Ashley Etemadi

Thank you so much for this article. I grew up reading Harry Potter and this insightful analysis using psycho-developmental theory makes me buzz with joy. I think it’s important you bring up the how Harry de-idolizes his father after witnessing Snape’s memory. Harry had to do the same thing with Dumbledore, a strong father figure throughout the series. Also, the explanation of the horcruxes representing Voldemort’s dispersed identity makes perfect sense in light of things. Harry throughout the series is forming his sense of self, coming to a whole. When he arrives at a concrete, personal identity, Voldemort is at his most fragmented. Harry comes full circle, returning to the scene of trauma where his parents were murdered nearly two decades ago, and reenacts the primal scene. Now I want to further explore a Freudian analysis of Harry Potter!

Interesting piece. You mentioned more than once that the dystopian worlds not only threaten the livelihood of the protagonists, but prevent them from exercising personal freedom and individuality. I have noticed that dystopian landscapes, from those created by Orwell to those of Collins, characteristically suppress individual identity and chip away at the “I” in favor of a collective herd to be directed and controlled. So if we can accept that this is an important part of dystopian literature, we can understand why young adults are intrigued by this genre. Adolescence functions as the period of time where the individual self comes into formation out of growth, pain, and learning. Young persons are often searching for and constructing a personal identity based off of subjective experiences and desires, but an identity that can survive and thrive within sociocultural boundaries and expectations. Thus, when institutions of power in dystopian worlds attempt to dissolve and forget the individual self, the youths take up in arms, because it’s much easier to lose yourself when you are still in the process of becoming.

Thought provoking piece! As an undergraduate studying literature and critical theory, I have always believed that film and literary criticism share a space in cultural production. It is important to understand that a film – like a novel or any other narrative-based work – is a complex system made up of dynamic and interactive parts. Successful critical analysis then ought to investigate film on multiple levels. A critic should approach a movie with the intent to deconstruct the engineered story and examine the parts, and the whole, within the film medium. I think the ultimate challenge of journalistic film criticism is to conduct such an analysis in a review that the general population will be able to access and appreciate. The internet age has raised complicated questions, however. As you addressed in this piece, how can one differentiate between legitimate film criticism and the myriad online reviews/movie blogs dispersed throughout the web? What separates the two, and who decides why one is awarded more worth than the other? What does the value of criticism say about art itself? These are big questions with no answers. I personally support all forms of academic and intellectual critique. What’s the point of life if you’re not being critical?

I also wanted to comment on the examination of the relationship between film advertisement and reviews. I feel a little bit confused about your argument connecting critics and ads. Maybe for a follow up article, you can utilize the New York Magazine’s “Undulating Curve of Shifting Expectations” device to further explore the interaction between promotion, reviews, and audience satisfaction.