-like thing & spider – they have no role to play, in his story.
Rowling shows a much healthier love for nature than Tolkien: we see Harry’s snow-owl Hedwig – Ron’s rat Scabbers – Hermione’s cat Crookshanks – Hagrid’s dog Fang – Dumbledore’s soul-friend, the Phoenix Fawkes – the myriad Dragons – the Giant Squid in the lake – the Hippogriff Buckbeak – innumerable creatures the students learn about in school: Unicorns, Thestrals, Blast-Ended Skrewts, Flobberworms – the dreadful Spiders in the Forbidden Forest (headed by Aragog, of course) – Ron’s owl Pigwidgeon – Coldy Voldy’s pythoness Nagini – the Patronuses – etc etc etc – and this shows a fuller, more enthusiastic and all-encompassing view of Nature, particularly the animal world – than the highly skewed, distorted, and one-dimensional – and selective – view of Tolkien.
And they all have vital roles to play, in the progression of the plot.
(Please note, I’m taking into account only The Lord of the Rings, and not the other works of Tolkien.)
Think of how Buckbeak is absolutely essential to the story of Sirius – of how the Thestrals carried the kids to London for the events of the Department of Mysteries to unfold – of the drinking of Unicorn blood by Quirrel (a vital event in the plot of the 1st novel) – of how Crookshanks befriends Sirius & helps him in his cause – etc etc.
Almost none of these animals or creatures, is irrelevant.
I detect a distinct sense of NORMALCY beneath the messiness of Rowling’s world (despite her obvious prejudices) – and a distinct ABNORMALITY beneath the highly structured world of Lotr.
Who knew that an entire DIRECTION – the East – could be evil??
Yes, Tolkien shows the profoundest distrust of civilization itself – hence, the escape into an imaginary Elf-realm where a great culture is born without wheel or chariot.
Both worlds are a form of escapism – but while Rowling writes more in the spirit of fun & wholesome entertainment – there is a deep, desperate desire to escape, in Tolkien.
One distinct kink in Lotr is the lack of importance given to women.
Was Tolkien a closeted homosexual?
I do not mean this disrespectfully, or an insult, because many of the greatest men and greatest artists in the history of mankind were homosexual or bisexual: say Caravaggio, Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Raphael, Byron, Goethe, Napoleon, Alexander, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle etc.
I have no problem with their homosexuality.
At any rate, because this seems to be part of Tolkien’s escape-fantasy: an escape into the world of pure male camaraderie & male bonding.
I don’t think it stems from hatred or fear of the female, as from a love for the male.
And yet, the homosexual intrinsically has a distaste for women, which he won’t admit openly.
Galadriel & Eowyn notwithstanding, the world of Lotr is a world rid of women – presumably in Tolkien’s view – silly, noisy, interfering, nagging, quarrelsome, petty gossips, termagants, chatterboxes & hussies who waste men’s time on gratuitous emotional drama, and drain them of all purpose & energy.
Men should associate with Men – only Men can be the best friends of Men – and Men are eternal companions in this journey of the world.
The specific depictions in Lotr go way beyond a normal “Bromance” or heterosexual male camaraderie.
Men in Tolkien neither seek nor find, any comfort or strength, in women.
Undoubtedly, we have Galadriel, but I will contest that Galadriel is simply a vision & a figurehead – not a part & parcel of the men’s lives.
Galadriel is Queen-Goddess – a Symbol – not exactly a woman (despite some attempt to depict her as such) – and Eowyn is a Diana-Athena figure – Woman trying to be Man, a Warrior, a Killer.
They do embody two very different – almost opposite & contrasting – images of the Feminine – and yet, they do not, and cannot, compare to the pivotal role Hermione Granger in the Harry Potter series!
Arwen is a woman being a woman – but in the novels, she has no role to play at all, except make Aragorn’s standard (which happens in the background).
The first notable female character we’re introduced to, is Lobelia Sackville-Baggins, and she’s the most awful image of the jealous, greedy, grasping hag one can think of.
The next is the painfully lovely & unreal Goldberry – but hey – who remembers Goldberry, and what role does she play anyway, except that of a passing, pleasing dream?
These are not CHARACTERS with functions to perform, important decisions to make, and who make a difference to the story, as in who shape it from within, giving it new direction, like Aragorn or Boromir, or even by their choices, like Faramir.
Arwen is barely mentioned in the novel – it is only in the film that she has been given a much larger role – that of saving Frodo & causing the first defeat of the Nine Black Riders.
Apart from the ethereal Galadriel, the most unforgettable female character is the horrible Spider, Shelob (She-lob being reminiscent of Lob-elia) – and she is as repulsive an embodiment of evil brute force as can be.
Now Shelob definitely plays a very important role in the story – though more because of Gollum than anything she does herself.
It might make my point clearer if one were to list all the important male characters in the story – and see the astonishing absence of wife or lovelife – or even sister or mother – or daughter or pet she-cat – in their lives.
