Fan Readings & Subversion (WAS: Where's the Canon -- Part Two)

[ftah3]

No: HPFGUIDX 35136

Elkins wrote:
>I was fairly impressed, in fact, with the way that in the 
> last book, JKR managed to suggest some rather adult nastiness 
without 
> actually straying from the PG path.  

I agree.  I've been impressed throughout the series by the way 
Rowling addresses the kinds of 'adult' themes that children in real 
life will run into, rather than simply spinning out cotton candy 
plots and denouments.

>The 'genre-soup' aspect of the 
> books is certainly one of the things that I find most appealing 
about 
> them,

I *love* genre-soup.  And as for mixing genres in general, I find I 
prefer books which do that as a matter of course.  Sci-fi or fantasy 
with a bit of mystery; mystery with a bit of supernatural or comedy; 
history with an interpretive, genre-like spin...all good!

> Er...do I get lynched around here if I say that I do sometimes
> have some problems with the writing style?

No!  But I disagree.  I find no problem with her writing style.  
Well, maybe one or two problems; but I don't really expect any 
writing to be perfect, and I can appreciate that most writers have 
quirks ~ words they like, styles they use, that kind of thing.  
Rowling's quirks so far haven't really even registered for me.  I 
really enjoy her easy-going, colloquial style, which yet uses 
language that doesn't expect the average reader, child or adult, to 
be borderline illiterate.  She's frugal with text, and tends to use 
only the one or few words necessary to imply what she needs to get 
across.  

> Now, to my mind a "shriek" is a very specific *type* of high-
pitched 
> raised voice.  The verb has an entire body of implications and 
> associations connected to it as a matter of connotation, and 
> JKR's "shrieks" don't always seem to quite match up with these. 

Disagree.  I think she uses the word so much because of the large 
body of common implications, as *well* as for it's onomatopoeiac 
value and it's value as hyperbole.  Sometimes the character shrieks, 
in a high-pitched raised voice.  Sometimes the character shrieks in 
that the noise they make is just absolutely annoying much like the 
sound of the word 'shriek.' And sometimes the situation is being 
described by the author in an exaggerated manner, and where a real 
life person might only be yelling, the character is said to be 
shrieking either because hyperbole sets the scene more swiftly and 
neatly (and with more brevity), or because a bit of comedy is wanted, 
or possibly because the point is that the character is overreacting 
and so a term that implies overreacting works best.  (This multi-
leveled use of words, dialogue, scenes, etc. is something I see all 
over the place in Rowling's style, and is something I really enjoy.)

> "Being Driven Right To The Brink of Sanity Draco" is another 
example 
> of this.  I have a strangely divided mind when it comes to those 
> scenes which illustrate The Very Worst Of Draco Malfoy.  

Draco, like Hagrid, Snape, the Dursleys, and many other characters, 
are, I feel, often caricatures.  Rowling paints with very broad 
strokes, resulting in a vibrant and sometimes larger-than-life and 
exaggerrated story.  I honestly do not think the reader is supposed 
to take certain things as seriously as I think some do.  

Yes, the Dursleys mistreat Harry terribly, and if this was a child in 
real life I would call Child Protective Services in a heartbeat.  
However, I think the Dursleys in the story are little more than plot 
devices, ways of describing Harry's life and ways of giving Harry the 
opportunity to grow as a character.

Snape is not some tragic & misunderstood hero, nor is he an evil man 
who shouldn't be allowed to teach children.  He's a fab character who 
might play an important good-guy role because it would be a good plot 
device, and who has spit-flying rages because it's a wild and 
effective element in a hoppin' and tense scene.

Hagrid is a big loveable guy who also whines, drinks and becomes 
outrageously violent not because we're supposed to take him terribly 
seriously, but because he's a terribly exaggerated character and it's 
fun, and his oddball nature serves as a (say it with me) plot device 
on occasion.

As for Draco Malfoy, he's a rotten kid, and his bad attitude and his 
propaganda-spewing moments could be the product of his upbringing, 
could be a product of being a stereotypical but exaggerated bully, or 
could be a parallel with Snape (the *only* possiblity I see of any 
Draco-redemption foreshadowing, actually).  But I don't think he's 
nuts; he's simply as exaggerated as any of the other sideline 
characters.  He's colorful.

All of the above is, naturally, my own opinion.  But I enjoyed 
rambling about it, because it's the way I approach reading the books, 
as well as the way I generally approach discussions on this list (and 
is why I might unintentionally come across as flip sometimes).  
Whee!  Fun discussion!

Mahoney
P.S.  Beg pardon for the overuse of the word 'exaggerate(d)' ~ my 
only excuse is that I didn't feel like coming up with a decent 
synonym because I'm sometimes very lazy.  :-D