Abstemiousness with truth - the careful fantasy world of Potter

[tbernhard2000]

No: HPFGUIDX 43439

replies to Marcus and Amanda

My so-called reading, just to make a general point here, is not 
hooked to this or that literal inner working of the canon - I am 
talking about the canon as a whole, its outer workings, as it were, 
or, more precisely, the commerce of truth in the books, and what that 
might mean in terms of the popularity of Potter. (Aha!) Why are tens 
of thousands of adults discussing it in minutest detail? Is talking 
about Harry Potter like discussing last night's game? Is it like 
discussing real news? Is it catharsis? There are thousands of fantasy 
worlds created by thousands of authors, none have had this impact. So 
why Harry Potter? This is the origin of my reading - self-conscious, 
critical, and not of the "my favourite characters are Moody and 
Snape" (true) or "just how bad is Fudge?" (very) sort. Isn't it 
rather more a question of why everyone seems to have these generally 
pronounced preferences for certain characters? Or how is it Fred and 
George, and our enjoyment of their antics, can lead to such debates 
as have recently appeared in this group?

Marcus:

>...unless you are prepared 
>to tell me that he keeps daydreaming and daydreaming and daydreaming 
>the same scenario over and over and over again until he gets it 
right 
>and all the details worked out.

Amanda

>If this is a true interpretation, why does he come back to the 
Dursleys, to
>"reality," at all? Why does he not allow himself to "stay" at 
Hogwarts over
>the summers, too? Will you tell me Harry has internalized the 
pattern of
>terms and holidays to the point of being unable to escape it, or 
will you
>say that all of the experiences with reality that he cannot 
otherwise deny
>or sublimate are compressed in his fantasy to the summer break?

darkthirty:

In a manner of speaking, yes, I am saying that, just as WE go over 
the details of the books, over and over again, trying to "get it 
right," in this group, for example, so might someone imagining a way 
out of a hopeless, helpless situation go over the details of their 
life, trying to get it right. (Or, for that matter, the person 
writing the books.) But again, it is no simplistic "Harry is dreaming 
this and the author at the end will have him wake to his dismal 
world." What I read in the books is, at times, or rather, partially, 
all the time, the dismal world behind the fictional story of a boy's 
progress through a magical world that accounts for, and explains, 
much of what he has had to put up with in the non-magical world. I 
don't see it as simply a silly narrative technique of Rowling's, as I 
have stated. Whether or not she has any commerce with such ideas as 
mine is not the point at all. I am not discussing, and do not mean to 
discuss, something that only Rowling knows. What I am discussing is 
the sense I get, from various key moments or trends in the books, 
that the stepping, the walking, through this magical Potter world, is 
extremely careful, that the meting of so-called truth, which I freely 
admit IS a narrative device, indicates to me also not only a fear of 
continuity problems - that is, structural problems with the series of 
novels itself, also well accounted for by the author herself, 
Rowling's fear, I suppose - but a fear of falling into the chasm, the 
gaping void, as it were, just where narrative borders on the real. 
Think how carefully Grindelwald is placed in time, but not, to this 
point in the story, examined. Why is that? On the same card as the 
reference to Ten-pin bowling! Now, to me, that particular 
juxtaposition is an overt signal of something a bit more meaningful 
that just an example of Rowling's sense of humour, which is one of 
the techniques she uses for giving us an "out" as it were, from 
belief. The muggle artifact collecting of Arthur - a little wink to 
we adult readers, and a reasonable fascination for an odd sort of 
wizard to the youngsters. The author is, as far as I can tell, quite 
clearly "playing" our world, alluding to it, but I don't believe the 
reason she is doing this is merely to make the books "fun" for adults 
to read to their children, or "reasonable" to the kids, or anything 
quite like that, though that is partially the reason, no doubt. No, 
some of these "allusions" are very dark indeed - the muggle air show 
at the Quidditch World Cup comes to mind. If the fantasy world 
reading truly doesn't "exist" in the books, we adults, we thoughtful 
and critical readers, would have to invent it. Do we not, if fact, 
dance around it, in our discussions of the Potter books in hundreds 
of groups or lists, tens of thousands of fan fictions, dozen 
scholarly works etc.?

