What’s up guys,
Hope everyone is doing well. I have decided to focus my appetizer post on the grotesque and carnivalesque present within a series we are all familiar with, Harry Potter. If anyone hasn’t seen or read any of Harry Potter, that’s okay, you should still be able to participate in the discussion.
Now, as some of us may know, coming up with one scene to analyze in all the movies and books is quite difficult due to the abundance of examples of the grotesque and the carnivalesque within the series. Although we could discuss at length all of these examples, I have chosen to focus on the graveyard scene in Book/Movie #4, The Goblet of Fire. Below, I have attached both the scene from the book, as well as the movie scene. As you think about your discussion posts, here are some questions to consider:
- What did you notice about this scene? What are some examples of the grotesque, or carnivalesque, if any?
- Did the movie confirm/contradict any images you had in your head while reading the text? How did it affect your understanding/identification of the grotesque/carnivalesque?
- Let’s look at the tension between life and death in this scene. What is its relationship with the grotesque and/or carnivalesque?
Book Section: Chapter 32: Flesh, Blood and Bone, pages 636-643, Full PDF here: http://www.culamdi.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/J.K.-Rowling-HP-4-Harry-Potter-and-the-Goblet-of-Fire.pdf
Link to Movie Scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qS368iXcUvk&t=198s
I haven’t read any Harry Potter since, like, fourth grade, so this was quite the blast from the past.
During last week’s conversation, I was struck by the emotional struggle that Gargantua felt when his wife died giving birth to Pantagruel. That one chapter really brought out the idea of the body being a temporary vessel for the soul. In the section that you’ve drawn our attention to, we see Voldemort trying to prolong his body (and thereby soul?) and going to very disgusting, scary lengths to do it. We also see him order Cedric’s death with no regard to Cedric’s body or soul.
This passage had a lot of body-stuff going on. Voldemort’s trying to get a new body because his current body is slimy and small and gross. Voldemort is literally taking part of his dad’s body, some of Harry’s blood, and the hand of Wormtail. I also think Voldemort’s snake motif is really interesting. He’s clearly becoming less human the more horcruxes he goes through, but it’s not in a fun way like in the Golden Ass.
Hi Everyone!
Oh, this is a fun one. Immediately upon looking at the chapter you selected — I had an almost visceral recollection of reading this for the first time a decade or so ago. Cedric’s death was one of the most jarring moments of the series as a whole for me, and looking at it again, equipped with the language of the grotesque, I can understand why. Describing a dead teenager’s “open gray eyes, blank and expressionless as the windows of a deserted house,” and his “half-open mouth, which looked slightly surprised” is definitely something that stuck with me. There’s an interesting play between the mad-libs style “disturbing image followed by relatively harmless figurative descriptor” in both of these fragments. There is absolutely a grotesque bent to the “open gray eyes” and “half-open mouth” but these are softened by the remainders of the phrases, which evoke a sort of eerie but non-threatening objectivity. This in turn makes me think about the way we present the grotesque to children and younger audiences more broadly in writing — something I hadn’t thought about before now.
I am going to kind of combine the first and third questions here, because I think, in many ways, the grotesque emerges in and is defined by the tension between life and death in this chapter. Bakhtin is very interested in the relationship between life and death, and how he perceives this relationship as a cycle, a cycle I think Rowling is also conscious of. With the bones of a father, flesh of a servant, and blood of any enemy, a resurrection can occur. And with the death of Cedric, comes the re-birth of Lord Voldemort. I think what is so grotesque about this scene is the interconnectedness of the flesh and blood and bones of these different characters. These bodily substances all mingle together in a big cauldron of bodily soup, only to eventually create new (re-born) life. While I am not sure this is exactly the connectedness Bakhtin was picturing, I think it is conveyed well here.
The carnivalesque is a bit more difficult to discover here, as the presence of Lord Voldemort, or any dark lord for that matter, kind of immediately shuts out any typical images we might associate with the carnivalesque. There is an undermining of official events, as Wormtail and Voldemort interrupt the Triwizard Tournament, but this is not so much in the spirit of the carnivalesque. I think undermining official events is more characteristic of Fred and George than Voldemort (especially when they make their official departure from Hogwarts :)), as the actions of Wormtail and Voldemort are more devious and evil (although are these characteristics mutually exclusive with the carnivalesque?). I think the most carnivalesque aspect in this chapter is the “representation of the people’s body as immortal and indestructible.” The fact that the peoples’ bodies are ruled over by Lord Voldemort makes it seemingly non-carnivalesque, but his body, combined with the bodies of others, is proved indestructible and immortal (well, at least for a little while).
