Average Harry? (was: International Conference Discusses HP, Tolkien)

Mon May 14 20:56:44 UTC 2001

No: HPFGUIDX 18735

Hi Jim and list:

Jim wrote:
>I just found a good article about the recent International Congress
>on Medieval Studies held at Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo,
>MI.
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/12/arts/12MIDD.html (site registration
>required)
>
>Here's a quote from the story:
>
>"Tolkien refashioned the old medieval epics into what we now call
>fantasy literature," ... "He's the bridge figure who updated the
>genre. Harry Potter is infused with the Middle Earth ethos, which is
>about the ordinary or smaller man who goes on to win great victories."
>(Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company)
>
>IMHO, something is lost when Harry is turned into a superhero, as in
>some fanfic. Kudos to JKR for going against the flow of Saturday
>Morning Television and giving us stories out of such a venerable
>tradition.

Oh, but Jim, I think that you're overstating here.  :-)  Superheroes come 
from a venerable tradition as well... one that is just as worthy and even 
older than the everyday hero (whose heroism, it can be stated, separates 
them from the pack anyway).  Protagonists with extraordinary abilities are 
directly descended from folkloric archetypes.

One doesn't have to have superpowers to be extraordinary.  The trickster 
figure is extraordinary.  The character who is extremely lucky is 
extraordinary.  The character who is extremely faithful (Penelope in Greek 
myth), loves unto death (Aida), or extremely persistent (The Little Engine 
That Could) are all extraordinary.

And Harry's extraordinary as well.

I think that Harry's intrinsically gifted in some areas, and I drew that 
conclusion from canon.  He's a natural flyer.  At age 13, he conjured a 
perfect Patronus... Lupin states that plenty of fully qualified wizards 
cannot do this.  At age 14, he threw off the Imperius Curse... many fully 
qualified wizards' lives were destroyed during Voldemort's first rise 
because of this hex.

I do admit that none of this evidence is conclusive.  However, one cannot 
slap a Joe Public kid label on Harry and ignore the evidence that is 
contrary.  Harry is similar to the Lord of the Rings sequence in some 
respects, but there is *not* a direct parallel.

There's something about Harry himself that is different.  He doesn't have to 
be Superman... but he's not your average bear either.  I came to that 
conclusion on my own from reading canon, pre-fanfic, and was utterly shocked 
last year when I learned the majority of the fandom believes that Harry's 
Joe Public.  Sure, I believed Harry was just a regular kid in PS/SS and CoS, 
perhaps one with lots of luck.  Began to scratch my head in PoA.  But after 
I read GoF, I was driven to find grown-up fans in part *because* I thought 
there was something more to Harry than met the eye.

In fact, I'll even stick my neck out and state this: If Harry lives beyond 
Book 7, if he doesn't lose his magical ability, and if he doesn't go into 
hiding, he *can't* remain average and live very long.  Here's why.

If and when Voldemort's taken out, all of his sympathizers will *not* be 
taken out with him.  Neither will his most staunch supporters reform... I'm 
talking a "reprobate mind" here.  Unless every bad wizard is killed off at 
the end of Book 7 (right), there's going to be somebody who wants Harry 
dead.

If he's Joe Public, they'll kill him.  If he's not, they'll think
twice before they try.

Another barrier to Harry being Joe Public is the first 17 years of
his life.  From age one to age eleven, he lives with the Dursleys...
enough said.  From age eleven to age seventeen, he's basically a
walking target.  If he outlives Voldemort and co., he's not going to
have any idea what normalcy is.  (Personally, I think that the term "normal" 
itself is a misnomer.)  He's going to have a mountain of
issues.  Many of us who work with kids are surprised that the
character isn't worse off than he is emotionally and mentally.  This
itself bespeaks of emotional intelligence that is beyond the so-
called "norm".

Perhaps I'm just not seeing the problem with giftedness.  It's a very
sticky issue with me... I was a gifted kid (IQ 160--which is why I
laugh at books like *The Bell Curve*) and I teach gifted kids.  It
can be argued that magical kids in general are gifted.  Well, even in
TAG programs we teach students with varying degrees of giftedness in
each area of Gardner's multiple intelligences, just as special ed
teachers teach students with varying degrees of challenges/special
needs.  I don't think that intellectually gifted kids should feel as
if they have to apologize for their mental abilities.

As for the Dumbledore quote, it's one I like as well, but it can be
applied in the context of giftedness.  There are gifted people who
have healed the world and who have brought it grief.  I bet you Tom
Riddle was not an average wizard... he chose to go bad.  His
abilities didn't make him bad, his choices did.

So no, I don't think I'll ever buy the "average-Joe" theory, until and/or 
unless JKR writes it into canon.

Just my .02 Galleons.

--Ebony (who has quite a number of friends, colleagues, and co-workers who 
attended Western Michigan)

<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><
Ebony AKA AngieJ
ebonyink at hotmail.com

Come join us in Paradise!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Paradise

Visit Schnoogle.com:
http://www.geocities.com/heiditandy/

"Not that great German master in his dream
Of harmonies that thundered amongst the stars
At the creation, ever heard a theme
Nobler than 'Go down, Moses.'  Mark its bars--
How like a mighty trumpet-call they stir
The blood.  Such are the notes that men have sung
Going to valorous deeds; such tones there were
That helped make history when Time was young."

--James Weldon Johnson, composer, Negro National Anthem

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com