Amanda

>Further, there are a few scenes where the story is *not* filtered 
through
>Harry's perceptions or colored by his presence.

darkthirty

Since Rowling has clearly stated who Hermione "is," (I wonder...) the 
books are, in one reading anyway, an exposition and extrapolation 
of "someone else's" fantasy, and the narrative focus is always a step 
removed from young Potter. Book 1 Chapter 1 is Rowling's, or, like 
David Copperfield, in another voice, a "knowing presumption." Once 
some details of the history are told, however, there is a narrative 
shift, as there is in Copperfield. That is to say, for the rest of 
the books, the narration pretty much follows Harry's progress. The 
chapter may not read all that different from the rest of the books, 
but there is no question that a narrative shift has taken place. It 
might as well have been called a prologue, since that is really what 
it was. But see my later point regarding Rowling/Hermione.

When Rowling abruptly turns our attention from Harry and Molly in the 
hospital near the end of GoF, just who is being protected, or what? 
(Well, literally, Harry IS being protected, from Skeeter.) The 
carefully constructed character of Harry Potter? Hermione's, or 
rather, Rowling's image of him, and, by association, ours? Are we 
being protected, from direct exposure to Harry's pain? Would crying 
break Harry's isolate attractiveness, sad as it is? If so, why would 
that be bad? Would we, as readers, turn from it, from the books? Is 
Rowling protecting her character? What exactly does that isolation 
mean, and why do we not really want him to cry? I would answer by 
saying that the danger here is that this careful fantasy world will 
crumble into dust not because of some plot hole, some careless story 
thread, but because Harry's "character," the central column of the 
structure that is the books, would break, and the defense against the 
dark world would crumble. Rowling writes this scene pretty 
unambiguously, don't you think? In much fan fiction, of course, a big 
deal is made about Harry finally crying for real, because the writers 
are on to something, but no one seems to tackle it at the core. Fan 
fiction doesn't read like the canon, not on this level to which I 
refer. If Harry started crying, he wouldn't stop until he found 
himself in our world, until we found ourselves back in our world, in 
a manner of speaking. We want Harry to stay isolate until that bad 
guy Voldemort is defeated, to satisfy OUR desire for resolution, OUR 
hope for a fantasy world (Potter) that pays OUR "deepest desires" 
some account. But there is no truth in it - in that sense, the Potter 
books are very much Erised.


Amanda

>I'd think that if he were trying to
>rationalize his fate by inventing the safety factor (of the 
Dursley's house, ed.), that would be one of
>the first things his fantasy addressed. Nor does he seem to embrace
>ignorance; he receives knowledge gladly. He does not go seeking 
information,
>but he does not hide from it.

darkthirty

The Dursley's need not be any more real than the rest of the Potter 
world, muggle or magical. I didn't say my reading was any more 
unambiguous than Rowling's writing. In the book, the question came 
when Potter had a chance to possibly NOT stay at the Dursley's. 
Perhaps he'd had no hope of such a thing before. To answer your other 
point, I think it is damn near impossible NOT to learn, wherever and 
whoever we are.

As more evidence of my point, I put forward Harry's admission that he 
fears dementors (insanity, or, if you will, loss of mind, de-ment - 
described in the book as loss of all happiness, that is, in my 
reading, loss of the fantasy world) more than anything or anyone 
else. It is his mind that is his safety, or feels most threatened. 
Not his heart, not his mother's (and we do not know who his genetic 
mother is, for certain, at least from the canon, as all references to 
his mother could well be made about an adoptive mother, no references 
to Lily having ever been pregnant etc.) love, but his mind.

