Why to Like and Not Like OoP

[Sabrina]

No: HPFGUIDX 70641

The Formerly Admiring Skeptic:
[snip reasons for posting/not posting]

Me(Sabrina):
Actually, I feel about your post pretty much the same way, I feel about OoP,
very ambiguous. There are things that I can fully agree with/understand,
others that I have problems with. But, I think it'll be easier to answer to
your points individually.

>Why NOT to like OoP:
>
>1. The characters' personalities and >relationships are refreshingly
realistic. >Until now, perhaps this was true, >however, in OoP, the
personalities and >relationships are not realistic at all.

Me(Sabrina):
This is were I have a problem. I think that until now the characterisations
and relationships between the characters aren't realistic (not to say that I
think they are in OoP). Some examples for that are IMHO Harry's
characterisation as a relatively 'normal' kid, despite his childhood. There
was one thread about this before OoP came out and several members pointed
out that it certainly is possible for an abused child to turn out the way
Harry did, and I managed to get my mind around that and accept it as fact.
However, that doesn't change that my first reaction to it was 'That's
unrealistic!' and that even during re-reads I have to remind myself of this
dicussion.
Another thing is, for example, the Harry-Lupin or Harry-Molly relationship.
Both of them have a positive influence on his life but make only very
sporadic appearances and despite him knowing that they care for him, they
aren't really a part of his life. I always expected the relationship tp
become much closer, for example, shown by Molly telling Harry to call her
'Molly' and not 'Mrs Weasley' (I know I did that with my best friedns mother
and I never spent several weeks in their household).

>What *is* true is that the characters' >behavior is realistic of some real
people >some of the time. There are people in >the world who sometimes act
like Harry, >Ron, Hermione, Dumbledore, and Sirius >do in OoP. However, real
people in the >situations that these characters find >themselves in would
NOT realistically >act the way they do, nor would anyone >act the way they
do for as long and >consistently as the characters do, either.

Me(Sabrina):
This is where I have another problem: you make it sound as if everybody
would react to the same situations in the same way. Some people in the real
world act one way in a certain situation and everybody has to react the same
way. And this is IMO just not true. And can you really and honestly say that
you know how you would react to the situations everybody in the book is
confronted with? I know, I don't.

[snip of Harry's behaviour as it can be answered with my above statement]

>            Ron's whole issue, in OoP, is >becoming recognized as a person
with >merits of his own. Before he gets >recognition, he's got plenty of
normal >self-doubt, but afterwards, he accepts >his new status as a natural
thing, with >none of the intensified self-doubt, >testing the bounds of the
new >reputation, and strained relationships >that normally accompany teenage
(and >adult) changes in status. No realism >here.

Me(Sabrina):
I absolutely agree with you here, however, I think we have to take into
account that it's from Harry's PoV (yeah, I know that's a lame accuse, but
it is a fact) and no matter how much we want to know about the emotions of
others, as long as Harry doesn't recognise them or think about them, we
don't get to know about it. And somehow, I can't picture Harry and Ron
having a heart-to-heart about Ron's insecurities, although he probably still
has them.

>            Hermione is Miss Perfect, as >Rita Skeeter teases. Realism?

Me(Sabrina):
Has she ever really been different? Her charactersation isn't only
unrealistic in OoP, but also in the other books. Yes, she definitely is too
perfect and I'm just waiting for the second shoe to drop.

>            Dumbledore is human, with >human failings, we discover. One of
>those failings is being completely >insensitive to the feelings of a person
he >never stops thinking about - Harry. And >he continues to be insensitive
for >months on end, supposedly for Harry's >protection, supposedly because
he loves >Harry.

Me(Sabrina):
Totally, agree with you here. Up until now Dumbledore has been an omipotent
grandfather-ly figure and that he suddenly makes such an error in judgement
and never questions his decisions during the year, seems unrealistic. The
only thing I could bring to the defence of his characterisation is, again,
that we don't see a lot of him and therefore don't know if he has problems
deciding what to do. Still, it certainly is an aprubt change of character
for him.

[snip of Sirius' explanation, totally agree]

>              Again - these *behaviors* exist. >There are real people who
*act* like >these characters do - but only for brief >stretches of time.
There is no realism in >the way these behaviors persist from >July to June.

