Re: [HPforGrownups] Harry Potter-A Worthwhile series??

[broken at pixicore.org]

No: HPFGUIDX 33595

I agree with Evvy(?), who thought your literary theory was superficial. I will reply to the snippets I found most controversial below.

<snip>Rowling presents an arbitrary world in which good and evil are simply two sides of the same sorcery--the "Dark Side" and the other side, although no name is ever given for it.  Harry and his friends must choose which side they're on, but of course the line between the two is always moving.  Determining where the line is between good and evil becomes an individual choice, leaving the reader wondering why something is okay for this person and not the other. Sometimes breaking rules is honorable, sometimes it must be punished.  Sometimes a lie is bad, sometimes it is good.    And finally, adult authority is attacked harshly, leaving ultimate authority in the hands of the kid who can grab the most power.</snip>

That has a rather simple answer. It is not the lie itself which is bad or good, but the purpose behind it. Yes, this is antagonistic to what you call the Judeo-Christian tradition has evolved into, but that is what makes JKR unique. Although we are told, as children, that "lying is bad," here the author presents a scenario where NOT lying would most likely bring about something very similar to the "Judeo-Christian" armageddon. 

As for breaking rules, that follows the same basic skeleton--before Harry breaks any school rule, he always assesses the rule itself and the situation he is in. Not all rules carry the same weight--we know this. Murdering a human being is far "worse" than getting a parking ticket. So if a less-significant rule is stopping Harry from doing something important, yes, he will think about how this rule-breaking will affect others then make a decision of whether to ignore it or not. If your wife suffered a life-threatening head trauma, would you not go past several red traffic lights in order to get her there faster? The thing about Harry, though, is that he will always arc with the consequences of his rule breaking, if there are any. Dumbledore often decides that his activities don't warrant one, because in this case the ends justify the means. Malfoy's gang get punished because of the REASON why they break their rules. They do it, as someone else stated, to tease and generally make nuisances out of themselves. Hagrid cannot raise the dragon because of the threat that it imposes to the students of the school.

<snip>Finally, concerning the adult world, or those who would be in authority, there is only derision.  Fred tells his mother, "Honestly, woman, you call yourself our mother?"   And another time, "All right, keep your hair on."  All the teachers at Hogwarts are either dirty, deranged, deceitful, or all three.  "Honestly, Hermione, you think all teachers are saints or something..."   and when referring to late notices for library books, Rowling writes:  "He [Harry] didn't belong to the library, so he'd never even got rude notes asking for books back."  Is it really `rude' to remind a person of a commitment he has made?  When presenting the adult human world, Ms. Rowling presents it in such a ridiculously negative light that it becomes completely unrealistic and even offensive.  All adults are foolish, bungling, stupid and boringly unimaginative.  Why would a child ever look up to them or need them in any way?</snip>

Here your assumptions are absurd. Thes quotes from Fred are a joke--implying the positive relation they have with their mothers, where one can play a harmless, funny prank and be okay with it. Saying something like this to a dysfunctional "Judeo-Christian" mother would make her rather angry, because she might find a bit of truth it in, but here it's okay, because it's a *joke*. Get it? All of the teachers are NOT "dirty, deranged, [or] deceitful." Most of them are perfectly normal persons. Flitwick, McGonagall, Sprout, Hooch, all come to mind as examples of teachers one may find in ANY schools, although sometimes caricaturized. The position of DADA teacher is reserved for the weird teachers, but that is not a reflection of adults. Dumbledore is regarded by Harry and his friends as THE HIGHEST authority, not because of his position but of what he stands for. This is why you seem to be... erm, confused about the role of adults. They are not to be seen with deference merely BECAUSE they are adults--rather, they are judged by the persons they are. I think the only offensive element in your dissertation is the lack of insight you have. 

I agree to some extent that JKR does portray the Muggle world a bit like this ("bungling, stupid..."), but I've observed that muggles are seen this way exclusively by Wizards, who do not really "know" them. Harry, who has lived amongst muggles, has no qualms with them. Most wizards also have no problems with muggle-borns, either. I don't know, this makes sense to me in a way I can't quite explain.

... And really, who cares if JKR says refers to "someone" in the plural "they"? It's called colloquialism. But to use it an example of the rebellious nature of her work is really far-fetched.


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