« Gandalf,
« Bilbo,
« Frodo,
« Sam (with his gaffer),
« Pippin,
« Merry,
« Barliman Butterbur,
« Aragorn (Arwen is there, but she plays no role in his actions, or his struggle against the Dark Thingy – she’s just there, in the background, and nobody knows, until the very end, that they loved each other),
« Glorfindel,
« Elrond,
« Gimli,
« Legolas,
« Boromir,
« Treebeard,
« Gollum,
« Saruman,
« Theoden,
« Eomer,
« Grima,
« Denethor,
« Faramir (his role practically comes to an end when he unites with Eowyn, and so does her role).
I won’t say Tolkien HATES the Feminine.
We have Goldberry & Galadriel, and to an extent, proud & stern Eowyn, to prove that.
Tolkien might be a little scared of it – witness Shelob! – but I’d rather say: he doesn’t WANT women around.
He doesn’t care much about women.
It’s not as if women have a limited role to play in such a story – but the story itself doesn’t demand any significant presence or role of women.
(I personally consider Eowyn’s role in killing the Leader of the Black Riders as something of a joke.)
A story in which women play dominant roles, would not appeal to Tolkien.
There is also a strong element of loss, of longing, of wistfulness in his view of women – as if the ideal woman or love interest, is faraway, lost, out of reach – like in the stories of Luthien and Nimrodel.
Women can be dreamt about – they may come & go – scattering unforgettable pearls of joy & love – filling the heart with irrepressible longing – but they remain insubstantial, ungraspable, vapour-like ephemeral beings who can hardly be relevant in a story which involves the somber, solid struggles & sacrifices of men – like beautiful works of art gazing upon the actors of a drama in splendid beauty, silence & isolation.
On the other hand, Frodo has Sam, Pippin has Merry, Legolas has Gimli – for a while Gandalf teams up with Aragorn – later Aragorn bonds with Eomer – even Saruman has Grima! – and the most positive animal depiction in Lotr vis-a-vis the most negative, is the male Shadowfax (vis-a-vis the female Shelob).
The most normal characters are Faramir and Sam – and Sam comes across as agonizingly bisexual.
This is a whole world of men without women, but the ideal world is nevertheless one in which the Masculine & Feminine stand united, by each others’ side – Celeborn & Galadriel in Lothlorien – (though this picture also has its ambiguities) – and to a lesser extent, Tom Bombadil & Goldberry (who are totally disinterested in the world, and cut off from it).
So no, I don’t think J.R.R. Tolkien HATES women.
His attitude is a combination of fear, disinterest, mild but amused contempt, and the reverence of a distant dreamer-worshiper.
Woman qua Woman – woman being lover, wife, mother, sister, daughter, friend, guide – is of no interest to him.
I feel there is a strong homoerotic undercurrent to all this.
Sam is supposed to be in love with Rosie Cotton – but this is irrelevant.
What we see – what shapes & guides the story, the characters & their destinies – is Sam’s love for Frodo.
Apart from his intense love for Frodo, the person who inspires Sam throughout the epic journey is his old Gaffer – not his Mom or his “Gran”.
Certainly not Rosie, who isn’t even mentioned in the first 900 pages of the epic!!
The men almost never mention their mothers or aunts or sisters or sweethearts.
Arwen would have made an interesting character – and her love-interest with Aragorn would have given a new depth to his character – (it was given much importance in the films, but was somewhat modified) – is merely given out in crisp notes as a succinct appendix once the story proper is over.
Aragorn’s deep, tormented longing for Arwen is something Tolkien needs to block out, keep out of view, a gloomy room he doesn’t want to venture into.
But Tolkien couldn’t have done it otherwise, the way he is.
The love between Man & Woman is not something he’s comfortable with.
It’s possible that some tragic feeling associated with repressed or unsuccessful same-sex love colours his rather melancholy view of the Man-Woman relationship.
Nothing could be farther from the truth, in Rowling’s world.
Though it is still “a Man’s world” – the fact is Rowling has no such deep insecurity, anxiety and idiosyncrasy – when it comes to the Man-Woman relationship.
James & Lily, Harry & Ginny, Ron & Hermione, Ron & Lavender, Remus & Nymphadora, Bill & Fleur, Cedric & Cho – there is no dearth of romantic couples in this series – and all of them reflect different shades of romantic relations – even Arthur & Molly Weasley.
Though most of the important characters in the Harry Potter series are men – women play a far more important role than anyone does in Lotr, including Galadriel & Eowyn.
Indeed, there is an almost Virgin Mary significance ascribed to Lily Potter, whose role as MOTHER (not as a martyr fighting against evil, or a masculinized she-warrior, or even an unsexed intellectual), is the foundation upon which the entire story rests.
Rowling embraces the Woman-qua-Woman in the Mother (& Wife) figures of Lily Potter & Molly Weasley – which Tolkien is psychologically incapable of.
