Fw: Hermione as JKR, Predatory Karkaroff, religion, individualism

[Tabouli]

No: HPFGUIDX 34439


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Tabouli 
To: HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com 
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 3:17 PM
Subject: Hermione as JKR, Predatory Karkaroff, religion, individualism


Elkins:
> This last type of identification is probably the closest thing I have 
to what Tabouli describes with Hermione.  The difference, of course, 
is that while Tabouli's identification is canonically sanctioned 
(presumably she does not feel that Rowling *ever* gets 
Hermione "wrong" -- how could she?), mine with Neville is both 
canonically indefensible and indeed, on the face of it, utterly 
absurd.  <

Interesting.  Does Rowling ever get Hermione "wrong"?  For me, getting her "wrong" would be having Hermione do something which seemed out of character and implausible.  It's a writer's craft thing.  In terms of giving Hermione actions and behaviours I wouldn't go for myself, sure, quite often.  I identify strongly, but not 100%!  The two most significant differences being (a) I was *much* more socially insecure and self-conscious and took a lot longer to get over it than she did (haven't yet, entirely): I wanted people to like me much more than I wanted to wave my ideological flags (though I had no idea of how to do so, and often alienated people by being such a patronising know-it-all... sound familiar?), and (b) I was nowhere *near* that hard-working and research oriented.  I preferred a self-styled creative, erratic, think on my feet approach to things (though I "reseached"/observed human behaviour as obsessively as Hermione researches other things in books).  I was slack, lazy, disorganised, and prone to leaving things to the very last minute and Nevillesque losing and forgetting things, though no less dependent on academic success for my self-esteem.  Fear not, Elkins, I identify with Neville as well...

However.  To go back to my writerly definition of "getting Hermione wrong", I don't see this happening, because JKR understands "Hermionism" very well indeed, for a very good reason - as she has often said in interviews, Hermione is, to a large extent, JKR herself.  (Mary Sue, cry the cynics?)  I find this very interesting, and worthy of further musing on-list than I've seen to date.  JKR describes herself as "almost circular with glasses" at 11, yet is now obviously rather slim and wearing contacts (I assume).  Is Hermione's Yule Ball silky hair analogous to a sudden growth spurt related weight loss and contact lens adoption for JKR in her mid-teens?  Note also that JKR was Head Girl at her school.  Foreshadowing that position for Hermione?  How about Ron, analogous to JKR's best friend Sean.  Ship implications? (i.e. Sean had a schoolboy crush on JKR which he got over, allowing them to become best friends?).

I think there's much to be milked here...


Elkins:
> Was I the only one
left with the unsettling suspicion that Karkaroff's relationship 
with Victor might have been neither purely pedagogical nor purely 
platonic -- and almost certainly not purely consensual?<

At last!  Someone who agrees with my "Karkaroff is preying on Krum" theory!  Why else would he be eyeing Krum and Hermione with exactly the same look as Ron (who is, canonically, wearing a look of sexual jealousy)?  Not a nice thought, but certainly a plausible one which would add a few more black marks in the Karkaroff as most unsympathetic character competition.  After all, Krum is vulnerable (under his care), young and athletic (albeit duckfooted and ungainly), rich and famous...

K.I.S.S.T.H.I.S.D.U.C.K. (Karkaroff Is Suspiciously Solicitous Towards His Illustrious Student, Demonstrating Unsavory Cravings for Krum)

Chris Parnell:
> On all fronts, religion is losing its excessive moral control over
people's lives, and that is a good thing. People used to die in fear
of the Divine, and that was a terrible thing<

As others have pointed out, religion is far from weakening in a lot of places.  It seems mostly (though not exclusively) the "West" that has begun to dismiss religion as foolish superstition and embrace Science instead.  (I've talked with Muslims who come to Australia and find the casual atheism (secularism?) of most Australians shocking and incomprehensible: they saw religion to be as fundamental to life as food).  I personally wonder if this is partly responsible for the growing interest in "alternative" religions and therapies (i.e. other than the traditional religions for the Western country in question, which would probably be along Judeo-Christian lines)... they fulfil a need which cold, ruthless Science does not, allowing for some feeling of control and security - life after death, "supernatural" (=non-scientific) means of controlling the uncontrollable in life, like illness and relationships and weather, etc.

Agnostic though I am, I wonder about religion being necessarily a bad thing.  I'm wary of arguments favoured by extreme right conservative Christians (the sort who burn HP), but in some ways religion can provide the sense of certainty and security which people tend to crave. At its worst, religion can admittedly be abominable, but at its best, religion can promote compassion and good deeds and *less* fear of death, because there's a friendly afterlife waiting.  I have a high tolerance of ambiguity, for various reasons (blessing or curse?), but a lot of people don't.  Maybe one of the reasons for the social problems in the "West" is that there is no longer any unifying, reassuring moral code which defines "good" and "bad" (the law just doesn't have that emotional element), and reassures us that everyone gets what their actions deserve in the end, and as a result there's arguably a growing live for myself for the moment, all individuals in competition philosophy, and where two people's individual moral codes conflict, lawyers are mercenary warriors who become our champions and pit the codes against each other, using different interpretations of The Law and The Facts as weapons (Tabouli peeks warily through her fingers at Cindy and Penny).

Dunno.  I suppose this is part of my speculation on the costs and benefits of individualism.  People from individualist countries tend to believe that individualism (and its tenets Freedom of Choice, Personal Responsibility, Self-Determination, Self-Esteem, etc.) is the most morally evolved and superior of all values systems, and the one to which all cultures should aspire.  Well, sure, everyone thinks their own culture is the best.  It's particularly easy for individualists to believe, because their countries are more powerful, more wealthy and have an average standard of living which is generally higher than people in non-individualist countries (there are many reasons for this, of course, but it does lend itself to the feeling that this surely means their values are Right).  All the same, I'm inclined to be very cautious about this sort of thing, even though I myself have basically individualist values and plan to stick with them.  One of the reasons for this is that despite their on average higher standard of living, people in individualist countries don't necessarily seem to be happier than people in non-individualist countries.  The "freedom" and "personal choice" of individualism is often accompanied by loneliness, alienation and, in particular, punishing self-blame whenever anything goes wrong (after all, it was Your Choices that made it happen!).  Hence this almost obsessional need to find Someone Else To Blame to take away from this terrible feeling of personal responsibility... your parents, for not fostering your self-esteem, your workplace, your government, your local council, the media... quick, find someone to sue!

(sorry, getting carried away to OT land)

Dicentra:
> This black-and-white view of the world is unpalatable to some, I know,
but really there are only two trajectories one can follow: toward the
light or away from it. What constitutes toward and away and light and
darkness is up for debate in the real world, but in an alternate,
fictional universe, things get simplified for the purpose of making a
strong point.<

See above.  Who gets to define "light" and "darkness"?  The country with the most wealth and power?  *My* country (whose values are right by definition, because they're mine)?  Hmmm.  I pity bodies like the UN, trying to come up with and enforce a universal system of morality.  At what point does "personal choice" end and "violation of human rights" begin?  What happens when people "choose" to do things which "violate their rights"?  Is it fair to assume that they've just been brainwashed into that choice because we couldn't imagine ourselves making it?  The very concept of "rights" is Western universalist... isn't cultural imperialism considered Bad, these days?

The more I think about these issues, the more questions and the less answers I can find...

Tabouli.


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