Swords, Sorcery, and Schoolwork
Nov. 21st, 2005 05:17 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
vovatThis morning, I got my car serviced. While I was waiting, I went on a walk with my dad and Barbara. It was kind of chilly, but a better way to spend the time than sitting around in the waiting room there. I even forgot to bring a book (although I DID have my copy of Volume 6 of Oz-Story), so it probably would have been even more boring than usual. I seem to have developed a blister on the back of my right foot, though.
Since I've had both Oz and Harry Potter on my mind as of late, I was thinking about one of the major differences between the two series. Such differences have been mentioned before, not least of all on this page by Dave Hardenbrook, former Nonestica moderator and desirer of a torrid affair with Ozma. I don't necessarily agree with all of Dave's points, which is to say that they're all more or less accurate, but not all what I'd consider important or representative. I could certainly expand on that, but I doubt anyone is interested, so I'll move on to what I see as a significant difference, and that's the treatment of children.
My dad said something the other day about how, in the Potter books, something major always happens toward the end that's pretty much forgotten about at the beginning of the next story. I don't think this is totally true, but it IS true that Harry's constant heroism rarely wins him much special treatment, when you think about it. Yes, he's rich and popular, but he still has to go to classes and deal with other issues of everyday life (such as it is in the wizarding world). Both Harry and Dorothy enter a fantasy world being lauded as heroes for something they did unintentionally--Harry was responsible for the temporary downfall of Voldemort, while Dorothy's house crushed the Wicked Witch of the East to death. But while Harry ends up in a strictly controlled environment, Dorothy is free to wander around Oz as she pleases. Indeed, on her second visit, she becomes a Princess of Oz, and eventually comes to live there and leave Kansas entirely. Dorothy faces imprisonment by the Wicked Witch of the West and the Nome King, but she's never in danger of getting detention. Dorothy is probably younger, too; Harry first enrolls in Hogwarts when he's eleven, but Dorothy doesn't seem to be any older than that when she comes to Oz to live in The Emerald City of Oz, and she's even younger on her first few visits. There are many other young people in the Oz books who end up in positions of power and/or luxury: Betsy Bobbin, Trot, Randy of Regalia, and essentially even Ozma herself.
Part of this is probably because of Baum's occasionally overdone positive attitude and attempt to make Oz into a utopian society, while Rowling's wizarding world is more similar to our own in many ways. I think there are other less utopian fantasies where children end up with significant power, though. Take The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, where the Pevensie children become kings and queens on their first visit. Granted, co-ruler of Narnia is probably a much more difficult job than Princess of Oz, but the Pevensies don't have to worry about their final exam grades until they get back to England. It seems like, with fantasy stories like the Oz and Narnia books (and probably many others as well), being a fantasy hero involves taking a break from the typical drudgery of childhood. Harry gets to take a break from certain aspects of his normal life while at Hogwarts, but he's still a child and a student. In a way, this is a point in Rowling's favor, because it allows an extra element of realism in her books. (And besides, who would want there to be wizards around who HADN'T been properly trained?) I think it might lessen the wish fulfillment aspect somewhat, though; kids probably want to learn magic (hell, I want to learn magic), but they might not be so keen on writing essays for Snape. I never really had the desire to live in Rowling's world that I did with both Narnia and Oz. That could be due more to my being considerably older when I started reading the Potter books than anything else, but I don't know.
Sometimes I think I should create a new tag for a post. But then I think that, if I do that, I'd have to go back and add that tag to every post where I discussed that topic in the past. I know I wouldn't really have to do that, but it would seem wrong not to. That's just how my mind works, I guess.
Has LiveJournal been slow for anyone else as of late, or is it just me who's being singled out?
Since I've had both Oz and Harry Potter on my mind as of late, I was thinking about one of the major differences between the two series. Such differences have been mentioned before, not least of all on this page by Dave Hardenbrook, former Nonestica moderator and desirer of a torrid affair with Ozma. I don't necessarily agree with all of Dave's points, which is to say that they're all more or less accurate, but not all what I'd consider important or representative. I could certainly expand on that, but I doubt anyone is interested, so I'll move on to what I see as a significant difference, and that's the treatment of children.
My dad said something the other day about how, in the Potter books, something major always happens toward the end that's pretty much forgotten about at the beginning of the next story. I don't think this is totally true, but it IS true that Harry's constant heroism rarely wins him much special treatment, when you think about it. Yes, he's rich and popular, but he still has to go to classes and deal with other issues of everyday life (such as it is in the wizarding world). Both Harry and Dorothy enter a fantasy world being lauded as heroes for something they did unintentionally--Harry was responsible for the temporary downfall of Voldemort, while Dorothy's house crushed the Wicked Witch of the East to death. But while Harry ends up in a strictly controlled environment, Dorothy is free to wander around Oz as she pleases. Indeed, on her second visit, she becomes a Princess of Oz, and eventually comes to live there and leave Kansas entirely. Dorothy faces imprisonment by the Wicked Witch of the West and the Nome King, but she's never in danger of getting detention. Dorothy is probably younger, too; Harry first enrolls in Hogwarts when he's eleven, but Dorothy doesn't seem to be any older than that when she comes to Oz to live in The Emerald City of Oz, and she's even younger on her first few visits. There are many other young people in the Oz books who end up in positions of power and/or luxury: Betsy Bobbin, Trot, Randy of Regalia, and essentially even Ozma herself.
Part of this is probably because of Baum's occasionally overdone positive attitude and attempt to make Oz into a utopian society, while Rowling's wizarding world is more similar to our own in many ways. I think there are other less utopian fantasies where children end up with significant power, though. Take The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, where the Pevensie children become kings and queens on their first visit. Granted, co-ruler of Narnia is probably a much more difficult job than Princess of Oz, but the Pevensies don't have to worry about their final exam grades until they get back to England. It seems like, with fantasy stories like the Oz and Narnia books (and probably many others as well), being a fantasy hero involves taking a break from the typical drudgery of childhood. Harry gets to take a break from certain aspects of his normal life while at Hogwarts, but he's still a child and a student. In a way, this is a point in Rowling's favor, because it allows an extra element of realism in her books. (And besides, who would want there to be wizards around who HADN'T been properly trained?) I think it might lessen the wish fulfillment aspect somewhat, though; kids probably want to learn magic (hell, I want to learn magic), but they might not be so keen on writing essays for Snape. I never really had the desire to live in Rowling's world that I did with both Narnia and Oz. That could be due more to my being considerably older when I started reading the Potter books than anything else, but I don't know.
Sometimes I think I should create a new tag for a post. But then I think that, if I do that, I'd have to go back and add that tag to every post where I discussed that topic in the past. I know I wouldn't really have to do that, but it would seem wrong not to. That's just how my mind works, I guess.
Has LiveJournal been slow for anyone else as of late, or is it just me who's being singled out?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-11-21 10:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-22 05:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-21 11:05 pm (UTC)Oh, dear. You really are a librarian, aren't you?
no subject
Date: 2005-11-22 11:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-11-23 08:26 pm (UTC)