There is not a single great Mother figure, in Lotr.
Molly Weasley is NOT a woman trying to be a man – NOT a woman trying to replace or displace Men – NOT a woman competing with or combatting Men – NOT a woman pitted against the “Patriarchy” or trying to break into a “Male Bastion”.
She is pure womanhood, pure wifehood, pure motherhood, pure Home & Hearth, without any interest in a man’s world at all – and Rowling embraces her, loves her, and dwells affectionately on her with amazing consistency throughout the series.
There is something fundamentally Conservative & Traditional in this, which became very clear in Ms. Rowling’s unfortunate falling out with the Trans crowd.
Rowling maintains almost all patriarchal values in the Harry Potter series.
Men, for instance (boys, mostly) don’t cry – and if they do, nobody is supposed to look – it is a matter of deepest shame & embarrassment.
Hagrid only does so, because he is an extreme character, an outlandish exception that stands out from the entire crowd, and is generally seen as an eccentric buffoon.
I mention this, because it comes up several times, in the course of the series.
Apart from Hermione, there are really no brilliant girls, at Hogwarts.
If anything, there’s an endless quanta of silly giggling flibbertigibbets.
There are 3 enormously talented Quidditch players – Angelina Johnson, Alicia Spinnet, and Katie Bell – yes, and that’s a blessing for the reader – but they are really not relevant from the main theme point of view.
Yes, yes, yes, we do have Ginny Weasley, but Ginny really plays no significant role as an intellectual or friend or warrior or support, in the novels.
She has to be interesting & impressive as Harry’s girlfriend – she’s basically a fiery tart – and that’s about it.
On the contrary, her most significant role is that of a victim-cum-culprit, as a small clueless kid, in the 2nd novel, in which she had to be saved by Harry, the male Phoenix Fawkes, the male Sorting Hat, and the masculine Sword of (the alpha-male) Godric Gryffindor.
Luna Lovegood had a prominent role in the movies – but in the novels, she is way too eccentric, too ridiculous to be taken seriously, almost irrelevant – and I wondered if Rowling added her simply to put in a noticeable, quasi-positive character from Ravenclaw.
Because Cho Chang clearly isn’t it.
Luna’s father has a much stronger role, in the novels.
Rowling’s treatment of Parvati & Padma Patil – and Lavender Brown – is about as abysmal as it can get.
The host of negative or unlikeable or foolish or weak female characters –
« Bellatrix Lestrange,
« Aunt Petunia,
« Aunt Marge,
« Pansy Parkinson,
« Rita Skeeter,
« Dolores Jane Umbridge,
« Sybil Trelawney,
« Narcissa Malfoy,
« Cho Chang’s sneak girlfriend Marietta,
« the House-Elf Winky,
« Sirius’s Mother,
« Aunt Muriel,
« Moaning Myrtle,
« Hepzibah Smith,
« Merope Gaunt,
« Bertha Jorkins,
makes me suspect that somewhere, Rowling has an inclination towards strong, independent men – and caring, nurturing, nourishing motherly women, like Madam Pomfrey (who still feels like a bit of an oversimplified stereotype).
Even the haughty Narcissa Malfoy is somewhat redeemed by her love for her son Draco – and literally lies to Darky, & in a sense betrays him, to get to her son.
Rowling is not entirely, inherently comfortable with the “strong, independent” “liberated” woman, for all the Hermiones, Ginnys, & Professor MacGonagalls – none of whom really adopt a sort of Feminist stance either, to be sure.
To put it another way: Rowling depicts women or girls, pretty much as a man would.
I would, however, think more about this in the future, because when it comes to relationships & emotions – her strongest point – Rowling eschews simplifications.
There are horrible mothers, like Hagrid’s Giantess Mother, who abandon their children to fend for themselves – or women like Petunia, whose motherhood is of a cruelly selfish nature – and then doting, loving mothers, like Molly Weasley whose maternal affection is not limited to her own family or children.
There are childless women like Minerva MacGonagall, and there are childless women full of hate, prejudice, & rage, like Bellatrix, Marge & (presumably) Umbridge.
It’s not as if Rowling unconditionally glorifies Motherhood itself – but her ideal woman is a Mother.
She finally concludes the series, NOT by showing Hermione becoming the Minister of Magic – and Ginny becoming some International Qudditch League Coach – but as wives & mothers, sending off their children to school, leading happy family lives with their husbands.
All this shows that despite some superficial signs of Feminism, J.K.Rowling is consistently NOT a Feminist.
She is NOT comfortable with a woman without a man & without a child.
The closest we come to such a positive depiction is Minerva MacGonagall, and yet, what does MacGonagall do for Harry, outside the confines of the school as a teacher, or in Dumbledore’s fight against Voldy Thingy?
Compare with the role of the wifeless & childless Severus Snape!!