As for the movie, I am never prepared for that image of baby Voldemort.
Hi all,
I find this kind of funny since I happened to watch this movie last night! While watching, I noticed how disturbing and dark this scene is. In a grotesque way, there is a clear juxtaposition of death and rebirth. Cedric’s death and the graveyard next to Voldemort becoming reborn. On top of that, the rebirth of Voldemort himself puts death next to birth. For example, he died when Harry was a baby. While I don’t remember how old he was, I certainly imagine Harry as a newborn when Voldemort comes to attack. Then we have the fact that Voldemort will cause the death of thousands over the next few years.
This scene also causes a change in the series as a whole. There is definitely a shift from “fun times at Hogwarts with some danger” to “lots of danger with some fun times here and there”. I’m not really sure how this connects but I feel like it is significant.
As someone who never really hopped on the Harry Potter train, I found it super interesting to be able to look at this scene through a different lens (that definitely gave the scene more depth). This scene itself is quite disturbing in both the text and movie in the way that it depicts death and a morbid rebirthing of Voldemort. The detail used to depict the grotesque elements of death and mutilation unsettles you as an audience member and––in the case of Voldemort’s “rebirth”––distorts a traditional birth with pain and violence as building blocks. Not to mention, the fact that Voldemort’s reconstructed body is literally comprised of blood, flesh, and bone and takes place in a graveyard: not really a conventional setting but certainly fitting for the dark lord.
As to the second question, I think the movie is a really interesting way to visualize Rowling’s description in the book, since she describes the “baby” Voldemort in much more detail (“something ugly, slimy, and blind — but worse, a hundred times worse… hairless and scaly-looking, a dark, raw, reddish black. Its arms and legs were thin and feeble, and its face — no child alive ever had a face like that — flat and snakelike, with gleaming red eyes. “) This is something unhuman (especially with the hairlessness/scales/snake-like face!) while he looks more human in the movie. I think it is interesting that the book makes something human(ish) out of something unhuman, while the movie seems to simply revive or restore a human. I’m not sure which one is more carnivalesque, but I think that the book is more grotesque for sure, bringing in ideas of human transformations into animals (as mentioned above!) and giving a graphic physical difference between a snake-baby (?) and a robed man (though with some snakey features.)
The infantile description of Voldemort in both the book and movie is something struck me as well. By having this repulsive, twisted version of a baby––helpless, and totally dependant but also wielding total power verbally––the scene is even more disturbing. Not only is this rebirth corrupted, but both ends of the transformation are equally wrong.
I first experienced this scene while listening to Jim Dale’s narration of the series last year. I knew of course that Voldemort was going to come back somehow but truly I felt my heart beating while listening to the narration.
I think one of the most unsettling feelings for an audience member is that you begin to realize that Harry and Cedric were just caught in the final part of a pre-meditated malicious scheme. Although our readings of Aristophanes, Satyricon, and Pantagruel aren’t shy to depict violence, it still retains some semblance of a comedic effect. Here we’re filled with dread right from when they realize the cup was a portkey. Harry is a part of a ritual of the body and rejuventation of life, but he has absolutely no control or agency. In the book he is bound up by tight rope and can only hope “Let it drown, Harry thought, his scar burning almost past endurance, please . . . let it drown. . . .” Even more disturbing, I think, is how callously Cedric was killed. He was superfluous to Voldemort’s plan.
Looks like the discussion is going well. Most of you have picked up on the grotesque nature of the passage/scene; the body of Voldemort, the mixture of bodily fluids/ parts in the cauldron, Wormtail, the tensions between life and death, etc. A couple of you have picked up on the fact that this scene is the very opposite of the carnivalesque, which I would very much agree with. I would like to shift the discussion to this topic. Here are some questions to think about.
1. In what ways does this passage/scene contradict the carnivalesque?
2. What are some other scenes/concepts/themes/images from Harry Potter that DO agree with the carnivalesque? You can bring up anything and are not just limited to the Goblet of Fire.
