Why to Like and Not Like OoP

[marinafrants]

No: HPFGUIDX 70815

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Doriane" <delwynmarch at y...> 
wrote:
> "newdevilry9" wrote:
> 
> > I think it's important to keep in mind that it is still 
initially 
> > intended to be a children's book.  While I feel that OoP is 
> > touching on themes that are not entirely at a child's level,
> 
> Oops :-) I'm afraid I must disagree with you again : I never 
thought 
> HP was a children's book series, but rather a series of books for 
> everyone interested in them, children and adults alike. It is true 
> that books with children as heroes are usually more aimed at kids, 
> but that doesn't necessarily make them children's books. And as 
for 
> OoP, it is *definitely* not a children's book, in my opinion !

I mostly agree. :-)  I think the first two books had much more of a 
children's book feel, and if the series had stopped there, it 
could've been written off as nothing more.  But starting with PoA, 
the story moved beyond "children's lit" to more mature and complex 
themes, while still retaining the appeal to children.

> > Kids don't need to consider how much therapy he would really 
need 
> > to deal with all of the trauma he's been through. 
> 
> NOT okay with that. Why shouldn't they consider this matter of 
> therapy ? Isn't it like telling them that it's okay to be pissed 
off 
> and to take it on everyone else and not do anything about it ? I 
> mean, it IS okay to be pissed off by things of course, but in my 
> opinion, it is NOT okay to take it on everyone else and we HAVE to 
> learn to do something about it. In my family, if we have a 
problem, 
> we are *expected* to do something about it, not just wait for it 
to 
> go away, *especially* if that problem makes us turn nasty on 
others. 

Yeah, but I sincerely hope your family is nothing like the Dursleys.

> So while I perfectly understand that Harry is pissed off and 
> misbehaves as a consequence, I don't like it that the underlying 
> message is basically : "it's okay to wallow in your problems and 
pick 
> at others until friends or adults come and help you out". 

But OOP in no way suggest that this is okay.  Harry reacts this way 
because it's realistic for a kid in his situation to react that way 
(and yes, I do believe the OOP characterization of Harry was 
thoroughly realistic).  Considering that his behavior contributes to 
disaster at the end of the book, I think it's pretty clear that his 
reactions are not in the least bit okay.  Children are not stupid; 
they're perfectly capable of figuring out that just because Harry 
acts in a certain way under certain circumstances, that doesn't mean 
it's a good way to act.


> But you see, the big 
> difference was that until OoP, Harry *was* just taking it all in 
> stride, so that was kind of okay with me. But in the last book, he 
> blows up. So I was thinking that *finally*, we were going to see 
how 
> to deal with emotional trauma. But no ! The only answer seems to 
be : 
> get angry, get pissed off, keep everything bottled up inside, blow 
up 
> in someone's face once in a while, and you'll be quite fine. 

But Harry is not "quite fine," either at the beginning of OOP, or at 
the end, or at any point in the middle.  He's as far from fine as 
we've ever seen him before.  If the book ended with Harry traipsing 
through the daisies, going "tra-la-la, I'm so happy," but the whole 
point of the story, to me, is that Harry is not dealing well, and 
his failiure to deal causes serious problems, for himself and for 
others.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com