Minerva MacGonagall is almost exclusively a disciplinarian: a person who enforces the rules conscientiously & fairly – one who loves & cares for Harry silently & strongly – but yet one may ask, couldn’t she have done more for him, beyond the four walls of Hogwarts?
Maybe she could send him gifts or cakes in the summer holidays, like Hagrid did, on Harry’s birthday – but no, the wifeless & childless Hagrid is caring & nurturing (calling himself the Dragon Norbert’s “Mummy”) – but husbandless & childless MacGonagall does nothing of the sort.
Mrs. Figgs is a Mrs., but we see nothing of her husband or child – and she is a joke.
So is husbandless & childless Trelawney.
Fleur Delacour seems to have been introduced simply to have a girl participant in the Triwizard Tournament – and then, she is a miserable failure.
Her character gains significance only as the wife of Bill Weasley – and primarily, because she accepted him after he was bitten & infected by Fenrir.
While Rowling loves the ideal of the Mother-Wife, she clearly does not hold Women in higher esteem than Men – and doesn’t care about pitting Women against Men.
Feminism is NOT a “thing” in the Harry Potter series, despite its Christian-Liberal message.
Rowling’s view of the Man-Woman relationship (at all levels) is way more harmonious, real, convincing, and wholesome, than that of Tolkien – but intrinsically, her thinking is Conservative & Patriarchal.
She believes too strongly in the healing power of love, marriage, family, and friends, to be a full-blown Liberal.
This is not a philosophy of the freedom to “walk away” and doing your own “thang” – but of staying, of being involved, being loyal, being committed, making sacrifices for others, sharing in their pain, shouldering their burdens, taking away their suffering.
In Rowling’s universe, even men-without-women are somewhat warped, and miserable, and sad – which is the reality of life! – and in most cases, don’t survive.
Should I take up the issue of plot-holes?
That would be a deeply negative exercise, because I see emotion & relationships, wit & humor, pure creative imagination of a fantasy world, as the strongest points of Rowling, and not logic in plot construction.
There are many people who have taken up the issues of plot-holes, of things that are utterly unconvincing or absurd, in the series.
I’m not sure what was Rowling thinking, and if she simply didn’t include a lot of material, in the novels.
But there ARE INNUMERABLE logical inconsistencies – stuff that simply made no sense to me.
Let’s start at the very beginning.
Why was Minerva MacGonagall sitting outside Privet Drive in the beginning – in the very first chapter of the novel (as a tabby cat)?
In that very chapter, we learn that SHE DIDN’T KNOW FOR SURE, whether Lily & James were dead!
She has to ask Dumbledore, who confirms the news.
She got to know only later at night, that Lily & James were dead, so why was she sitting outside Petunia’s house since 8 o’clock in the morning?
We have to go back to the beginning, and see all events in chronological sequence, and the larger picture, to figure out what is happening.
A grim, ferocious war is raging in the wizarding world between two factions.
Voldy Thingy and the Death Eaters are torturing and killing people left and right.
There is terror & despair all over the place.
Lily & James’s lives were in peril, directly threatened by the leader of the opposite faction.
Strangely enough, their location is not changed – say, to some place outside Britain.
They continue to live in James’s house in Godric’s Hollow!! – which would be the first place to search for them.
It would have been much smarter to take them to some other part of the world & then kept them under the Fidelius Charm, but they’re kept in the first place which would be searched.
Well, even if we overcome the Fidelius Charm objection, wouldn’t many other Witches & Wizards be on the lookout, if Voldy came hunting for the child of James & Lily?
Apparently, nobody knew that they were in hiding? Or did they?
It’s all very vague.
So there’s this terrible conflict ripping apart the wizarding world with utter ferocity, families are being fractured & fragmented, lives are being snuffed out, etc etc. and – there seems to be no organized system of intelligence-gathering and espionage.
Okay, then Voldy turns up at Godric’s Hollow without any issues, without any resistance, and kills Lily & James and tries to kill Harry – and the curse destroys his body – and he “flees”.
?????
Were there any witnesses?
Were there witches & wizards living closeby?
Didn’t Dumbledore put any spies, any guards, any watchout, to keep an eye on the Potters?
Just in and around the general vicinity of Godric’s Hollow?
And who came to know, first, that Lily & James were dead, and how?
How is it that this person did not report the fact instantly to Dumbledore, or to the Ministry of Magic?
How did he/she/they know, that Voldy was destroyed and gone?
Had anybody seen him, or heard him?
Had they seen him kill James & Lily?
How did the wizarding world get to know, that Voldy has met his “downfall”?
How did people know that Darky Thlingy had “fled”?
Wouldn’t it take a few days to figure it out?
Whoever saw Lily & James were dead, would have also seen Baby Harry alive.
(But unless they saw the murders first-hand, how would they know who killed them, and what happened to the murderer?)
It’s natural to assume that the person who saw the deadbodies along with the live child, first, would rescue the child!
So why did Hagrid have to be sent to collect Harry?
