HOME / the book club: New books dissected over e-mail.

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

The New Harry: Riotous, Rushed, and Remarkable

Posted Monday, July 10, 2000, at 7:00 PM ET

Dear Judith,

I stayed up way past my bedtime reading this book last night. My boyfriend quite reasonably wanted to sleep, and we had houseguests camped in the living room, so I curled up on the bathroom floor and read until 1:30 in the morning. I wasn't cramming for this review--I didn't know I'd be writing one until just a few minutes ago, when you and I agreed to compare our impressions in print. It's just that things kept happening. In the first 200 pages, the evil wizard Voldemort snacked on a new victim; the home of Harry's miserably non-magical relatives was stormed by sympathetic rescuers; Harry attended his first Quidditch World Cup; a much-feared dissident faction revisited the wizard world; the old gang returned to school at Hogwarts; the all-important, 700-year-old TriWizard Tournament was announced; and an intriguing new Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher was introduced. I kept looking for a natural place to stop reading, but these events were so tightly braided together--by the time one ended, another was in full swing--that I couldn't put the book down.

The previous volumes, while thickly plotted, proceeded at a more leisurely pace. It's as if Rowling, who has promised the world seven installments, suddenly realized how much narrative labor lies ahead before the series is through. In no particular order, she must secure a safe future for the wrongfully accused Sirius Black; explain Hagrid's muddied history; fill in the blanks about Harry's parents' still-mysterious deaths; bring the odious Draco Malfoy to a suitably nasty end; sort out the political infighting at the Ministry of Magic; get each of the students past their O.W.L.s (Ordinary Wizarding Level exams); and stage the decisive battles between Harry and his oppressor Lord Voldemort. And if The Goblet of Fire is any indication, Rowling is still spinning new characters and plot lines as fast as she's resolving others. No wonder this book weighs in at 734 pages.

The miracle is that the clamorous storytelling feels right--rushed, to be sure, but thrillingly so, and even somewhat true to life. Rowling yanks Harry and his pals into adolescence rather rudely, inflicting them with zits and crushes and grouchiness they'd shown very little trace of before. But real puberty strikes even more insidiously and awkwardly. The plot developments in the first two hundred pages do streak past a bit too quickly, but then again, time truly does speed up as you get older. It's a little bracing to see Harry's world, which has hitherto been confined mostly to Hogwarts and environs, suddenly include wizards and schools of other nationalities. But a 14-year-old's universe does tend to expand radically, so the sudden appearance of foreigners and funny accents and tourists don't seem wrong.

Magic helps move the plot along too. Like Mr. Weasley, who erects a pup tent that's actually a three-room flat, Rowling uses spells to cram more plot into Goblet of Fire than one expects it could hold. Her narrative feats would certainly be impossible in the real(ist) world. Harry instantly escapes from life-threatening predicaments by summoning the correct potion or enchanted gadget, allowing us to move on to his next adventure. Likewise, Rowling can quickly work her way out of a narrative dead end or intractable character issue simply by conjuring up a new magical creature, charm, or tradition. Trapped by the sinister Professor Snape? Enter an Invisibility Cloak, a Marauder's Map, a Sneakoscope! If you had these devices at your disposal, you could pack in a lot of nimble plot turns too.

Which makes Rowling's restraint all the more admirable. She doesn't abuse her magical privileges--like the best of the Hogwarts crowd, Rowling establishes and obeys a definite set of rules. She allows Harry to solve minor emergencies--getting caught in the school hallways after curfew, that sort of thing--with bewitched trinkets and just-learned spells. But the big trials require more than magic on Harry's part; he must rely on logical deduction and bravery and cunning and friendship. And instead of resolving the big moments with deus-ex-machina tricks, Rowling laboriously constructs resolutions that tap into, and further, the central narratives.

In terms of sheer delight, I haven't savored anything as much as this series since, well, since the last time I hid in a bathroom to read. My one complaint, and it's a biggie, is that the moral lessons of the series so far--be true to your friends, evil is as evil does, things aren't what they seem, every rule has an exception--seem to me a lot less intriguing than Rowling's dazzling narrative triumphs. As the plot grows more intricate, do you think the book's messages will follow? Am I asking too much of what is, after all, a children's book?

One current plot line, in which Harry's friend Hermione campaigns to liberate Hogwarts' house-elves, shows some promise. All the elves but one (and all the wizards except Hermione) insist they enjoy their indentured-servant status. Is Hermione a lone moral beacon or an overzealous, misguided liberal intent on saving those who are better off as they are?