I think, for me, this scene contradicts the idea of the carnivalesque primarily in the way that it serves to re-establish a particular social hierarchy within the world of the series. Despite Voldemort’s status as a sort of revolutionary and disruptive figure, the way the Death Eaters regard him remains reminiscent of a sort of feudal subservience and loyalty that, in another context, could be seen as a sort of carnivalesque parody. Instead, this sequence has much darker undertones (and overtones, to be clear) that don’t permit the same sort of celebration or revelry — in fact, this rebirth as a disruption of the recreational and celebratory Tri-Wizard tournament, cements its status as a sort of anti-carnivalesque occurrence, as it nullifies the lighthearted tradition in favor of a malicious renaissance that mirrors an established hierarchy of authority within itself.
I really like this analysis of the scene. I also read this scene as not being carnivalesque at all, but that was primarily my gut reaction to it being so scary. Although this has been an ongoing discussion in class, I want carnivalesque spaces to read as safe. However, I do agree with you that part of the reason that Voldemort and the Deatheaters feel so morbid is not only that they’re space nazis and child murderers, but also because they are a cult that is trying to instill their hierarchy upon the rest of the wizarding world.
Sorry but this addendum came to mind right after I posted the first comment. Also, I think this comment kind of goes off the rails.
I’m now wondering if “bad guys” can have carnivalesque moments? Like, can villains be carnivalesque? I guess that depends on how we define good/bad guy (acknowledging how those categories very rarely exist in real life). Especially in children’s media, I feel like villains can be given song numbers that are jazzy and the villain might be having fun with their henchmen, but I feel like most media is uncomfortable giving villains the humanizing act of enjoying the carnivalesque. I think there’s a reason Rowling never shows us a Deatheater potluck, for example.
I really like your question of whether or not villains can create a carnivalesque space or even exist in one. If I am being honest, the first thing that came to mind when you asked this was Gaston in the Disney Beauty and the Beast and the song “Gaston.” There are some carnivalesque moments in that song, but overall I don’t think it is carnivalesque because the whole point of the song is that Gaston is the best at everything (and therefore better than everyone else in the room). With this example, as well as with the Voldemort example, I think that villains cannot enjoy the carnivalesque because more often than not an essential part of villainy is placing oneself above others. Villains are constantly enforcing hierarchy in some form, whether it is through ego, or, the more extreme, through killing others. This statement does not apply to every villain every written, especially now that we live in an age of morally gray characters and the anti-hero, but if in terms of a typical “dark lord” character like Voldemort or a Disney villain, I do not think they are capable of being carnivalesque due to their fixation on hierarchy.
Similar to Elinor, the first villain in children’s media that came to mind for me was Jafar from Disney’s Aladdin. This, in conjunction with your observations about Gaston, led me to think about the relationship between queer-coding and the carnivalesque. I found this article about queer-coded Disney villains, and am curious to hear if other people have thoughts on how this plays into our discussion: http://www.marginsmagazine.com/2015/12/18/fabulously-fiendish-disney-villains-and-queer-coding/
I think Harry Potter is filled with extremely carnivalesque imagery, especially since most of the time it is a story where unconventional people are accepted and take part in the festivities. The huge dining hall and the many feasts (which literally appear out of thin air! There is no end to the food!) are the easiest examples, but the people there are also good examples of carnival: ghosts, giants, elves, etc. Though there are definitely creatures that are not welcome (werewolves!) I think most people/species, regardless of how you look or act, are accepted. Of course, at these feasts (if I remember correctly) the house elves are enslaved, which is extremely uncarnivalesque (no flipping of hierarchies!)
This weekend I watched the Harry Potter marathon on one of the channels, and was thinking quite a lot about the Carnivalesque in the films. One example is in the fifth film where Fred and George leave the school, exploding many fireworks and destroying the rules that Umbridge put up. I find this scene interesting cause it feels distinctly Carnivalesque. Everyone is happy and so excited to see the destruction of the restricting rules. Much of the fifth movie is very tense, and this is a nice reprieve, where the audience is celebrating along with the students. But the whole scene comes at the expense of Umbridge. For some reason I feel like this scene is still Carnivalesque, even at the cost of Umbridge. Compare this though with the chapter in Rabelais where Panurge “pranks” the woman. As Hannah (I think) said in the discussion, that scene is not really Carnivalesque. Maybe it is because I hate Umbridge and root against her, but this scene is definitely Carnivalesque to me while the scene in Rabelais is not.
