In regards to the Slytherins, I agree with you that the lack of development for that House was a MAJOR disappointment.
I have a theory on why Rowling might have refrained from making them more sympathetic, though. I believe she noticed how incredibly popular Draco Malfoy was (especially after the movies started coming out) along with an alarming number of fans that did seem to genuinely buy into the concept of pureblood supremacy. Given that it's an analog for racism, though, I can imagine that Rowling might have been troubled by this.
As a result, I believe she might very well have refrained from showing why they are the way they are in order not to have readers further empathize with a House that is, after all, founded primarily on prejudice. It's one of the issues you run into when trying to explain just why people become racist. For example, American History X does indeed try to dig into just why people join bigoted organizations. And it does so very well. But it's popular among Neo-Nazis and white supremacists too.
Leave a Comment:
Extremely flawed, but mostly enjoyable.
I would have reviewed Harry Potter a long time ago, but before now I was simply too dishonest with myself to have the courage to say this series is pretty damn flawed.
Harry Potter's biggest achievement its sense of creativity. The sheer number of different ideas Rowling brought to the table in this series is just incredible. Every book is crammed with all kinds of unusual words, magical concepts, objects, spells, creatures and secrets, painting the universe into your mind. There's also a wide selection of interesting characters and loads of different moments of all different emotional styles which stand out wonderfully in the books. Creativity-wise, it's charming.
Unfortunately though, as I've grown up, I've noticed that these books are also deeply flawed and therefore, far from perfect. The writing is absolutely horrible at times. Entire phrases, explanations and descriptions are recycled so often that it's angering. Even certain words are overused. For example, the number of things in the series described as "large" is utterly huge. Notice how I've put the word "extremely" in the title? That word is used a ridiculous amount of times as well. And this is the tip of the iceberg. As a story, Potter is wonderfully artful, but the actual prose is alarmingly inconsistent, jumping from decent to utterly awful and back repeatedly. Not to mention of all the gaping plot holes and that god-awful epilogue.
The book series also includes a specifically massive flaw that almost brings down the entire series - the portrayal of Slytherin characters. Rowling completely failed to develop the Slytherin house beyond its dark, elitist, bitterly snobbish roots. Instead of challenging the stereotype of "evil Slytherin", she instead makes almost every potrayal of Slytherin characters negative. It's inarguable that Slytherin characters are very, very rarely portrayed positively in the books, to the point where it's impossible to take seriously. When the most heroic Slytherin in the books is also one of its nastiest characters, you know there's a "large" problem. It's "extremely" biased, clichéd writing.
But when all is said and done, I'm glad that I grew up with Harry Potter. The series does have a lot of very nice things in it; it's just very inconsistent. It's a messy series, equal parts enchantingly imaginative and sloppily written.