Why to Like and Not Like OoP (minus words that must not be used)

[m.steinberger]

No: HPFGUIDX 70811

At the bottom is a response to newdella" <Rosebeth710 at h...>. For starters,
though:


> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Dan Feeney" <dark30 at v...>
> wrote:
>
> >Yes, but what it does tell me I don't like. When I saw Harry
> bullying
> >his cousin in the first chapter, I was appalled and disgusted
>
> Harry chose to confront Dudley for his bullying of other people,
> vigilante style. He knows his "parents" aren't going to do anything
> about it. He knows "the world" does nothing about it. The situation
> gives him an opportunity to both exercise empathy (with the Evans
> boy) and personal responsibility - neither the Witch Wizard world nor
> the muggle world has any mechanism, in the books, for protecting the
> innocent. So, I honestly don't understand your response.

TAS: This wasn't my post, but a response to a response. Nevertheless, I'll
add that what disturbed me about Harry in this scene was that he did *not*
confront Dudley on the level. He just began taunting him in the hope that
Dudley would start up with him so that he would be justified defending
himself. The narrator adds at this point that Harry was venting his personal
rage and frustration, nothing more noble, and that he wasn't so far gone
that he would fight Dudley for no reason, but he was hoping to create a
reason.

> >(3) Harry does have deep emotional resources, but he has been
> through
> >terrible experiences. As a result, he is not on the verge of
> collapse,
> >but he is rage-filled, plagued by nightmares, prone to outbursts of
> >temper that are usually uncharacteristic for him, untrusting, and
> >sullen.
> >
> >Doesn't that seem realistic?
> >
> >Amy Z

TAS: No, it doesn't. His emotional strength was never normal, and thus was
subject to much debate. But whateve its cause and nature, it would not
evolve into the Harry of OoP. People who manage, for whatever reason, to
maintain an unnaturally even keel in the face of a two-faced man, a
basilisk, and a dementor's kiss, should either continue to this evenness
after seeing death plus a duel in a graveyard, or should start to crack into
weird, irrational behavior, part time or full time.

> It seems reasonable for someone who lives in a place, or places,
> where "truth" is a scarce commodity, where the lies of so-called
> newspapers hold sway, and where so-called moral courage is seen as
> dilletantism or hero-complexing or suchlike. Not at all unlike the RW
> today. Also, in the books, Harry is left on his own, pretty much,
> without being given incredibly long and detailed explanations of his
> position within the society. What resources he has, he focusses on
> quidditch, say. The world will not save either him or innocent
> people. He's a young anarchist. Tough, I say, if certain readers
> don't like the fact. Rowling, as I have stated in another recent
> post, goes out of her way to defend the radical, the outsider. My
> suspicion is that some of the criticism of OOP stems from the fact
> that that perspective is now quite "in your face," or explicit, where
> it was largely implicit before.
>
TAS: What you're saying is that Harry's not responding to stress but to
injustice. If so, he would rail at Umbridge, but not at Ron.

> >To this end, why couldn't someone else in the Order tell him all
> this
> >stuff?
>
> Because their lives have just changed dramatically, they don't know
> what to say that isn't dross, and Harry is, like any teenager of his
> bent, not going to want niceties or explanations. He wants Voldemort
> stopped. Like the great youth today who REFUSE to accept that there
> is some justifiable, logical reason why people are starving around
> the world. "Get off with that claptrap. Let's just feed them. And
> stop killing."

TAS: Dumbledore spoke up in June. They could have spoken up earlier. There's
no contradiction between Harry's sense of injustice, their changed lives,
and their speaking with him.

> I submit that OOP only seems an easy read if the radical element of
> the book, and indeed of the series, is ignored. Indeed, OOP is the
> opposite of an easy read when it is approached with the knowledge of
> this radical undercurrent in the book. And make no mistake,
> anarchism, or anarcho- syndicalism, as it were, is not a one-
> dimensional thing, but incorp- orates what, for instance, Luna (yay
> Luna!) brings to the series - an appreciation of the "world beneath
> the world, where what we don't don't merely choose, but what chooses
> us, as it were, is" etc etc.

TAS: Could you elaborate on the depth of the anarchic subtext? I agree that
it's there, but it seems quite thin to me.

> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "newdella" <Rosebeth710 at h...>
> wrote:
> >> >
> I read your post three times.  I wanted to make sure that I
> completely understood it.  Although I don't agree with a lot of what
> you had to say, you do make some interesting points.  I however, do
> like OOP.  Although, It's not my favorite of the series.  I'd like to
> just make two comments.
>
> First, although this is a series of 7 it's really set up
> differently.  Books 1-3 are a trilogy, Book 4 stands on it's own and
> Books 5-7 are the second trilogy.  This is how I felt about the books
> since the first time I read them.  (Yes, I came to Harry Potter after
> book 4).  Having said that it's seems to me that we need to view this
> book as book 1 rather then book 5.
>
> Second, in reference to the section cited above.  As I have recently
> come to learn due to RW events in my own life.  Every person deals
> with pain, hurt and trauma differently.  Every person heals from
> these events differently and on their own timetable.  So, while I
> agree with you that Harry should be suffering, I believe that he is.
> You state that Harry should either behave in manner a or manner b. I
> completely disagree. Why can't Harry behave in manner f?
>
> Yes, Harry needs help.  He definately needs someone to talk to.  I
> never thought that Harry's behavior was "wrong" or "unrealistic".
> Okay, attacking Dudley was the wrong thing to do, but the emotions
> that made him do it weren't.  I understood his rage.  Maybe that says
> more about me then it does about Harry.
>
> Rosebeth

TAS: The a and b I offer Harry are a - keep your emotional immunity, which
seems in HP1-4 magically limitless; or b - crack up in any of a dozen
interesting ways, including your f. In OoP, Harry isn't cracking up, he's
just venting what seems to be a moderate amount of ordinary teenage anger
and frustration. Basically, he's acting like a petty, self-indulgent brat,
which isn't one of the many normal ways I know of for reacting to pain,
hurt, and trauma, especially when it's part of a long series of traumas
which did not inspire such a reaction before. I don't want you to answer
this if it's not comfortable, but when you were coping with your trauma, did
you act anything at all like Harry?

And thanks to all for some good discussions!

The Admiring Skeptic