Your bewitched friend,

Jodi

The New Harry: Riotous, Rushed, and Remarkable

Posted Monday, July 10, 2000, at 7:00 PM ET
Print This ArticlePRINTEmail to a FriendE-MAILShare This ArticleRECOMMEND...Get Slate RSS FeedsRSS
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire This week, a discussion of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, by J.K. Rowling. Jodi Kantor edits Slate’s "Book Club," "Breakfast Table," and "Diary" features. Judith Shulevitz writes the "Culturebox" column. They both started reading The Goblet of Fire over the weekend and decided to compare notes. If you haven’t read any of the books in the Potter series, click here for an introduction to their charms.
COMMENTS

Reader Response from The Fray (to be read after the most recent entry):


The main concern of an Edmund/Iago villain like Voldemort is not revenge but virtuosity. He must continually prove his own godlike superiority to the rest of the human race by reducing all around him to manipulated objects whom he allows, until the moment of cruel revelation, to enjoy the illusion of free will. Some philosophers have defined property as the projection of an individual's will into a thing, and this type of character is driven by resentment to convert every other human being into his property.

Whatever other failings Harry Potter may have as a human being, it is not surprising that he lacks resentment. Notwithstanding his ghastly upbringing among the Dursleys, his life since the arrival of the first owl from Hogwarts has been a succession of delightful surprises. He has discovered not merely that he is a member of a community of superior beings, but that he is an extraordinarily gifted and celebrated member, blessed with shrewd and powerful adult patrons. Certainly he has his troubles (who does not), and he is not universally loved (who is), but he is a born insider on the fast track to the highest levels of the Wizard establishment. What is there in his situation to drive him towards the Dark Arts?

Ron Weasley, on the other hand, is a natural candidate for seduction by the bad guys. Even in the first volume, his look in the magic mirror revealed him as someone who badly wants distinction. He has always disliked the handmedowns and humiliations imposed by his family's poverty; as he grows older in Vol. 4, he is becoming increasingly angry about it and increasingly greedy for money. He is jealous of his second fiddle status to Harry. From personal pride and family loyalty, he longs to destroy the Malfoys father and son. Ron is a decent fellow with the makings of a crooked cop in him, and there is a great deal that Voldemort could promise him to win him over. If Rowling wants to drive the Potter story in a morally complex direction, the temptation of Ron Weasley is the vehicle she should be using.

--Jack Cerf

(To reply, click here.)

You write that, while you read the book, you're "doing what every Potter fan is doing, reading the critics..." Judith, this is an understandable professional handicap/bias on your part. In truth, no Potter fans need critics to tell them what to think, or even care what "the critics" think. The idea of Harry Potter's audience turning to the NY Times to find out if it's right to like him is hilarious. By now we almost think that English professors (in existence for 80 years, at most) made Shakespeare and Milton and Dickens and company popular. This Saturday, midnight, watching the readers snatching up the books, I realized with joy that, although my own profession (English professor) has all but destroyed itself, literature never needed us anyway, and would do just fine without us.

--George Leonard
(Professor of Humanities, San Francisco State University)

(To reply, click here.)



I, like Harry Potter, am a 14-year-old adolescent who has experienced the trials and tribulations of both school and puberty. I have gone to many lengths to read this book. I haven't gone as far as curling up on the bathroom floor, but I have shunted my responsibilities for the past 3 days so that I could finish it. But in terms of a moral lesson being a part of these books, I don't think that there are any, nor should there be any. It is my opinion that one of the reasons that these books are so wildly popular is because they have a truly fantastical flair about them, not because they present good moral lessons and standards. I am by no means saying that I disliked Ms Kantor's article, I actually enjoyed it very much, but I think that perhaps not every book written that is geared towards a younger audience should have a moral lesson. Those of us who are not quite of age yet are having examples of good and bad morals forced upon us every day of our lives: I thought that the Harry Potters were a nice way to sit back, and let someone else go through things that would never, ever happen to us, and still be able to appreciate the fact that he can do the right thing without a moral lesson nagging at him, making him ultimately ask things like "now, what did we learn from all this?"

--Frocodile

(To reply, click here.)

[Notes from The Fray: There were a number of arguments about whether the books promoted Satanism--one starts here with a comparison with Alice in Wonderland. The Fray Editor also strongly recommends this post from James Grimmelmann: but--spoiler alert--only for those who have finished the book, as it gives away some secrets from the plot. This further post from Mr Grimmelmann not only continues the discussion but also has the best title in The Fray: "Nobody here but us Manicheans".]


What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES
TODAY'S PICTURES
TODAY'S CARTOONS
TODAY'S DOONESBURY
TODAY'S VIDEO
The Berlin Wall.4/091109_TP.jpg
Cartoonists' take on guns and shootings.2/091109_TC.jpg
Ins and outs.73/091109_TD.jpg