The essay focuses on the fear of the author that books like Harry Potter "- derivative, thematically inconsistent and stylistically flawed -" (Pennington 93) will shape the reading parameters and the aesthetic taste of the masses. After a brief introduction where Pennington reports a series of enthusiastic reviews of the saga, he argues that Harry Potter is "failed fantasy" (Pennington 78) and J.K. Rowling is incapable of abiding to the rules of fantasy literature. Firstly, Pennington claims that Harry Potter merely replicates reality - from Hogwarts to Quidditch, the elements in the saga are nothing more than exotic-sounding names derived from everyday reality - and it's an assemblage of clichés from previous fantasy novels and movies. Moreover,
…show more content…
However, the article's prose is not consistent, and, at times, even mediocre. Overall, the phrasing of the essay lives up to its expectations, with elaborate words and the use of rhetorical devices such as three metaphors, which dexterously combine elements from "Harry Potter" with the author's own claims. For example, when arguing about the lack of peril in Rowling's wizarding world, Pennington sets up a metaphor between "Harry Potter's" harmless magic and a kid's chemistry laboratory "where the most dangerous substance seems to be baking soda" (91). What also adds to the essay's appeal, is the array of rhetorical questions: "Do the Harry Potter books "broaden our minds and allow us to "see past the mundane"? Or are they simply mundane entertainment?" (78) or "Where is this self-consciousness in Harry Potter books? Where is that mirror that exposes the various literary artifices in the books" (87). These inquiries are a reflection of what Pennington mentions in his discussion about postmodernism. Indeed, they "allow the readers to participate in the game […] [thus] becom[ing] active participants" (88) in the debate about the true nature of "Harry Potter." Therefore, the essay results, quoting Roland Barthes, "writerly" (88). However, Pennington's style is not always compelling or captivating. "Has Rowling never heard of Gollum?" (88), "kiddie chemistry lab" (91), and "her language often sloppy" (86), are examples of how the author's style hastily goes from scholarly to colloquial. This language familiarity adopted by Pennington is, using LeGuin's definition, grounded in Poughkeepsie: a domestic and overly dull style whose descriptions are boringly flat. The result is a style which does not take into consideration the
However, the article's prose is not consistent, and, at times, even mediocre. Overall, the phrasing of the essay lives up to its expectations, with elaborate words and the use of rhetorical devices such as three metaphors, which dexterously combine elements from "Harry Potter" with the author's own claims. For example, when arguing about the lack of peril in Rowling's wizarding world, Pennington sets up a metaphor between "Harry Potter's" harmless magic and a kid's chemistry laboratory "where the most dangerous substance seems to be baking soda" (91). What also adds to the essay's appeal, is the array of rhetorical questions: "Do the Harry Potter books "broaden our minds and allow us to "see past the mundane"? Or are they simply mundane entertainment?" (78) or "Where is this self-consciousness in Harry Potter books? Where is that mirror that exposes the various literary artifices in the books" (87). These inquiries are a reflection of what Pennington mentions in his discussion about postmodernism. Indeed, they "allow the readers to participate in the game […] [thus] becom[ing] active participants" (88) in the debate about the true nature of "Harry Potter." Therefore, the essay results, quoting Roland Barthes, "writerly" (88). However, Pennington's style is not always compelling or captivating. "Has Rowling never heard of Gollum?" (88), "kiddie chemistry lab" (91), and "her language often sloppy" (86), are examples of how the author's style hastily goes from scholarly to colloquial. This language familiarity adopted by Pennington is, using LeGuin's definition, grounded in Poughkeepsie: a domestic and overly dull style whose descriptions are boringly flat. The result is a style which does not take into consideration the