Self-contained worlds (was The proximity of the Potterverse)

[Dan Feeney]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "joywitch_m_curmudgeon" 
<joym999 at a...> wrote:
> --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Dan Feeney" <dark30 at v...> 
> wrote:
> 
> > And in Rowling, the muggle world, especially as it 
> > is represented by the Dursley's, is fantastic, but the witch 
wizard 
> > world is much more realistic. Interesting inversion, don't you 
> think?
> 
--Joywitch:
> Interesting point, Dan.  I think it's true that in some ways JKR's 
> wizarding world *is* much more believeable than her muggle world.  
I 
> think that her muggle world is basically a literary tribute, e.g. 
> Harry's resilence in the face of his loveless muggle upbringing is 
> Jane Eyre reference and the Dursleys themselves are a Roald Dahl 
> reference.  And the wizarding world seems to be not only more 
> realistic than the muggle world, but almost a satire of the real 
> world.  I wonder if this is self-conscious on JKR's part?

I have no doubt it is self-conscious. Rowling's comments on her life 
are telling, in this case, regarding financial duress, in particular. 
There is motivation, the desire to create something, to get out of a 
trying situation etc. etc. But, unless we believe in divine 
inspiration (which I don't) then the moment on the train from 
Manchester to London is a something we've all experienced, to one 
degree or another. The first time we realize we are being self-
reflective,is an example of the kind of moment. "Oh, I'm thinking, 
and watching (feeling) myself think!" What makes me posit the boy in 
the closet is what's in that moment, what we guess was there, by the 
results, by the story told in the books. It COULD have gone something 
like this for Rowling - "Hell, I feel exactly like that kid I knew, 
just as crazy, just as chained... I refuse to accept there is no way 
out..."

Are the books her salvation, or rather, her freedom? Well, literally, 
yes. But we, as critics, see it on another plane, as it were, not so 
different from Hans of the Alchemic Wedding on the main list, or, in 
a different but no less involved way, MAGIC DISHWASHER. If Rowling's 
moment did not include the real politic,either at that moment or 
later, in the execution (the writing), and I for one assume it does, 
then our fascination with the books would be unjustified, and Byatt 
would be completely correct. After all, the history of alchemy, of 
the power of symbol, and the reconstruction of reality, is pretty 
subversive too, though, to be fair, more often than not leading to 
quite reactionary and elitist ideals. (That is to say, if Rowling is 
indeed subversive, perhaps she is just as subversive toward the 
practise of alchemy.) The Boston Phoenix article (I forget the 
author) that called Rowling subversive is our key here. She subverts 
on the most basic level by placing our non-magical world as 
fantastic, then she subverts by making the stigmatized or the odd far 
more rational and humane, far more practicable, than the so-
called "normal". She subverts by making magic pedestrian.This is 
the "bewitched" complaint. Is she different from Bewitched? Well, it 
appears some critics "see no difference." We, however, know otherwise.

On these three planes, I absolutely believe Rowling is 
consciously inverting things. Beyond that, I'm not certain, since all 
the interviews she's given have been done on popular media, conducted 
by, frankly, pretty banal hosts, asking glaringly insipid questions.

I have suggested Rowling's responsibility is to free the boy in the 
closet - if I didn't get the sense that that is what in fact she is 
doing in the books, I wouldn't have suggested it. But it was wrong to 
say, in a way. I should rather say, I think that is what she is 
doing. And it won't be possible to free the boy unless the subversion 
extends beyond the spheres I've mentioned. We are at a point in the 
series were we understand that we know absolutely nothing about what 
to do NOW. Maybe the story "being told by his glasses" or "in a 
pensieve" is coming, but it doesn't answer the question. Maybe the 
MAGIC DISHWASHER is running, but it doesn't answer the question. The 
boy has to walk.It's not magic falling away, but the idea that it's 
anything he knows now, anything he (or we) are holding onto, that 
will accomplish the final inversion.

my guess, anyway