Things People need to Explain to Me #1: Harry Potter

I can be a douche. Mostly, this happens accidentally. You see, there's certain things people love that I just don't get. And if I point out the flaws in these things, people get annoyed. The mid-season finale of South Park, a show I do get and love, pretty much summed up how I feel about popular culture today. (If you haven't seen it, I won't bore you with the details.)

So I've decided to just write about it and refer people to that. Today's topic is one that's been relevant lately. You see, I don't get the Potter craze. Don't get me wrong; I read them as a kid. I enjoyed them like any child would - until I grew out of them. The moment I picked up a book not meant for children, I started to notice the simplistic writing, the plot holes, the contrivances present in the Harry Potter series. It's just not well-written. This is perfectly fine - for a children's book, and, after all, that's all Harry Potter was ever supposed to be: a children's book, and it's painfully obvious that Rowling doesn't know how to write in any other style.

So my problem isn't really with the books themselves.Like I said, I used to read kids' books. In addition to Harry Potter, I devoured Redwall, Animorphs, all that fun stuff. But I grew out of them. What I don't understand is why most people haven't. Even people who have read classics like Catcher in the Rye or the Fountainhead (yes, even if you hate it, it is a classic and it is well-written; deal with it) love Harry Potter. Of course, I'm not saying all classics are good. Some of them are downright awful. My point is that when a book is engaging, intelligent and well-written, it deserves recognition. When a book is contrived, simplistic, and contains enough archetypes to sink even the most well-written novel, it deserves criticism.

In the interest of anyone who has legitimately not understood what is wrong with the Harry Potter series, I'll give a brief explanation. (And yes, I've read all of them.)

The books are essentially simplistic and clumsy. You have to really search to find any imaginative diction in a Harry Potter novel. Rowling writes like a decently-talented eight-grader: there's nothing wrong with her diction and style, but there's nothing particularly good about it either. It's all technically correct, but there's no complexity. This can be fine if you're trying to make a statement, and, in fact, too much complexity done badly can murder a novel. However, if you're going to write that way, you need to stick to it. It's obvious from reading Rowling's works that she's trying to create a complex universe. She's not being simple to say anything, or to keep the story focused; she just literally isn't capable of writing in an intelligently complex manner. The fact that she is trying, and failing, is awkward and embarrassing to any intelligent reader that picks up one of her novels.

In addition, Rowling often has trouble controlling her own plot and characters. Her plot is full of holes, and she's horribly clumsy about the development and growth of her characters. I won't go into plot holes, because even the most hardcore Harry Potter fan knows about the biggest one: as soon as Rowling introduced the time-turner in the third novel, she took an easy way out that ruined her book. We all know why time-travel doesn't work in this series and why it killed any worth the novel had. If you don't understand why, ask anyone who even remotely grasps the concept of plot and suspense.

Instead, I would like to focus on Rowling's awkward character development through the lens of Neville Longbottom. Neville is the perfect illustration of Rowling's inability to fully develop her characters. In the first book, he's your archetypal socially-awkward kid who's not good at anything. He shows some character in the first novel, when he tries to stop the main characters from retrieving the Sorcerer's Stone, or in the second, when he displays an aptitude for herbology. In fact, other than being a bit of a cliche, there was nothing really wrong with him until the fifth book, in which he suddenly and inexplicably becomes a badass.

Harry Potter fans love this reversal. However, it's one of the best examples of just how poorly written the series is. There's no buildup, no development of the Neville character prior to his sudden transformation. We learn that his parents were tortured by Death Eaters, but when we do, his reaction is what we'd expect from him: he's visibly upset by the implementation of the Cruciatus Curse on a spider. There's no indication that the fate of his parents has made him in some way stronger or more determined. In fact, there's no explanation at all as to why Neville switches from cringing, socially-awkward nerd into a gritty magical powerhouse. It's just sort of mentioned a few times that he's surprisingly good at some of the spells and then, magically (no pun intended) he becomes one of the best.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with role-reversal in a novel. In fact, the growth of a particular character is part of what keeps us interested. Rowling, however, doesn't develop characters; she just sort of changes them. Neville becoming a super-powerful wizard would have been an awesome sub-plot to follow if we had learned that he had worked hard to perfect his spells, because he wanted to avenge his parents, or that he had some secret skill or trait that allowed him to finally grasp the concept of magic and make it into a powerful tool. But we don't get any explanation whatsoever. All we get is a nerd who becomes a force to be reckoned with, with some token background thrown in. This is the same mistake M. Night Shyamalan makes with his movies: a twist or sudden reversal is no substitute for plot and character development.

I could go on and on about the clumsiness of the Harry Potter series' plot. Why does Bill marry Fleur? Is that really necessarily? Both of them are basically just support characters. Why does Fred die? It adds some tragedy I guess, but again, Rowling didn't know what she wanted with that character. He changes from support to comic relief and back again so quickly that by then his death isn't really necessary. Rowling's attempt at tragedy is to kill her drama's intelligent clown. It's clearly thrown in there so Rowling can point out that hey, guys, this shit's getting serious, which is really the same thing she already pulled in the fourth book with the death of Cedric Diggory.

But adding an occasional death or torture scene doesn't give the book depth. In fact, it just serves to reveal Rowling's incapability to write in a sufficiently complex manner. For example, we don't really get an understanding of why Voldemort is so evil. He kills and tortures people, and he's a bigot, therefore he's evil. And while that's perfectly acceptable logic, it doesn't really make the character unique or especially hateful. He's your stereotypical bad guy, not a well-developed character. You're glad when he dies, you feel a sense of relief perhaps, but you don't really feel like you know who it is that's been killed. The reader is left wanting to know why Voldemort is so evil, what made him this way. If you're going to create a magical Hitler, you really need to explain what created him. Sure, there's some attempt at character development in the second book, but it doesn't really go beyond the yawn-inducing cliche that Riddle's parents never loved him, or that he's an orphan or whatever it was. Frankly, I don't even remember, because it was so expected, and the second book was one of the best.

The point I'm trying to make here is that Rowling's books are perfectly acceptable if you're at an age or reading level that does not demand a large amount of thought or analysis, and there's nothing wrong with this type of book. I read John Grisham, for example. They're not very well-written, they're clumsily and obviously political. I read them for fun, not because I expect anything out of them. I certainly don't count them as good literature.

My problem with fans of Rowling's series is not at all that they enjoy Harry Potter, but that they hold it up as an example of an excellent book series, when, objectively, Harry Potter isn't anything special. The books are entertaining. They're fun. But they aren't classics. They don't say anything new, they don't really go beyond a surface level of meaning or plot. They're a childrens' adventure story. If you want to read them, go ahead. But don't tell me it's one of the best things you've ever read. Because if you do, I have a long list of books that are better. Enjoy Harry Potter, but please don't demean well-written books by elevating J.K. Rowling to the level of J.D. Salinger. There's a line to be drawn, and recognizing what is good and what isn't is an important part of keeping literature relevant. Harry Potter is ok, but it's just that: ok. It's not a classic, it's not the best book ever written. It's a children's book, and for all the money it makes and all the fans it has, its writing ensures that's all it can reasonably remain.