Children's Lit -- Hermione & the Imperius Curse -- Draco's Redeemability -- Trelawney's Christmas Prediction

[Penny & Bryce]

No: HPFGUIDX 25568

Hi everyone --

Sorry, I'm just now catching up from some posts over the long holiday 
weekend.

CHILDRENS' LITERATURE -- <waves at bbennett> -- I agree with her theory 
that if a book cannot be fully comprehended by the average young reader, 
it cannot be *strictly* classified as literature for that age group. 
Therefore, I don't think that the HP books can be classified as 
*strictly* childrens' lit.  I also want to add in that I don't have 
patronizing attitudes about childrens' lit in general.  I read a fair 
bit of it, but because I read a fair bit of it, I believe that I can 
more or less spot it when I see it.  Some of my favorite childrens' 
literature ranks up there among my all-time favorite literature, period. 
But, the works of Laura Ingalls Wilder are unquestionably childrens' lit.

I wonder if another distinction might be made: if it's a book that you 
read first as a child and return to re-read it out of nostalgia, it 
might be classed as childrens' lit.  If, OTOH, it's a book that you read 
as a child but now can re-read with an entirely different understanding, 
maybe it's not childrens' lit at all.

HERMIONE & THE IMPERIUS CURSE -- Interesting question!  I wish I'd 
gotten in on this one a bit earlier as everyone has mostly said what I 
would say.  I agree with those who say Hermione has the strength of 
character & will to probably stand a good chance of resisting the 
Imperius Curse or at least putting up a good fight.  She probably is 
somewhere between Harry throwing it off entirely early-on and Ron who 
can't resist it at all.  BTW, Catherine, yes I very much agree that JKR 
is hinting or foreshadowing some problems with Ron's inability to resist 
Imperius.

Thanks to Barb for outlining some good reasons why Hermione is not 
blinded by authority & unfailingly obedient such that she might be 
susceptible to Imperius.

DRACO'S REDEMPTION? -- I've really enjoyed these discussions alot!  I 
confess to not understanding how anyone can argue that someone is not 
susceptible to redemption.  How can that be?  *Especially* a 14 year old 
boy.  No room for redemption?  Huh?  The word redeem means to rescue, 
save or deliver.  So, in order to require redemption one needs to be in 
a position that requires saving or deliverance in some way.  Someone 
argued that JKR would have to reverse everything Malfoy has done or said 
in the first 4 books in order to redeem him.  Forgive me if I've 
misunderstood this argument, but Malfoy wouldn't need redemption if he 
*hadn't* done or said the things he did & said in Books 1-4.  She 
doesn't need to change Malfoy's past actions in order to redeem him. 
She does need to lay a foundation to make his redemption plausible, but 
she needn't have set that foundation in place from the very beginning. 
It can, and perhaps *should*, wait until later.  I'm not sure I'm making 
my position very clear here, but it just doesn't make sense to me to say 
that Draco is irredeemable.

Catherine wrote:

> This makes me think that JKR is playing a game with us - she is
> letting Professor Trelawney get just enough right for us to worry
> about whether it was Ron or Harry who got up first from the Christmas
> dinner table.  If this is true, and everyone has money on Dumbledore
> dying before the end of the series, he cannot be the first to die, as
> Harry and Ron left the table before him.  In that case, my money has
> to be on Ron.  Make sense?

Yes, exactly!  My money is also on Ron.  I never thought about the 
Dumbledore twist though ... but yes, he really can't die first if this 
prediction is true.  It's food for thought, even if you do believe that 
Trelawney is mostly a fraud.  :--)

Penny