We all know and love JK Rowling's award-winning series, Harry Potter. Over the span of the seven books in the franchise, Rowling introduces the readers to a world of her own design.
But doesn't it feel like she could have done more?
Even when I was young, I noticed a plethora of lost opportunities within the world-building and storytelling of the series. In specific, the Hogwarts houses.
For context, if you have been living under a rock, there are four houses that the students are divided into:
-Gryffindor: The "main character" house. The people within this house are brave, strong-willed, and overall the ideal protagonist for a fantasy novel.
-Slytherin: The "antagonists" of the story. These people are described as ambitious, dedicated, and strongwilled. Usually people coming from a position of wealth or politics.
-Ravenclaw: Described to be very book-smart and secluded.
-Hufflepuff: Written to be very loyal to their friends, as well as kind and forgiving.
When Rowling wrote these houses, her bias was apparent. She poured the majority of her effort into developing the Gryffindor house, leaving the other three to be sadly underwritten.
To add insult to injury, she put all three main characters into Gryffindor, even though their personalities didn't quite match that of the house. Harry Potter, though the main character, is not brash or brave-- not in the beginning of the series at least--- he overanalized every action he ever made. If he ever did something that could be deemed overly brave, it was for the sake of his friends. His most prominent trait is loyalty which, ironically enough, is the key character trait of a Hufflepuff.
Hermoine Granger and Ron Weasley, the secondary protagonists of the story, was also somewhat misplaced in their houses. Hermoine is described to be always nose-deep in a book. She has a desire to learn things simply for the sake of learning. If ever she feels underprepared for a situation, she doesn't run into the conflict until she has a strategized game plan. Her characteristics better suit a Ravenclaw. Ron, surprisingly enough, seen to be the only one of the three that has any complying character traits to a Gryffindor, as he tends to act without thinking or considering the consequences. Though he doesn't match perfectly with the houses profiled description, and he may be better suited in another house.
Rowling used the houses to unintentionally restrain the personalities of her characters. She profiled every Gryffindor as a "copy and pasted" personality of valor, even though the idea of bravery can manifest in different ways. Bravery could be standing up against a big unstoppable villain, but it can also be standing up for a friend. Slytherins are described as these wicked, evil people that only care about bring the downfall of the Gryffindors. But the character description of a Slytherin is ambitious and dedicated. Those aren't negative qualities, but Rowling portrayed them as such, giving the reader a negative impression of everyone in the house. Ravenclaws are nothing more than book-ridden geeks in Rowling's eyes. She does nothing to emphasize their character traits, even though it would open up a window of opportunity for other exciting characters. A similar situation appears with Hufflepuff, though in a more noticeable severity. Rowling depicts these characters as weak-willed and "soft" in behavior. Becuase of this, she once again loses a valuable opportunity for a more diverse palate of characters.
I think that overall, Rowling's writing lacks a very simple ideology: The children at Hogwarts are just that-- children. Though there may be a few rude or offputting characters (cough cough Draco Mafoy), for the most part, they are just students trying to get an education. She doesn't let any of the houses positively interact with one another, causing the tension between them grow, and she uses the houses as a way to cover the simplistic 2D traits of her characters.
Rowling came up with a great story, I am not trying to imply that she didn't. I just belive that she lost valuable storytelling opportunities in the midst of her bias against certain character traits. I belive that the integration of better thought out houses and traits could lead to more cohesive character to character communication and overall pot.
I completely agree. The series was wonderful, and I'm glad to have read it, but the more I look back on it the more I realize that the series was not the literary masterpiece I once considered it to be.
ReplyDeleteI agree 100%. After reading your post and thinking back on the series, it does become clearer that Rowling used the houses to cover up characters that are very well 2D.
DeleteLove this analysis and the guts to say it out loud! Do you think it gained accolades because young children read it? Did you only realize this as you were older?
ReplyDeleteI especially agree that she should have explored the other houses. Other then Gryffindor and maybe Slytherin, there are like 2 characters from the other houses. That is really disappointing because I am sure that the students from other houses had stories to tell too.
ReplyDeleteCouldn't agree more, the main three all have very different personalities yet chose them to be all in one house. While the story is easily lovable with the world building, JK Rowling definitely couldn't put more effort in exploring her characters.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree. I wish she gave more insight on the three other houses, instead of just focusing on Gryffindor.
ReplyDelete