The whole thing doesn’t make any sense to me.
Who first got to know of Lily & James’ death, and who transmitted the news to Dumbledore?
Then, why didn’t Dumbledore go to Godric’s Hollow, to the Potters’ house?
Why didn’t Dumbledore pick up Baby Harry from the house, or from his informant?
He had just borrowed James’s Invisibility Cloak to study it!
What does it mean, that Dumbledore asked Hagrid to fetch Harry?
Why didn’t he do it himself? Where was he? What did he know, and how?
What was he doing the whole day, on 1st November? (The killings took place on 31st October.)
And MacGonagall is blissfully unaware of the whole thing!!
She has no clue why is Dumbledore coming to Privet Drive.
So why is she sitting outside, out there?
Why wasn’t she rather sitting around the Potters’ house, to see if Voldy Thingy comes there?
Remember, she’s sitting there on the very morning after James & Lily have been killed.
When Dumbledore arrives, he chuckles (!) and says “I should have known”, and then says “Fancy seeing you here, Professor MacGonagall”.
Am I missing something?
It doesn’t look like he knew she was there!!
Also, she is surprised that he recognized her as a cat, though they might have worked together for something like 50 years!!
They generally talk, not like people who’ve been closely associated for decades & decades, and would know each other inside-out, joined like fellow-soldiers in a grim battle of life & death against overwhelming odds, against a great force threatening to overwhelm their whole existence, but like polite colleagues who’ve met a few times in a year or two.
And why did Dumbledore leave Harry in a basket, outside the Dursleys’ door with a letter?
Why didn’t he simply meet Petunia and talk to her?
She knew him!
She would know at least some of the wizards & witches, because her sister was a witch who married into a rich wizard family.
Dumbledore does come to collect Harry at the beginning of the 6th year ... so certainly, he doesn’t have any need to hide.
Petunia used to drop off Lily at the Hogwarts Express!
So she is well acquainted with the wizarding world – and neither is a total mystery to the other.
(The strange absence of any parents of both 21-year old James & Lily-Petunia is also too convenient a plot-device.)
Do remember that Dumbledore is about 100 years old, when he drops off Harry at Petunia’s doorstep.
A man of his stature, age, experience, power, knowledge, and wisdom, wouldn’t act in this absurd furtive manner, dumping a baby in a basket at the doorstep like some guilty single mother hiding her illegitimate child outside a Church.
MacGonagall is something like 70 years old... Hagrid, in his 50s.
Petunia received news of her sister’s death from the letter, and not from the latter’s teachers, mentors & friends? ... And that’s it?
This is all very vague & confusing, and I felt the objective was to make an opening which was funny & unusual, which would tickle any child’s imagination (a tabby cat reading a map! the deluminator! the flying motorbike! the orphan-in-a-basket archetype!).
A stunning, colorful, intriguing introduction was the objective.
However, I’m not sure it was properly done.
Not only do the events make no sense in the light of what we learn later – but the way Harry is abandoned to his aunt, is unconvincing – and the whole tone of that chapter, and the conversation between Dumbledore & MacGonagall, is all wrong.
Would they join in festivities when two 21-year old kids (Lily & James) have just been brutally murdered in cold blood, and a 1-year old boy orphaned?
Lily & James were not unknown – they were kids who had been born &/or brought up right in front of Dumbledore & MacGonagall – they were brilliant students of theirs, they were outstanding wizard & witch, they were were Head Boy & Head Girl, they were both in Gryffindor – and had been a part of the war against Voldy.
If the gloomy & fierce picture of the wizarding war given later is true, Dumbledore & MacGonagall themselves would have been guarding James & Lily – or at least have been the first to know of their death, and of Thingy’s disappearance.
They would be way more upset & serious.
(Instead, they are chitchatting about the 100 year old Dumbledore blushing, about eating lemon-drops, and making their way to celebrations!
This is totally uncharacteristic of both, who are very serious & dignified persons, & fully appreciate the gravity of a situation.)
After which they would have collected Harry, and met Petunia and talked to her about keeping him.
And they would have kept checking on him, to make sure he’s fine.
There is no convincing reason for Harry to live all the time with the Dursleys, when so many people could have taken him in – including Dumby & Gonny themselves– and not know that he’s a wizard.
He needed to spend just a few weeks with his aunt, and then he’d have stayed somewhere quiet & peaceful, but with a wizarding family.
Even if we ignore this part (Dumbledore gives some quasi-rational, partially convincing reasons to keep Harry altogether away from the wizarding world), the reason why MacGonagall is sitting like a cat watching the Dursleys all day long, while James & Lily had been murdered in cold blood just the night before, is never made clear.
This is the very beginning, the very first chapter.
Many such vague & confusing events follow.
Apparently, the Philosopher’s Stone was hidden in the Mirror of Erised.
The one who saw it in the correct spirit or with the right intention, could get it out of the Mirror.
