Graduation is almost upon me. I feel my days discussing Star Wars in an academic setting drawing to a close. As I worry about my future, I write my final blog post on how "Harry Potter" totally ripped off "Star Wars."
I'm not here to attack "Harry Potter" for having a plot similar to "Star Wars." Some already have. I don't believe that. I think both Harry Potter and Star wars ripped off the Monomyth, and I don't hold that against them in any way. It's amazing to me that completely different mediums can follow the same blueprint unconsciously laid out by thousands of years of storytelling and still capture the imaginations of millions. That J.K. Rowling and George Lucas relied on the Monomyth to prop up their respective sagas of chosen heroes, powerful magic and phallic weaponry speaks more to the power of the Monomyth than it does any alleged creative bankruptcy.
In class we've tried to hit on the appeal of Harry Potter. Some great points have been raised. I particularly like the idea that the Wizard World, to young readers, might as well have actually existed outside the pages of Rowling's novels. But there's another point some make frequently that needs some refining. It is the assertion that people like Harry Potter because its world is so fully realized. The thought seems to be that by simply having a thoroughly-explained world, "Harry Potter" launched a $15 billion brand.
That doesn't ring true to me. We've seen plenty of better-developed worlds in science fiction and fantasy, and few have approached the success of "Harry Potter." "Dune," "Lord of the Rings," "Wheel of Time," and "Warhammer 40,000" have thousands of years of history animating their central narratives. They also have hundreds of worlds and characters with stakes in the main conflict. Viewed alongside these series, it becomes evident that simply having a complex and thoroughly-explained world does not a Scholastic Blockbuster make. There's something that Rowling does that few of her contemporaries do not.
Where "Harry Potter" totally rips off "Star Wars" is in how Rowling builds her world. "Star Wars" is a massive fictional universe - so massive that when Disney bought it The Mouse demanded that all stories, comic books and video games outside the original six films be removed from the canon - but it's also a universe that's revealed elegantly. "A New Hope," the first Star Wars film, tosses off references to Clone Wars, the Jedi, the Empire and the Force, all heady topics that Lucas explains just enough of at just the right narrative points so viewers never get bogged down and lose site of what makes Star Wars great: enjoyable characters, wild adventure and physics-defying space explosions.
Rowling follows suit. We understand just enough about the Wizard World, how magic works and how Harry fits into it all. We're never bogged down with fake languages, ponderous philosophy or the political machinations of the world (at least not yet). Harry Potter knows what it is: a rip-snorting adventure with a great trio of characters and a world made fun less by its nitty-gritty details than by its grand vision. Rowling never breaks pace. In "A New Hope", Lucas never did either. That's the influence of Star Wars, and that's to a large extent why I think "Harry Potter" is successful.
Bryan, I was fairly confident your closing post would reference Star Wars in some way, and you delivered. I agree with your point that the depth and detail of the Harry Potter and Star Wars universes are not the core reasons why they have seen astronomical success. A more important reason is the incredibly broad cross-generational appeal of these stories.
ReplyDeleteGame of Thrones is too violent and sexual to appeal to young generations, as well as people who prefer shows without excessive gore and nudity. Lord of the Rings brings a bit too much sophistication to appeal to most kids. Divergent and Hunger Games struggle to appeal to adults and fizzle out in their later stories. The comparisons go on and on, but the idea is that to achieve optimal success, a series needs to hit a sweet spot between demographics (as well as be great from start to finish). As we discussed in class, many of Harry Potter’s youngest fans may not fully grasp every aspect of the story, but the quick pace and exciting world keep them engaged. Contrarily, the depth of the characters and the detail of the world entice more sophisticated readers. The Star Wars films can be similarly compared—I did not understand Darth Vader’s complex backstory when I was 7, but I still thought he was an ultra-badass super villain.
I know plenty of other series attempt to hit this sweet spot—it’s not like the idea of a broad-appeal series is groundbreaking. Actually finding that balance while also creating an incredible story is nearly impossible, however, and that’s what makes Harry Potter and Star Wars outstanding.
Star Wars, Harry Potter, and basically every creative work (whether intentionally or not) borrows from work crafted thousands of years ago. You were quick to point out that this doesn’t detract from the genius of Harry Potter, but I think the implication was clear enough to demand further analysis. I am very certain that I will never be capable of inventing half the ingenious characteristics of the Wizarding World. Ultimately, this creativity and originality is what makes series’ such as Star Wars and Harry Potter so prolific. Hunger Games and Divergent feel ephemeral because of their failure to dive nearly as deep into the creative depths. Hunger Games simply cannot stand up to the intricacy of Harry Potter, and is thus incapable of standing up to other retellings of the gladiator pit. Harry Potter and Star Wars can stand alone because the additional layers of creativity make the Monolyth unrecognizable to most people, including me (who frankly doesn’t even know what the Monolyth is). The impulse to compare new works to old can be unhealthy. At the end of the day, novels are created to entertain. Sure, they may be a more sophisticated form of entertainment than iPhone video games, but they are still designed to capture the imaginations of a new generation. Works made with the intention of fulfilling analytical and academic glory rarely do the same. If I have learned anything in this class, it is that you should read what interests you, because at the end of the day, what we see today as pretentious, intellectual novels were once viewed as fanatical sources of entertainment. Literature is an art, but it is art in its capacity to entertain.
ReplyDelete