Out of curiousity, what did you make of that particular revelation? 
Why would Harry fear insanity more than he fears Voldemort, unless 
Voldemort were merely an idea of evil, or rather, a representation of 
the forces he sees in array against him, and insanity was a far more 
immediate, constant danger? He fears it because it would cost him the 
only idea of happiness he has, which is more than a little mythic. He 
might also be equivocating (fantasy world) where equivocation is 
impossible (magical world).

Amanda

>a realistic world would be one
>where it is not only possible but probable and likely that he fail. 
Is that
>correct?

darkthirty

That significant allies keep important truths from Harry indicates to 
me that he, the abused boy, is imagining them, is creating meaningful 
contexts for his helplessness, positing allies, where perhaps there 
are too many enemies. I don't expect realism from the Potter books, 
not the sort I think you are referring to. The reading can be 
realistic.

>> How is this possible? Are we to assume fate, a grossly 
misunderstood
>> concept in my opinion, being myself something of a secular 
calvinist,

Amanda

>"Calvinist," deriving from a proper name, should be capitalized. 
(Sorry.
>Can't help it. Personality defect. Cursed by an editor at birth. 
Etc.)

darkthirty

Generally I capitalize the word.


>>His staying was not quite a decision; rather, as
>>he later reflects, it was an action, the right one, we agree, made 
in
>>ignorance. A bit of pathos.

Amanda

>I'm not at all sure I know what you're saying with this. The second 
task,
>the Egg? 

darkthirty

The second task was rescuing valued people from the lake. The egg was 
a way of delivering (or not) information about what that task was.

Amanda

>You must have been coming in through that third-corridor route. 
Watch out
>for the three-headed one.

darkthirty

I prefer a different way of writing, but this is as close as I can 
come to what I think Fluffy expects.

In conclusion, let me restate that I never said "this is all the 
daydreamings of Harry." (More like, "this is all the daydreamings of 
a hundred million fans.") For one thing, daydreams are normal. 
Fantasy worlds are pathological, sometimes, in some situations, and 
great art other times or in other situations, or even at the same 
time. There is other danger in trying to impose artificial naivete 
upon a literary work, which, for some reason, has caught the 
imagination of the world like no other. For another thing, I have 
stated, perhaps not loudly enough, that it is not only not the only 
reading, but it is not my only reading. It is a parallel reading, as 
the magical world in Potter is parallel to the muggle world in 
Potter, which are distinct, but have points of contact. The fantasy 
world of Potter tries to account for many muggle world events or 
situations, where Harry is involved. Part of the attraction is that 
Potter can do the same thing for ourselves. What I do not think 
Rowling will try is to have these books attempt to account for the 
general reality of our real world, just as what happens in the 
magical world does not account for most of what happens in the muggle 
world. If she did, she'd be a very crazy Potter, and we'd be crazy to 
accept it. Perhaps this is the difficulty for her in the later books. 
(That would be the ghosts of Grindelwald delay theory, perhaps, or 
the broken pin-setting machine theory.)

The gist is that, just as Harry has to continue, his heart's quest, 
his sanity (his fantasy world), as it were, to believe, in spite of 
obstacles or enemies, mendaciousness or hostility in his path, so 
must we readers, in the face of the absolute impossibility of the 
novels' premise, believe. Without this fantasy world reading of which 
I speak, Rowling is far too easy a time of it, especially for we 
adult readers, in startling contrast to the experiences of Harry 
Potter. And the books would not be a tenth as popular as they are. 
Perhaps we should question whether Rowling really is Hermione at all. 
Myself, I think she's more Harry than anyone else. Supposing this to 
be the case, supposing Rowling's comment about being Hermione must be 
taken with a grain of salt, wouldn't my reading become a little 
clearer? (Please don't make me say it!!!)

It's like knowing that this reading is quite possible, but believing 
anyway. First, one must acknowledge just how much one is "suspending 
disbelief." Otherwise, it is merely a blab about last night's game.

darkthirty