I honestly did not even remember that their pranks were at her expense! I think that it *is* carnivalesque to prank/make fun of someone who is in a position of power, putting down those below her. Umbridge could be compared to a tyrant/king/immoral religious figure in Rabelais’ day who would have been degraded during carnival (hierarchies flipping, uncrowning, etc.)
I think that’s why we root for Fred and George so much! I think the fancy lady in Rabelais who has the dogs set on her has a certain level of power to Rabelais (since she turned Panurge down) but to us today that isn’t an example of uncrowing, it’s just being straight up horrible.
The Harry Potter series tends to lean on the side of carnivalesque in the types of creatures and celebrations that the plot centers around, but I also think that a lot of this carnivalesque content is offset by the dark, sinister undercurrents that drive the story forward. The feasts and sporting events at Hogwarts are quite literally magical and over the top and they take place in a wizarding world which––just by existing––is the antithesis of the muggle world. Yet the conflict between Dark wizards and the protagonists along with the alienation and enslavement of certain creatures disrupts the reversal of hierarchies and security in numbers that is essential to a real carnivalesque atmosphere.
I agree that as a whole it is hard to call the books Carnivalesque, especially later on when there is much more violence. But I think that these violent and dark moments for me make the lighter sections seems more Carnivalesque. Especially in the earlier books, Hogwarts, at least when everyone is together, is an incredible safe environment which I think helps those sections be more Carnivalesque as well.
I also feel like Harry Potter is a good example of a series with Carnivalesque parts since (besides Rabelais) practically no media will be Carnivalesque all the time. But some media still has these light hearted Carnivalesque sections that are better because of the dark sections, and like wise make the dark sections more serious and important feeling.
I mentioned Fred and George’s departure from Hogwarts in my last response, and although the film version is very different from the book in this particular case, I think they both exhibit aspects of the carnivalesque (although Umbridge does not enjoy their humor, so perhaps not?). In fact, I think to an extent Fred and George embody the carnivalesque, and this is best displayed through the opening of their joke shop in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. This is a bit of an oversimplification of their characters, but Rowling hardly elaborates on their characters beyond pranks and friendship and merriment.
Throughout the books, mostly starting in Goblet of Fire, we hear the Weasley twins’ ideas about new magical prank items and potions and we get to see many of these pranks in action. What I want to focus on is the encounter with their shop “Weasleys’ Wizard Wheezes” in the chapter “Draco’s Detour” in Half-Blood Prince. Rowling writes that “Fred and George’s windows hit the eye like a firework display” (116), with a sign on the right hand window reading:
“Why Are You Worrying About You-Know-Who?
You SHOULD Be Worrying About
U-NO-POO –
the Constipation Sensation That’s Gripping the Nation!”
This reads like something right out of Rabelais. It mocks authority, parodying its name with a poop joke, and laughing at fear. This reminds of Professor Farmer’s question about whether or not you need a whole crowd of people to create a carnivalesque atmosphere. I think Fred and George (at least until book seven) are pretty close to individuals who just absolutely embody the carnivalesque, or at least, their presence helps create a carnivalesque atmosphere.
Looking back through this week’s discussion, I believe we touched on everything that I hoped, and more. We established the grotesque within the scene, analyzing the bodies either dead or alive, and the concept of life and death. We explored the contradiction to the carnivalesque with the horror, darkness, dear, and practices of the villains. Finally, we explored some things in Harry Potter that were rather carnivalesque, i.e. Fred and George, the triwizard tournament, the great hall etc. I believe that one big takeaway from this discussion was the fact that the carnivalesque cannot exist with the presence of villains. The fear they instill in their victims, violent actions, and adherence to hierarchy specifically contradict the carnivalesque. I would look at Wormtail’s actions as an example of how villains contradict the carnivalesque. In this specific scene we can see the adherence to hierarchy through Wormtail’s loyalty to Voldemort, even though Voldemort is powerless and weak. We also see that Wormtail’s actions are all motivated by fear which is very anti carnivalesque. Overall, I thought it was a good topic, and fun to revisit a series we are all familiar with, but now equipped with the grotesque and carnivalesque language to better analyze it.