"Kiddiefic", death, Sirius & popularity

Tabouli tabouli at unite.com.au
Thu Jul 12 11:31:14 UTC 2001


No: HPFGUIDX 22403

I leap briefly from lurking...

Allison:
> Plus, children's books are just some of the best books out there.  I 
come from a family of voracious readers, and was always encouraged to 
read pretty much whatever I wanted, but I chose to stay with 
children's books because they were and are just better.  I did and 
still do read "adult" books, but I find I don't get the same joy out 
of them as I do from rereading an HP book for the tenth time, or any 
other of my childhood favorites (which are still my favorites 
period).  

Hear hear.  Children's books have an uncluttered clarity and feel that adult novels often lack.  I'm sentimental about the books I read as a child, still love all the ones I loved then, my quality meter lies fallow.  However, when I read new children's books as an adult, I get out my wheat/chaff sorter pretty quick.  I tend to like "quality children's fiction" and "middlebrow to intellectual trash" adult fiction, to the horror of my highbrow friends, who keep pushing Literature at me.  Gah.  I have to be in a very voracious, patient, clear mood to cope with Literature.  Then there are the people who, when I mention HP, sneer "But those are little kids' books!", as if this automatically renders them beneath the dignity of any self-respecting adult!  Grr.  I occasionally entertain theories about the people who are the least secure about their maturity being the ones who are most determined to reject all things construably (?) "immature"... for further reference, see a lot of people between the age of 12 and 18... (I'm excluding you here, Allison!)

Amy Z:

Lyra, now Porkmaster, wrote:

>>I can't believe I overlooked my favorite werewolf! Yes, I agree with
>>everyone who thinks he might die in place of Sirius - in light of
>>recent posts, I (sadly) give him 64%

>Sigh.  I'm afraid you're right.

Yup.  As I mentioned a few weeks ago, I think Lupin is a definite candidate for the chop, for authorly reasons.  Cedric was a bit of a straw man: JKR introduced him as a minor character in PoA, then suddenly set him up as an all-round handsome nice guy in GoF and sacrificed him.  Very economical, killing somone who doesn't have any real long-term personal or plot significance.  From here on, though, the stakes obviously have to get higher.  Makes sense, then, for the next victim(/s) to be someone who has personal significance, but little plot significance.  Hey, she does have three more books to go, remember.  As everyone has mentioned, Sirius and Harry have a lot more ground to cover together.  Lupin, however, is much-loved but not essential to future plot development and pretty vulnerable.  JKR said he'll be turning up in the next book or so (did she say 5 or 6, Steve?), my bet is that he'll make a lovable and heroic contribution, then sacrifice his life for the cause.  Not necessarily slain by the Dark Side, mind you... there are far nastier things that could happen, such as, he turns werewolf and bites someone and gets thrown to the Dementors by Fudge... eurch.

However, the characters who *are* significant to the plot and have important further development to do, such as the trio and Snape, are safe until Book 7, because they are needed for the story.  I suspect the series will end with the classic pyrrhic (sp?) victory: Voldemort is killed, but at a terrible price, e.g. the death of one or more of the key players.

As for the characters in between these two categories, each way bets.  Dumbledore is probably on the way out, for all the reasons people have mentioned.  Hagrid, possible, though he's probably got another book or so's mileage yet. I can envisage a shattered, devastated Hagrid scene after the demise of Dumbledore.   At some point, I suspect that Harry will be betrayed by someone he trusts and believes to be on the good side, perhaps via the Imperio curse.  And whether it's death or betrayal or something else, I reckon there'll be a faltering of some sort in the Weasley ranks at some stage.

> I wonder if there's a reason JKR isn't telling us what forms Lupin's 
> and Dumbledore's Patroni take?

Yes, this has always intrigued me too.  The other thing I'd love to know is what did Dumbledore *really* see in the Mirror of Erised??

Marianna:
> However, even though it was a deeply thoughtless and
brainless thing to do, I doubt it was a result of a
deliberate plan to either kill Snape or turn him into
a werewolf.

I always thought the whole situation was pretty simple.  Snape was a sly and curious young man, violently jealous of James and Sirius, who longed to find some dirt on them.  When he noticed their friend Remus engaging in suspicious behaviour, he began to taunt and hassle and spout nasty theories at them.  "So what's happening with your friend Remus then, huh?  Saw him being sneaked into the Whomping Willow.  And what were you doing sneaking around the castle at night, hm?" etc.  Both nervous that Snape would discover the truth, and goaded beyond reason, Sirius (ever temperamental and short of fuse) cracked one day and said well if you're so damn curious, why don't you go and take a look? Go on, poke the trunk with a stick and take a look!  without really thinking through the consequences, and not really believing that Snape would do it.  Then stalked off glowering, while James, a calmer individual, did start thinking in the same way the troll issue dawned on Harry, and had an attack of alarm that night.  "What if Severus really does go and take a look, Sirius?"  Cue for a disgusted, rankling Sirius to sneer that a slimy coward like Snape wouldn't have the guts, and who cares anyway if he's that stupid.  James then broods on it for a while, declares that he's going to check, Sirius says suit yourself, and James creeps out into the grounds, recognises the distant figure of Snape poking the tree, panics, and rushes in to save him.

Making Sirius thoughtless and self-centred and emotionally volatile, but not quite murderous.  Manslaughterous.

Amber:
>The reason I stayed away from it *wasn't*
because it was a children's book (like so many have stated) but because
it was so *popular*. Sounds silly? It is. I'm quite prejudiced when it
comes to popularity. We all have our flaws.

Ah yes, the Unwashed Masses argument: anything liked by the hordes of tasteless, mindless plebs who populate the world must be trash; sophisticated, erudite people like me are a rarity, which is why good books and films are so uncommon!  A popular argument among classical musicians, academics, artists and suchlike.  I alternate between terror of its judgments and decrying its snobbery and elitism, which means I'm not really immune to it am I?  All the same, I confess that my fascination with Harry Potter had quite the reverse motivation... it was the phenomenon that intrigued me, especially the fact that it was a series of *children's books* that created the whole bonanza!   An author, able to seize the attentions of children so completely in the age of computer games and the internet and television!  An author, becoming one of the richest women in Britain through her writing alone!  I was profoundly impressed and delighted to see that a book can still change the world.  Good on her.  I don't think I've ever been so pleased at someone's success.

Yay JKR!!

Tabouli.


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





More information about the HPforGrownups archive