Truth, light, knowledge, the WWF, Dickens and Trelawney

[tbernhard2000]

No: HPFGUIDX 43525

Responding to Eileen, Carol, and Porphyria.

Thanks to the group for the feedback on this topic, which
is so obviously important to me. I need to make one thing
clear, however. I am not, in any way, attacking either the
books, which I read, and read to my 6 year old son, or
their popularity. (I'm even at Schnoogle, under darkthirty,
of course.) Nor do I expect "realism" from them, in some
large philosophical sense. What I practise is what I
consider a realistic adult reading of them, especially in
regard to the treatment of "truth" in the canon. If the
reference to Grindelwald, so early in the book, indeed, at
the first mention of Dumbledore, bothers me on one level,
it is because Rowling chose to put the reference there.
We have just found out how bad wizards can get. And
then, there is this Wizard card.

Eileen
I think it's time for Tolkien and Lewis.

darkthirty
As I pointed out in my email to you, a copy of
which I didn't keep (I hate webmail forms that can't be
recovered... my mistake) Tolkien was writing about a
completely different world, he didn't throw in little
references to Ten-pin bowling or plug-collecting, and
Middle Earth was not a hop, floo or platform from "our"
world. There are significant differences between the
stories. Tolkien was loathe to admit any reference at all to
"our" present world, loathe to admit any level of allegory.
Rowling's story not only makes these references, they
are central elements of the plot! Her witch/wizard world
depends on the muggle world. They are parallel. This is
quite significant, in more ways than one.

Eileen
I think it's important to make clear that this
"abstemiousness from truth" is not a hallmark of Harry
Potter only, but of most fiction, especially that which we
know as fantasy or fairy tales.

darkthirty
There is no abstemiousness from truth in
Tolkien. There is, rather, an over-abundance of it,
volumes worth. The hobbits' allies spend a great amount
of time and energy trying to hammer the real state (and
real estate, as it were) of Middle Earth into their heads.
Knowledge becomes very important to the fellowship.
Knowledge weighs down all of them in the end, but lack of
it would have been their demise. Not so Potter.
Knowledge comes "after the fact."

Carol
My only answer to that is that the books are not
reality. They are fiction. And not just any kind of fiction,
but specifically fantasy. How real should a fantasy have
to be?

Eileen
We, the readers, in this understanding, are reading
and creating this world in protest and escape against our
world, against reality.

C.S. Lewis
"The dangerous fantasy is always superficially
realistic... The one is an askesis, a spiritual exercise, and
the other is a disease."

darkthirty
Well, this seems a bit dangerous to me, in the
context of this thread. I wouldn't necessarily put it that
way, but now you mention it, perhaps I do perceive
something in the "spiritual exercise" that doesn't fully
appreciate exactly how much, or exactly what, belief is
being "suspended." A realistic reading of the books seems
to require the knowledge of what beliefs one is
suspending. Rowling tosses asides about "our" world,
posits a universe where "our" world and a parallel magical
world exist side-by-side, and in this context, places a boy
who seems "destined." That to me seems a context that
could be perceived as compromising and compromised,
not only within the story, but in the larger context of the
books' popularity. They are popular, I hazard, because
they compromise. We desire a world where our "deepest
desires" hold sway, a world where we just *are* whatever.
"Just Harry." This is nothing like Lewis' or Tolkien's
worlds. Just being Frodo doesn't mean a thing.

Eileen
If one wants to believe that Joy does not exist...

darkthirty
But Erised and the dialogue around it made it
clear that the thesis being presented, in contradiction to
the actual treatment of truth in books, was that Erised
was a fraud. Erised becomes useful only when Potter
has, in the context of the books, dropped the fantasy. My
reading is that the real fantasy exists on a much deeper
level. My reading also doesn't find much joy in the Potter
books, or rather, it finds joy, so far, only in the pathos of
someone sustaining this fantasy, which makes life livable,
in the face of facts, of evidence, of truth. Harry's apparent
love for Sirius, for instance, is unconvincing. Hermione's
love for Harry is quite convincing, or Cho's for Cedric. The
books are more adult disguising themselves as children's
books than children's books appealing to the adult. The
very age of the characters is the key here. "Wish I'd gone
to school at a place like that, where merely saying
something would make it so." Etc. Why are we grown-ups
so interested in this school? Why is all the fan fiction
about ships? There seems to be an advanced strain of
"unconditional love wish fulfilment" going around. Besides,
of all the things I could say about Harry's character, the
only one I feel confident about is that he is "without
malice," at least in the fantasy world. In my reading, this is
far more important than "joy." In my reading, Harry is, in
fact, a greater hero than he could ever possibly be in the
magical world of the books.

Carol
She writes in such a simple style, with lots of
humor, but underneath it all lie plenty of serious questions
about life.

darkthirty
Exactly. I am trying to point to the very serious
question of the relationship between what we are, for
instance, and what we know. We know the world is
horrifying and terrible. Are we? As support for this, I refer
to the houses. They are all *in* Hogwarts'. And just how is
my reading denying there are serious questions? A
fantasy world, even in the pathological sense, or
especially in the pathological sense, is full of serious
questions.

