The View from Elsewhere: Harry Potter and the death of culture

I read a review of the 'Harry' phenomenon by Peter Craven a couple of weeks back in the Weekend Australian. I kind of warm to Craven; he seems like a likeable enough fart.

Craven states, 'Some critics deride Harry Potter as the death of culture', namely Bloom and Byatt, and notes various concerns such as whether HP 'does represent the triumph of marketing values over any other' and the problem (if it is one) that J K R is 'not a distinguished stylist.' Then back to the main fear:

The fear with Harry Potter is that the fuss about the books is a symptom of the death of culture. We are starting to live in a world where even professors of literature and cultural studies are ceasing to be able to tell the difference between serious writing and the kind of writing tht happens to sell, however modest its literary attainments.

I'm no great champion of cultural studies myself (too much Radio National-listening and ABC Friday Night of Crime-viewing going on for that), but I don't get this line of argument (coming from Bloom and Byatt) about the HP and the death of culture via cultural studies at all. Since when have professors of literature and cultural studies had enough power to channel market forces? They wish! Maybe I'm out of the loop with cultural studies but I can't imagine they have had any but the most tendentious influence on this marketing phenomenon.

Craven goes on to make various other interesting points about Dickens being a Victorian vulgarian and maybe Dr Who being a better analogy for J K R than C S Lewis or J R R Tolkien. He also makes the same apologies for J K R that were made for Blyton -- that her books might lead kids on to reading other books.

I wonder if Enid Blyton had been writing in these times with the same mass marketing machinery available whether she would have become the same phenomenal success. Personally, I think J K R is a cut above Blyton, but not as good a YA writer as those I remember from my youth such as Ursula le Guin, Susan Cooper and Alan Garner. But what J K R really does have going for her is a highly accessible conceit which draws on many popular, tried-and-true elements from past elements of children's fiction.

I had hopes of writing some serious reviews from my holiday reading. I would have liked to have finished reading the Strehlow book (Barry's Hill) but it was too heavy for me to lug around. So you're just some piecemeal reviews here, like the Gail Bell one.

And ...MDA: there's heavy shit going down at MDA -- two simply incredulous plot lines at once (maybe it's time to put this show to bed). I caught an episode of this show last week. Sigrid Thornton is a wonder professor trialling a new wonder and possibly dangerous drug on a 17 yo girl with some kind of illness. However, it seems she's falsified the trial results after a lab break-in in order to keep the show on the road. Meanwhile, the girl's mother is revealed to be an inappropriate kidney donor (she's stuffed up her kidneys)...and then so is the father, because he's not her biological father at all. In fact, their daughter has be born of a one-night stand with the lead singer of a band now turned builder. So MDA must in the nick of time (I'm not even sure why it needed to be them) pacify the non-biological father, get him to track down the builder and persuade the latter to donate a kidney...all I can say is that it was lucky the 17 yo asleep when the builder saw her because she’s a thoroughly obnoxious and precocious child and would definitely have put me off kidney donorship (apart from the fact that it's probably an incredibly painful procedure that wouldn't mix well with labouring).

Totally incredulous plot-line 2 -- Sigrid Thornton and Shane Bourne (has he lost weight?) seem to be having an affair (even showed them kissing -- errrk!) I guess all the characters on MDA have had a bit of a fling so there was nowhere else to turn but to Shane. It seems his character's on-a-harley-therefore-he’s-having-a-midlife-crisis: not particularly subtle, but subtlety’s never been Australian drama’s strong point. Shane does a lot of padding after Sigrid like a hungry dog, but while his character's quite tightly zipped in general I thought he could have given things a bit more oomph -- some more attempts at suaveness, more besottedness, maybe, just a bit of something.

As for Siggy: a friend of mine once described her as having the most annoying face on Australian television. I’ve been trying to work out what it is about her, as I think she’s quite good-looking, but there is something about the set of her mouth that’s intensely irritating – it's like a petulant duck's bill. Anyway, I daresay Shane is going to get his come-uppances when he realises what a vixen she is.

So fruity melodrama contiues at MDA these days and overall, I'm not sure about all this ABC drama incest (esp between MDA and Sea Change) that's been going on: couldn't they broaden their drawing pool? Though doubtless I will be tuning in again once Vince Colosimo graces the screen...

And -- I've been very slack lately about reading and commenting and linking other blogs etc (I spend enough time reading the dozen or so blogs I do read; I'm not sure what my life would be about if I read any more.) It has also come to my attention that one of my former rivals from Troppo Armadillo has linked me to his new(ish?) blog, lavartus prodeo...thanks, and welcome Mark, if you're reading this: I like cats too. And blogging.

Which leads me to another point...

Comments

Yeah, more Vince Colostomy bag. I actually thought it was unwatchable because the only people who could act were Siggy and Shane, but you're right, Siggy is annoying and she was way too well dressed for a medical researcher.

But you missed the important pop-cultural reference in the father-daughter plot line - the muso-cum-builder was Tim Rogers from You Am I. He couldn't act either, and looked rather too clean and drug-free for my liking.

Posted by: Bathsheba | August 03, 2005 at 04:13 PM