Kiddiefic reprise, dead at heart Harry, Lily/Snape, racism

[Tabouli]

No: HPFGUIDX 25258

Penny:

> My argument is that GoF crosses the line for sure into  adult 
literature, and the latter 3 books promise to go even further.  So 
... how to categorize the *series*.  Is it a "childrens' series" just 
because Harry was 11 when it all started?  Seems short-sighted to me. <

> Someone did make the point that in their opinion the HP books are about 
children and told from the POV of children and hence must be childrens' 
literature.  Like Robyn, I disagree with this position.

I define "children's books" as something along the lines of  "books which appeal to more than a tiny elite of people under 15".  
And yes, the great majority of books in this category do have child protagonists, but child protagonists aren't limited to this category by any means.  How about "The Go-Between", which is definitely adult fiction, but is written in first person from the POV of a 12 year old boy (albeit via his 60 year old self)?  "Lolita", which centres around a 12 year old girl?  Don't see any arguments about where to categorise these books, do we?  Why?  Because of the themes in the books, and how they are handled.

I will bravely come out and say that I *do* see HP as children's books, and that this is NOT by any means a slur on them.  They are well-written, sophisticated children's books, so much so that they appeal to adults as well, even those who refuse to identify the books as such because they have patronising assumptions about the genre.  However, the subject matter (wizard school), the way JKR handles the heavy themes she raises, is IMO child-oriented, not adult-oriented.  And yes, yes, I know JKR said she didn't originally intend them to be "children's books", but when you start writing a story you don't necessarily have a target audience in mind... inspiration just flows and when you get to the end you think, hmm, now what shall I do with this?

Regarding the death of Harry:

For the record, my money is on the pyrrhic (sp?) victory option a la Lord of the Rings.  Harry defeats Voldemort and survives, but at a terrible price, leaving him bitter and scarred and empty beyond his years and peers.

Amy Z:

> Koinonia, if you found a Snape Didn't Give a Fig About Lily club (with a 
clever acronym of course), I'll pay my 2 Sickles and join up.

Hah!  I think Amanda and I will just have to set up a Rival Club then and throw tomatoes at you... (the Everything Makes Sense if Snape Loved Lily Society?).  And hey, it's *not* because I'm particularly into the concept of having a bit of Romance in the plot: I'm generally bobbing about on a non-committal little lifeboat checking out the major ships without comment.  It's just that, as those long lists of plot devices we don't want to see again showed, I think this is one obvious and valid device she *hasn't* used which explains Snape's peculiar behaviour so well... frankly, I think yet another unregistered Animagus would be far more excruiciating.

More Amy Z:

> Lockhart, well, everyone hates Lockhart; he's incompetent, overbearing, and conceited.

Who says everyone hates Lockhart?  As a character (not as a person, that's totally different), I think he's great.  The Valentine's Day scene is one of my all-time favorites.  "Professor Flitwick knows more about Entrancing Enchantments than any wizard I've ever met, the sly old dog!"

B.K. DeLong:

> I just posted some news about new possible book titles for book 6 and 7: (Harry Potter and the Alchemist's Cell, Harry 
Potter and the Pyramids of Furmat, and Harry Potter and the Chariots of Light)

Um, is it just me, or are these titles a touch... naff?  (correct usage of naff, English listmembers??)  Especially the Chariots of Light.

tillrules:
> True enough, but there are certain things which are essentially unchangeable.   And racism is one of them.

OT though this is, I can't let this pass.  I wrote an entire thesis on this topic and run workshops which aim to do it.  Yes, you *can* change racism.  There's piles of evidence that it can be done, though it gets harder the more entrenched and closed-minded the racist in question is.  For example, it's amazing how much prejudice has its origin in very simple differences in cultural rules.  If people *understand* that the rules for social behaviour are different and which ones the other party is likely to break, it's a very good start in reducing prejudice (hence close friendships across cultures can be useful, especially if one or both parties have some cross-cultural insight).

Let me illustrate.  A typical Australian woman whose best female friend had a shockin' haircut would either tactfully ignore it or reassure her about it.  I mentioned this in one of my workshops about Australian culture, and a woman from Northern Europe (Germany, I think) thought this was ridiculous... "What are friends for if not to tell you the truth about yourself?"  Now, I have no idea whether this was specific to this woman or is actually the rule in Germany (so apologies in advance to any offended Germans on the list!), but let's say it's the rule in Germany, for the sake of illustration.

OK, so let's imagine this German woman (let's call her Astrid) didn't know what the Australian "tact" rule was and became close friends with an Australian (called Kylie :-) ).  Kylie has an absolute shocker of a haircut, hideous, gruesome, fright wig worse case scenario, and is desperate to be reassured that it's not too bad or at least that it could be repaired or grown out fairly easily.  Astrid sees the shocker haircut and tells Kylie straight that it looks bad and doesn't suit her, Kylie is devastated and hurt.  How could a friend say that to her?  If Kylie later finds that *all* the Germans she meets do the same, she will probably end up concluding that Germans are tactless and cold and not supportive of their friends' self-esteem.

Alternatively, let's say Astrid had the killer haircut, and Kylie has no idea that Germans believe in being straight with their friends.  Astrid, Kylie and everyone else in the world who sees the haircut knows full well that it's abominable, yet Kylie reassures her that it's not so bad, actually it makes her look kind of like Sinead O'Connor.  You can't be serious, it's ghastly, says Astrid.  No, no, lies Kylie, and continues lying ever more valiantly and less convincingly, until Astrid either concludes that she has terrible taste in hairstyles or, worse, that Kylie is insincere and she can't trust her to give an honest opinion. Again, if all of the Australians she meets do the same thing, she may end up concluding that Australians are insincere and untrustworthy and mouth platitudes to each other rather than facing up to the truth.

jenny from ravenclaw:
> To look at it in relation to HP, I haven't seen on the news a story 
about some kid trying to fly a broomstick off the roof because he 
thought he could "fly like Harry Potter".  

Actually, a little boy who used to live across the road from me really did jump off the roof trying to be Superman... (but he was 5 at the time, a touch below HP age).

re: Sirius, Snape and Lupin

As I said a while ago, I'm convinced Sirius' act was impulsive and thoughtless.  Negligently manslaughterous rather than deliberately murderous.

Little Alex:

> Talking about that, are there no Muggle-born or 'half-blood' currently in Slytherin?

You have to wonder whether there are *enough* purebloods to fill Slytherin: isn't there a growing shortage?

Tabouli.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]