But if it presents itself only to the person who won’t use it, then there is no way Voldy or his minions can ever get it – because they desire it only to use it!
So why bother with such elaborate stratagems, to hide the Mirror?
Can it be broken, & the Stone retrieved?
Very vague.
To begin with, why was the Philosopher’s Stone at Gringotts?
Wasn’t it with Nicholas Flamel, giving him & his wife eternal life or something?
I thought Flamel was French!
So why was it hidden in a vault at Gringotts in London, and why was it hidden for a year, at Hogwarts?
Did they (as in? Dumble & Co.) know that Moldy Voldy was chasing it?
Who all knew, and How did they know?
How did Moldy Voldy know where was the Stone?
How did he guide Quirrel into the deep vaults of Gringotts?
How did the Centaurs know of this?
Apparently, so did some of the Goblins at Gringotts.
Why were all the teachers – or so many of them – told about it?
A fine way to hide a mysterious, powerful magical object!
What a pretty coincidence, that Quirrel made an attempt to rob the Stone on the very day Harry is introduced into the magical world – i.e., on his birthday – the very day Harry & Hagrid visit the vault where it had been hidden!
What a pretty coincidence that Quirrel attempted to steal the Stone (for the last time), on the very day the exams are over, and precisely after Harry works out that babbling, blundering Hagrid had given away to a stranger the secret how to make “Fluffy” fall asleep!
And what is the great “secret” anyway, if a Centaur – Firenze – in the forest knows that the Stone is hidden at Hogwarts?
One can question all these positions & events almost indefinitely.
There may be answers to them, but for an avid reader looking for answers to questions, way too much is left hazy, indefinite, unconvincing, and to rampant speculation.
In the 2nd novel, how was Dobby keeping track of all the letters his friends were sending Harry?
Isn’t he supposed to be at his Master’s place, doing a servant’s job?
He would have to practically be snooping & sneaking around Privet Drive each & every day, round the clock, to know who is sending letters to Harry, and when.
What exactly was Lucius Malfoy’s plan, to open the Chamber of Secrets?
To sneak a diary into the absolutely unreliable, careless hands of an unknown 11-year old kid (Ginny)??
Was this the great Lucius Malfoy’s plan, to unleash terror at Hogwarts, and get rid of “Mudbloods”?
Is such a thing even possible?
(The whole idea of a monster moving around the school, killing Muggle-born kids, is utter tosh! As if something like this could succeed!
Clearly, Sleuth-erin was a greater moron than Moldy Thingy.)
We are never told what was Lucius Malfoy’s precise intention, what did he expect, and how did he think the diary would work.
Wasn’t the Chamber to be opened by the Heir of Slytherin?
Did Lucius Malfoy know that the Heir of Slytherin was in the diary?
If he did, would he give it away so casually to a fresh, flippant, flibbertigibbet pre-teen newcomer from Gryffindor?
Way too much risk ... way too much left to chance!
Apparently, Malfoy didn’t even know what did the diary do, except very vaguely.
And with that measly tidbit of information, he just sneaked in a precious relic of Voldy’s into a wee kiddo’s hands?
What if she had dropped it, lost it, or accidently destroyed it?
What if she just left it lying somewhere, and forgot about it?
What if it fell into the hands of someone else?
THERE IS NO PLAN!!
It is utter daftness!
It is impossible to fathom what Lucius Malfoy’s strategy was.
It is also not easy to figure out why Dobby was so afraid for Harry, given that Harry wasn’t a Muggle-born or a Squib or anything out of place.
And it is impossible to figure out why Hagrid was held responsible for the death of Moaning Myrtle, when she wasn’t bitten by any beast or spider.
It is impossible to figure out HOW ANYONE could mistake the blundering, blithering, babbling, blubbering buffoon Hagrid to be the “Heir of Slytherin”!
How can a man who’s a half-Giant be the “Heir of Slytherin” who’ll purge all inferior-blooded kids for the supremacy of Pure Bloods?
How is it that Hagrid opened the Chamber of Secrets and was expelled for it, but nobody asked him where was the Chamber?
How on Earth did Voldy Tommy find the entrance to the Chamber, hidden as it is in the Girls’ Bathroom?
There was no Moaning Myrtle then!
And how on Earth did no one ask Moaning Myrtle how she died – whereas she’s been in that bathroom – in that school – for 50 years?
That would have led a glorious wizard like Dumbledore to the Chamber in about 15 seconds!
None of this made any sense to me, and I have no clue what was Rowling thinking.
I also found it utterly unconvincing that Sirius Black could be caught – that he just stood rooted to the spot, laughing like a madman, waiting for people to come & arrest him!
Hello! this is the wizarding world!
Why would a powerful wizard like Sirius ever allow himself to be caught?
It takes like a second to Apparate, doesn’t it?
And nobody questions him after he’s arrested?!!!!
