Abstract
Building on the assumption that modern myths reside in formulaic fiction, Christina Flotmann investigates how and to what degree the immensely popular tales of Star Wars and Harry Potter function as myths. Drawing primarily on Claude Levi-Strauss and Roland Barthes, Flotmann adopts a broad definition of myths as narratives which seek to alleviate human anxiety by reconciling the contradictory conditions of our existence. Built around binary oppositions – such as good–evil – myths on the one hand offer comfort by reducing the complexity of reality to graspable conflicts, but on the other produce ideology and distort reality for the sake of reassuring simplicity. Yet myths are inherently ambiguous, according to Flotmann; different readings are always possible, often undermining the dominant hegemonic message. In her analysis of the two texts, she explicitly seeks out this ambiguity and pays particular attention to the instances where the texts push the boundaries of their structural restraints. By doing so, she aims to provide a fuller (post)structural analysis than the ones previously offered on Star Wars, and the first one that seriously considers structure at all in regards to Harry Potter.
Although acknowledging that structuralism has largely and not entirely unfairly fallen out favour, Flotmann contends that since binary thinking remains a staple of human cognition it is reasonable to employ structural analysis to expose such binaries. However, she also draws upon Derrida’s post-structural critique to deconstruct the ideology generated by hierarchical ordering of binaries, and to show that such deconstructive elements are already present in the texts. The first part of her monograph is dedicated to the close investigation of three characters from each franchise and demonstrates how they, as per Levi-Strauss’ (1996) assertion, function as carriers of structural meaning (good, evil and mediator) rather than as fully realized individuals. In part two, she turns her attention to two of the discourses ‘silenced’ by the dominant good–evil dichotomy, namely those concerning gender and ethnicity. While women play important parts in both Star Wars and Harry Potter, Flotmann concludes that they are ultimately – though more so in Star Wars than Harry Potter – relegated to positions of subordination to the male heroes’ quests. Both texts also feature non-human characters that serve as stand-ins for real-world minorities, but rather than allowing any pertinent discussion of actual issues they merely function as a half-hearted projection-space – though again, more so in Star Wars than Harry Potter. Yet different and more charitable readings of the texts’ stances, particularly on women, are possible, making for a convincing demonstration of the ambiguity Flotmann describes as inherent not only to these tales but to all myths.
Unfortunately, Flotmann’s choice of method is not entirely suited to the professed scope of her inquiry. Although explicitly adhering to a notion of texts as ‘producerly’ (Fiske, 2006) and meaning as residing in the reader’s interpretation rather than in the actual text, Flotmann only considers the texts themselves. If one, as Flotmann does, wants to investigate what Star Wars and Harry Potter ‘does for people’ (p. 9) forgoing considerations of what said people actually make of the texts and what they mean to them is an odd methodological choice, and one that makes for an analysis that – no matter how reasonable – becomes a matter of ‘logical operations not imposed by the data’ (Propp, 1984: 76, cited in Flotmann, 2013: 39). Ironically, Flotmann herself mentions this critique – originally aimed at Claude Levi-Strauss – but fails to address it.
Additionally, and although such complaints might appear overly nitpicky, a reading as close as Flotmann’s cannot afford erroneous statements about plot developments; the author may be forgiven for confusing minor details such as Anakin Skywalker’s exact age in The Phantom Menace, but to claim and in part build an argument upon the mistaken notion that the same character kills (rather than cuts off the hand of) fellow Jedi Mace Windu is far more problematic, and ultimately weakens the credibility of her other conclusions regarding the text.
In spite of this, Flotmann’s treatise eloquently demonstrates that the texts, firmly centred on binary oppositions as they are, both generate ideology and carry the seeds of its deconstruction. Though not completely successful in everything it sets out to do, and though unlikely to convert those wary of structuralism, Flotmann’s monograph may well serve as a solid starting point for further inquiries that take more seriously the methodological implications of certain ontological stances.