"Harry and the trio will succeed whether or not those
around them attempt to keep them in the dark, to impose,
in a way, ignorance upon them? Do we really believe
Harry's successful encounters so far have been written
beforehand, and the outcome assured?"

Carol
Does this ultimately matter? Isn't that a question
about life in general, not just the HP series?

darkthirty
On the one hand, I get the impression that my
reading makes some think I expect something of
Rowling's "world" that I don't find there. This is just not
true. I am stating what I do find there. A sense that, in
spite of everything, Harry is "destined" to succeed, so far.
Of course it matters. This group spends a lot of time
debating the possible reasons Voldemort wanted Harry
dead, for example. They debate what, about Harry's
destiny, is the issue. And all this talk about Trelawney's
other prediction. (What I really think her other prediction
was was that once, when she heard Dumbledore was
going bowling in town, she said he'd bowl three strikes on
his last game, which he did.) Now, being a secular
Calvinist, I believe in a sort of fate, not the debased idea
of it that permeates popular culture, mind, but a subtler
and more intricate working. Calvin advocated for, and
built, secular universities, because he believed real,
unconstrained knowledge would also illuminate the
spiritual - they weren't contradictory regions of truth at all.
Just as there were these forces, for lack of a better term,
in nature, so there were these forces in people. I agree,
basically, sans religion.

Carol
I don't think Dumbledore knew just how bad the
Dursleys would be to Harry.

darkthirty
But Dumbledore had "learned" of how bad they
were. And still sent him back.

Carol
One method of literary criticism is to see a text as a
reflection of an author's subconscious. I think this can be
fun and interesting, but I don't think it adds all that much to
an understanding of the text.

darkthirty
But Carol, what is an understanding of the text?
Are you suggesting that *only* debates about Crouch's
mark (?), Moody's (?) foe glass, Voldemort's reason for
wanting Harry dead, the houses to which the Marauders
belonged etc. etc. add "understanding" to the text? I
cannot accept this. My reading, indeed, is exactly the
opposite of this. 1500 pages. That's all we have.
We should have cleared up all the bits long ago.

Instead of looking at the world of the books as self-
contained, which, as I have pointed out a few times now,
Rowling herself plots against, I can only look at them as
they really are - that is, extremely popular with all ages,
with some fearful continuity problems, lots of humour, very
horrifying and very touching moments, and a plethora of
difficulties, in terms of "serious" ideas. If I am talking
about anyone's "subconscious," I am talking about the
adult readers'. This is completely tied to the canon, it is
not some comment about fantasy books in general.

Porphyria's reading of darkthirty
there is something particularly self-contained, nearly
solipcistic about Harry, and that the world of the books is
extremely walled off from the real world.... the HP books
have a particular aversion towards knowledge that merits
some analysis... the usefulness of knowledge must cede, must fail, to 
make room for the supremacy of will power, love, loyalty and
other qualities internal to the hero -- feelings that would
sustain an abused boy but still preserve his protective
fantasy.

darkthirty
Wish I could write that clearly

Porphyria
What saves him is his extraordinary strength of
will with the Priori Incantatem effect.

darkthirty
That event is the best example of a particular
part of the reading. It's like the WWF (which I do NOT
watch!) (Snape as the Undertaker?) Scripted in the heart,
but on, well, a somewhat different level than the WWF,
less beer and more herbal tea. But like the WWF anyway.
I stand by that.

Porphyria
the narrative makes it physically, iconically clear that
*Hemione's logic will enable Harry to pass to the next
level, but she herself must at that point cede the heroic
function to him.*

darkthirty
I would merely add that this observation, though
to the point, and wonderfully put, doesn't quite give the
same emphasis I would give it. That is, it is at this point
that Harry must dispense with Hermione, her logic, his
dependance upon her and it. I would, that is to say, put
the active focus upon Harry. Even though the book "reads"
more like yours.

Porphyria
We see evidence of Harry's intellectual
nonchalance in a variety of tiny details. Harry isn't
insightful or curious unless a life is at stake.

darkthirty
Unless he perceives a life is at stake. His
perception is coloured by ignorance. It's funny, but the
biggest oversight, I thought, was his not asking about the
darned socks! Really. It was such a Parsifal moment. I
kept thinking - "oh, Harry will know why Voldemort tried to
kill him when he's able to ask Dumbledore about the
socks." Funny.

Porphyria
qualities found in fantasy, desire and strength
of will. They are touching, inspiring, but still trapped in a
self-contained view of the world; the don't address the
outer world of logic and learning, but the inner one of the
heart.

darkthirty
My reference to perhaps the most famous book about
"educating the heart," as one critic saw it, David
Copperfield, was a bit to casual, perhaps. I just hope
Draco doesn't turn out to be Ron's and Ginny's
Steerforth, though Arthur's a fair Macawber, Neville a
pretty good Traddles, Hermione does seem a bit Agnes,
Figg a bit Betsy... well, you get the point.

darkthirty