Nobody questions the man because of whom Voldy fell, because of whom James & Lily died, whose betrayal led – albeit unwittingly – to the debacle of the Death Eaters & the Pure-Blood supremacists!!
Nobody in the whole Ministry of Magic, or the wizarding world, thought that Sirius Black must be a mine of information, could lead them to a bunch of traitors, could uncover many crucial secrets, identify members of Voldy’s innermost circles and and perhaps lead them to Darky Thingtums himself?
Nobody as much as asks him what he did, when did he change his allegiance, why?
There is no curiosity about James Potter’s best mate, his inseparable buddy – one of the most brilliant kids at Hogwarts – why did he betray James, why he betrayed the parents of his godson – no doubt or suspicious about whether he was Imperiused, or was somehow coerced or threatened, or in a fit of rage or madness?
Even Dumbledore never makes an effort to contact him after he is caught?
THERE IS NO OFFICIAL ENQUIRY OR ANY INVESTIGATION, IN CASE OF SIRIUS BLACK!!??!!??!!
This is the reason why only 14-year old kids can take Harry Potter seriously.
Because this is NOT how the world works.
You’re telling me these people have access to the highest levels of the world’s most powerful politicians – like the Prime Minister of Great Britain – they can tweak transcontinental meetings between the most powerful men in the world – and their Ministry did not conduct a thorough investigation and trial of Sirius Black?
Honestly, the lady made a billion dollar fortune by selling this!!
Since there is a very simple way of finding out what was the last spell cast by a wand, it would have taken approximately 3 seconds for Sirius to prove that he HADN’T killed Peter Pettigrew – because his wand wouldn’t have possessed that trace of a Killing Curse.
Instead, Sirius himself never makes the slightest effort to prove his innocence?
Not a word?
It is one thing that in 12 years nobody asked him a question about why he did what he did – it is another that he never cared to exonerate himself – never thought it necessary to communicate with Dumbledore and gang, and tell them about Peter Pettigrew’s treachery, that he never betrayed James?
He makes no effort to contact his school buddy Remus?
And the wizarding world always has Veritaserum and the Pensieve to extract and verify any truth or memory, so that you can actually just see what happened with the person, straight from his mind.
And here we arrive at the one big problem with the Harry Potter series: there is excessive magic.
There is way too much magic.
There is absolutely no way Hagrid could have been accused of being the Heir of Slytherin & be responsible for Myrtle’s death – there is no way Sirius could be condemned for the murder of James & Lily.
Because we have Veritaserum and the Pensieve to identify the actual contents of another person’s mind & memory – and to compel them to speak the truth as they know it.
Rowling tried to introduce and integrate into her elaborate plot, all forms of magic – which is a very laudable effort – but the fact is that it not only DOES NOT work, but also backfires.
At the end of Book 4, it would have taken just a few drops of Veritaserum to find out if Harry was telling the truth about Baldy Thingy’s return.
This has been pointed out by many readers.
The Veritaserum could be used, not only for this, but to confirm Barty Crouch Junior’s testimony, as heard by Harry, Dumbledore, Snape, MacGonagall, and Winky.
ALL FIVE OF THEM HAD HEARD EVERYTHING HE SAID.
ALL FIVE OF THEM WOULD HAVE CONFIRMED EVERYTHING HE SAID, EVEN AFTER HE WAS “KISSED” BY THE DEMENTOR.
The Pensieve thing could also have been used, for all five of them.
Certainly, all five would not lie, or tamper with their memories?
His entire confession, verifying Voldy’s return, could be confirmed easily, within a matter of minutes.
Above all, BARTEMIUS CROUCH JUNIOR’S BODY IS VERY MUCH THERE!!
His mind and soul might be gone, but his body is still alive – or at least present, physically.
The very existence of his body is testimony that something is seriously amiss, and everything the wizarding world knew about him & his father, was wrong.
Remember, Bartemius Jr. is supposed to have died about 14 years back, and been buried in Azkaban.
So how is his body here, at Hogwarts??
Certainly Cornelius Fudge saw him?
How could he see Crouch Jr., know who he is, and not be totally bewildered?
The man is supposed to be dead!
And after that, especially in the 5th novel, there’s absolutely no mention of Bartemius Crouch Junior.
It’s like the whole man & his story vanished into thin air.
That’s a little too convenient, because to mention him is to reveal a gigantic hole in the story.
All Dumbledore needs to do, is to show the world a photo of the body of Bartemius Crouch Junior, and everybody will understand that something is seriously wrong!
Everybody knows that Alastor Moody had been impersonated for a whole year by Crouch Jr., and yet nobody wonders where did this Death-Eater, supposed to be dead & buried at Azkaban, come from – and how did he manage to fool the entire world as Alastor Moody for an entire year – and why??
These are just a few things which are pretty disturbing.
Tolkien avoids such enormous blunders, by keeping his “magic” very vague & restricted.
It’s not crackling all over the place.
If anything, there is too little of it, especially in Gandalf.
