Though Henry Jenkins’s chapter entitled “Why Heather Can Write: Media Literacy and the Harry Potter Wars” is, on the surface, about media literacy and the value of “non-academic” writing, it is truly a study in censorship and property ownership. I was particularly interested in Harry Potter as an updated version of a transmedia story while I was reading Jenkins’s “Searching for the Origami Unicorn: The Matrix and Transmedia Storytelling” without realizing that Jenkins would address Harry Potter in the next few chapters. (To be honest, I wasn’t sure what time frame Harry Potter would fit—was the franchise popular during Jenkins’s writing or not? I now have my answer.)
Jenkins has discussed throughout his book the interest corporations have been taking in consumer participation, whether this interest has been through worrying about copyright infringement or something of which they can take advantage: “Corporations imagine participation as something they can start and stop, channel and reroute, commodify and market” (175). As Jenkins points out, this “problem” of ownership—including intellectual ownership—becomes even more convoluted when the argument involves a culture that is, at least in part, made up of children. In this chapter Jenkins is primarily interested in “the struggle over competing notions of media literacy and how it should be taught” (177) as well as the basic questions that have arisen regarding the Harry Potter books and subsequent franchise. As Jenkins mentions in “Quentin Tarantino’s Star Wars? Grassroots Creativity Meets the Media Industry” fans are no longer willing to accept a story (whether from a book, a movie, etc.) at face value: they must be allowed to create their own piece of the story through fanfiction, parody, or simply playing with action figures.
I found that fans were using (and Jenkins saw ways in which fans could use) these types of media to learn and further their own understanding and empowerment. Jenkins mentions feminist arguments a few times throughout this chapter on Harry Potter, which I thought was very interesting. First he notes that some feminists feel that Hermione (one of the few females in the Harry Potter books) falls into traditional stereotypes, particularly those of dependency and nurturance. Having never read the books nor seen the movies, I can’t answer to whether or not the character does these things. Though I typically take the feminist side, I have to agree with Jenkins that the ability for young girls to use these characters to empower themselves is probably greater than we imagine. He also mentions that children have the power to identify across gender. I believe that this is an important way for children to come to terms with the social constructs of gender—much the same way that people are able to “play” other sexes in videogames through their avatars. (I won’t get into the fact that gender and sex are different things, as that is really beyond the scope of this blog.)
Jenkins also devoted a large portion of the chapter to learning and mentions James Paul Gee’s “affinity spaces” which are directly related to his notion of the “affinity group” defined as “a group of people associated with a given semiotic domain” (Gee 27). The “affinity group” to which Jenkins is applying is that of a learning culture. These learning cultures must recognize the importance of children’s interaction with media—despite the producers of such media attempting to combat this interaction. Jenkins further channels Gee when he mentions “scaffolding,” which relates to Gee’s “Incremental Principle.” Jenkins notes that, in participatory culture, the entire community helps the new person learn, which is, of course, completely different than the way schools—supposed institutions of learning—are fashioned.
One interesting aspect of this chapter (to which Jenkins devoted a large amount of thought) was that of the religious zealots’ attempt to ban the Harry Potter books. I thought this aspect belonged more to a chapter on censorship than one regarding learning, but I suppose it makes sense because the Harry Potter books and subsequent materials can be such a rich learning tool. I found this all very interesting, particularly in a discussion of knowledge. Once again, Gee’s work in What Video Games Have to Teach Us About Learning and Literacy” is a useful tool to understanding my thought process on the subject. Gee points out throughout his work that violence in video games doesn’t lead to violence in the real world—those against Harry Potter should take note. Sorcery in a book isn’t going to lead to sorcery in real life—and if the kids try it, they’ll soon learn that it’s not going to work. I think that it’s unfortunate that these adults who have never read the books are trying to keep their children from reading them. As Jenkins ends his chapter, the Harry Potter franchise is “a space where children teach one another and where, if they would open their eyes, adults could learn a great deal” (216).
Questions (*not talking points in this case, but real questions I’d like to have answered):
*Are there any other religious groups (non-Christian groups) that are so against Harry Potter?
*Have any laws about fanfiction been created since Jenkins wrote this book?
How are action figures like avatars?
No comments:
Post a Comment