Me(Sabrina):
There's also no realism in the fact that the big showdown is always at the
end of the book. And I know that that is no excuse but I still had to point
out that that's another point that has been happening since book 1.

[snip about study of adolocense because I actually don't have an opinion
about that, I haven't read either of the books you mention, so I can't
really compare them.]

>3. The books develop important themes >like the failure of government, the
>danger of petty evil, the evil within, the >importance of self-control, and
so on. >All I can say is that the books present >these themes, but they
don't develop >them, and the presentations are pretty >bald-faced and
simplistic. Umbridge is a >pretty heavy-handed statement of the >evils of
government control. No subtlety >there. Harry's Evil Within is a real
>possession by an evil Other, not an >exploration of personal evil. The only
>evil he discovers within himself is an >unfriendly feeling of superiority
to Ron, >and a small pleasure in being >Voldemort's chosen nemesis, which is
>really just a natural, forgivable mental >compensation for the suffering
>Voldemort has caused him. Petty evil in >the form of Fudge and the Daily
Prophet >apologize at the end and go back to >business as usual; no
explorations here. >Self-control? Yes, Harry could use >some, as we see
again, and again, and >again, with no variation or development >at all.

Me(Sabrina):
Absolutely agree with everything. The themes are certainly there but at the
end everything is almost back to the starting point (especially everything
at Hogwarts).

[snip all the excellent points about the lack of a brilliant plot]

Me(Sabrina):
Compared to the other books the plot certainly leaves a lot to wish for.
During the readin, I was always reminding myself that it wasn't fanfiction I
was reading but actually canon because I was constantly cataloguing mistakes
in the plot and continuity that I'd normally mention in a review to the
author. And then i remembered that I just had to accept it that way because
that's what JKR said.

>So Why Like OoP?
>
>2. It tells you some of Snape's and James >et al's backstory, so you can
enjoy the >other books more deeply.
>
>3. It has lots of fantasy details, for those >who like fantasy for its own
sake.
>
>4. It has some humor, for those who can >overlook the characters' suffering
>enough to enjoy the humor.
>
>7. It mixes a tolerable plot, characters >you already like, and neat,
imaginative >details with important themes, which is >a mix you don't often
get, even if none >of these elements are brilliant in their >own right.

Me(Sabrina):
These points are the things that still make me like the book. I actually
liked Harry's characterisation because IMO it was about time that he stopped
being a goody-goody (unfortunately nothing to do with realism or anything
like that and purely based on my feelings). I liked the way JKR expanded the
WW over the boundaries of Hogwarts (MoM and St Mungo's). What already
started with the QWC in book 4 is taken further even here and as I'm very
interested in the way the WW works, this was very interesting for me, even
though there were some inconsistencies.

[snip about who doesn't like OoP]

>So why did these fans like the other >HPs?
>
>1. Harry's character was not very >realistic before, but it was more
>consistent than now, and more pleasant, >to boot.

Me(Sabrina):
Agree with the first point, as I stated above. However, the more pleasant
part is something that has always irked me and most of the time got more on
my nerves than he teenager-ness now. But that's only my very biased opinion
and I know many people don't agree with that.

>3. The fantasy details were intrinsic to >the story in a way that they are
not, here. >For an exercise, try writing plot >summaries of HP1-4 similar to
the ones >I wrote above. Now try rewriting them >all without mentioning the
magic. I've >tried this. It works for OoP, but not for >the other books.

Me(Sabrina):
No argument there. In OoP the fanatsy details were a nice bonus but not
really important to the story.

>4. HP1-4 did not have such intense >suffering and could be very funny
>instead.

Me(Sabrina):
Actually, I think I was laughing more during OoP than any of the other
books. But maybe that's just my weird sense of humour.

>6. The themes were much more subtly >and insightfully developed. I could
write >a whole dissertation on the development >of themes in HP1-4, but this
list >wouldn't be a good place to post >something that long.

Me(Sabrina):
Agree. During the read I found some plot twists (if I even dare call them
that) very plump and unsatisfying.

[snip]

>P.S. I have a pet theory of why JKR >wrote OoP in so mediocre a fashion
which would exonerate her of almost everything but wishful thinking about
human nature. But that is for another time.

And I would just love to read that!

Sabrina