What exactly makes Gandalf a “Wizard”, before he is “sent back”, as “Gandalf the Grey”, is difficult to guess.
He’s just like any man, but with great knowledge, resolution, energy, and resourcefulness.
The “magic” mostly centers on the Ring itself, and some magical creatures, like the Eagles (who can talk like men), the Balrog, etc. and to an extent, Shadowfax.
One certainly wonders why Tolkien’s “Dark Lord” invested so much of his own power in a tiny ring – but given that strange premise, most of what the author shows is more or less logical & convincing.
Rowling has somewhat corrected this error, by making Voldy Thingling hide parts of his soul in seven objects, and that too unknown objects hidden from everyone.
Tolkien’s problems are different.
Prolonged, painfully dull & seemingly repetitive descriptions of terrain – and the rather lousy idea of Frodo & his companions just WALKING or running all over the place – are the two greatest drawbacks.
Tolkien should have devised some other means of conveying his characters from one place to the other: or at least change it every time (like after Lothlorien, the Fellowship of the Ring go down the Anduin in boats).
There is way too much talk of rivers, rivulets, valleys, ravines, glens, fens, bogs, sunsets, sunlight, clouds, forests, rocks, hills, slopes, banks, fords, and “eyots” – all indistinguishably merging with each other, and taking up what feels like 40% of the epic.
I also felt that Frodo never emerges as a distinct character in himself.
He has no background, no purpose in life, no philosophy of life.
For me, the hero of the novel is Samwise Gamgee, the next most interesting character being Gandalf who is the most purposeful character in the epic.
People might also find Tolkien a little racist – very caught up with ideas of blood purity – of superior races, inferior men, and the decline of pure blood of higher races through intermingling with the allegedly inferior.
Yet another knotty point is that of Tolkien’s Christian beliefs.
As far as I see, there is not a drop of Christian feeling anywhere in the whole Lotr opus.
I might come to that issue sometime later, because I’m not wholly aquainted with Tolkien’s beliefs.
Where, for example, is the Christian family?
Christian marriage?
Christian hearth & home?
There are certainly some codes & themes written into the story itself – like it is obvious Numenor is based on Atlantis – but I doubt if Lotr is a Christian work.
It is undoubtedly a very Western-European work.
There is more Christianity in Harry Potter than in Lotr.
Note added on 18th November, 2023:
I will say that the Weasley family is the Christian family par excellence.
The benevolence of that family is very touching & impressive.
Their love is extended to one and all – they almost adopt Harry like a child, and protect him like one of their own, finally even risking their lives for him.
Hermione is there for most of the holidays.
Molly uncomplainingly cooks for, and looks after, all of them – like 10 people – more, if you include members of The Order of the Phoenix – like a true Mother.
The spirit of Charity couldn’t be better exemplified, and this is made more poignant & inspiring by the fact that is a very large family, but without wealth.
There’s also this thing about it being a robust large family: clearly Arthur & Molly weren’t paying much attention to contraception and “family planning”! :)
Jokes apart, it is actually the very picture of a traditional, conservative family – the very best of such families.
It’s not a simplistically portrayed, propagandistically “ideal” family: there is total chaos, constant bickering & arguing, fighting (in case of Percy, a temporary falling out), and even a bit of bullying (Ron is mildly bullied by George & Fred all the time, who also keep harassing Percy) – but this is what makes it so real, and so perfect.
There is no such depiction, in Lotr, unless you take the subsidiary character of Farmer Maggot (and his family).
What a name.
Again, Maggot is hardly a part of the story – (there’s only a few pages dedicated to him) – but rather one of the stations where Frodo & Co. halt for temporary reprieve, in their journey.
I do not intend to demean either Rowling or Tolkien.
Tolkien is an awe-inspiring figure with all his idiosyncrasies & faults.
These are people who have started & finished something very vast, very deep, very complex – and they must be respected for that.
Rowling has attempted a little too intricate plot with way too many characters & events in a world with way too much magic.
Anything attempted at such a large scale, is bound to have several defects.
I don’t take either LOTR or the Harry Potter series as something unimportant or fleeting.
They perhaps made more of an impact in their times, than Shakespeare did in his.
LOTR has become undoubtedly the definitive fantasy epic of the 20th century.
The Harry Potter series is the most successful novel series in the history of mankind, selling more than 500 million copies!
The LOTR film franchise made upto $ 2.991 billion, according to Wikipedia (by 2003, i.e.).
The Harry Potter series, way more than that.
These are major cultural phenomenon of our times, and it would do well to scrutinize them and understand what makes them tick.
They have their issues – very serious issues at that – and yet, both have created something truly magical & unforgettable.
I’ll try to analyze Tolkien in detail, sometime later.
As for Rowling, she is so masterful at conveying, and infecting the reader with, strong, poignant emotions, that the literary flaws of her work pale before the power of human sentiment that infuses the Harry Potter series with such force & intensity.
