Why to Like and Not Like OoP

[m.steinberger]

No: HPFGUIDX 70812


> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "revaunchanistx"
> <coyandbecky at y...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "m.steinberger" <steinber at z...>
> wrote:
> > It is a shame that HP4GU has become a place where intelligent
> criticism of HP feels unwelcome. No one is nasty, but the only
> responses one gets to reasonable critique are opposition from fans or
> blank approval from fellow anti-fans (for lack of a better word to
> describe former HP fans who are now disappointed). Delving into
> HP's problems doesn't happen.
> >
>
>   It is also a shame that those with critisism of Oop feel that their
> critiques are above critisism. You have felt the need to pre-defend
> yourself twice in this post. The first one above and this one "And
> before you argue about whether they are realistic or not, let's
> hear from some people who work in counseling with kids and adults who
> have been through real-life equivalents of what these characters have
> been through."
>  Obviously you are not one of the counselors or adults you call upon
> to defend your argument of characters, yet you felt competent enough
> to comment on their realism. Don't tell others they can't.

TAS: Not the least obviously, but I hate waving credentials, because *that*
seems to say, "You can't argue with me because I have all these degrees." I
prefer to sound opinionated to encourage debate like yours. And I purposely
wrote something vague like "work in counseling" to include any informed
opinion.

>  I wrote a long post that I deleted accidentally in response to this
> post.

TAS: That's a loss. I bet it was much tougher.

> I am going to make this one shorter and deal with your supposed
> character flaws as they relate to Harry Potter and Ron Weasley. You
> state that "To be realistic, Harry ought to be suffering from Post-
> Traumatic Stress Disorder, after the graveyard scene combined with
> the severe lack of emotional support afterwards." To be realistic
> Post- Traumatic Stress Disorder is a rather new pshycological
> disorder.

TAS: No, it's a new label for a very old disorder. It used to be called
shell-shock.

> Also, to be realistic Harry exhibits none of the pre-
> cursors typical of children suffering from post-truamatic stress
> disorder.
>  First of all Harry has a very stable home environment. The Dursley's
> provide food, shelter, clothing and a safe environment for Harry.
> This
> covers the first two steps in Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
>   Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a sort of pyramid that psychologists
> use to determine pschological development. At the bottom of the
> pyramid is physiological needs (clothes, shelter, food). The next
> step
> in the pyramid is safety. The third step is love, the fourth is self
> esteem, and the fifth and final step is self actualization.
>   As I have already stated Harry's home environment provides the
> first two steps. Harry is not troubled in the way that children who
> are not provided these two steps are. In essence Harry is a normal
> boy. He is only going through the emotions and needs of a normal boy.
> Harry does not fit the profile of a candidate for ptsd because he is
> right on level with Maslow.

TAS: PTSD is a disorder caused by traumatic events in an otherwise normal
life.

>  In the case of Ron. Ron is exhibibiting the typical behavior of a
> boy in his circumstances. Here are few things you might of missed in
> your attempt to be overly critical and turn Ron into a cardboard
> characiture. First of all, I will start with Ron's background and
> upbringing prior to Hogwarts. Ron is the sixth of seven children. He
> is the last boy in his family to enter Hogwarts. His older brothers
> have already made their mark. Ron states this when he first meets
> Harry on the Hogwarts Express. Ron believes he has a lot to live to
> up to. In his first year at Hogwarts HRH stops Voldemort. In his
> second, third and fourth year he continues to show outstanding
> courage and genius. In his fifth year he tries out for the Quidditch
> team. There was never an opening before. He makes the team by showing
> some talent. Yet he is uncomfortalble in his role. He has a lot to
> live up to. You state that Ron should still exhibit some self doubt
> about his new role as quiddicth hero but remember it was the last
> game of the year. He will probably exhibit some anxiety in the first
> game next year.

TAS: Ron's background is only background to OoP. In OoP itself, Ron seems to
be given the character role of "developing success story." He attains
success early on as prefect, yet we see nothing of him struggling with that
role except to avoid his older brothers. How about his learning to act the
prefect with the rest of the school? You are correct that he only succeeds
at Quidditch at the end of the year. Which means we are deprived of any
experience with Ron as "new hero." Perhaps this is not a realism problem so
much as a lack of spotlight problem, but it certainly does not provide any
realism to cherish..

>   Your expectations for character development are "unrealistic."

TAS: Many books provide the character development I expect.

> You
> take a less than layman's knowledge of psychosis

TAS: Are you sure?

> and try to dissect a
> master storyteller's characters. I do believe JKR is a master
> storyteller.

TAS: I believe she can be. I just think she botched it this time. Even
Shakespeare had some duds.

> I know her books are classics in my house. I will read
> them time and time again to my kids. I am sure others will too, that
> is a classic.

TAS: So will I, with HP1-3, and perhaps GoF. But not OoP.

> In closing, please stop comparing Rowling with other
> modern or classic literature. Comparison is beneath true literary
> critisism

TAS: Comparison is the essence of literary criticism. The only way to know
what a book is is to compare it to what a book can be. Meaning what other
books have been. Not comparison in the cheap better/worse vein, but
comparison of how characters are handled, what kind of plot options exist,
etc.

> (yet every non-JKR fan does it, another reason I loathe
> them).

TAS: Most non-JKR fans have never read the books, and have never tried to
figure out what makes them work. They take one or two books they like and
pan everything that doesn't share virtues with their favorites. There are
many different virtues a book can have, and HP has some that other books
don't, same way other books have virtues that HP doesn't. Comparison should
show that, too.

My point was, and is, that the virtues atributed to HP are the wrong ones,
not that the books are a wash-up. Alice in Wonderland and Harriet the Spy
(to name two kids' books off the top of my head) are both classics with very
different virtues. One has a flair for realism and the other a flair for
nonsense, which goes to show that both realism and nonsense can both be a
basis for high-quality literature. But it would be silly to pretend that
Harriet was wonderful for its nonsense (it has a bit) or Alice wonderful for
its realism (there's a bit there, too).

>   "revaunchanistx"

TAS: As you can see, my disclaimers worked. I got some really nice critique,
and I am very happy. Thank you.

The Admiring Skeptic