Why to Like and Not Like OoP

[nimbus_2003_au]

No: HPFGUIDX 70865

The following reply was fantastic: 
 
>  This is a cogent reply. It makes much of the case for
> most of us.  I would like to add my two cents and that
> I am sure is more than my comment shall be worth. 
>  I am at a loss to understand the bitterness of the
> debate. If you think the evolution of the story and
> characters is unreal and deeply troubling thus making
> the series unfit why continue reading it much less try
> to bring rabid fans to your way of thought. I notice
> many espousing the theory that OOP proves JKR is not
> the talented writer we self deluted ones think she is.
> OK, but I still like the books. If I wanted to read a
> story of a deeply disturbed child dealing with
> horrible trauma by acting out I'm sure I could find
> that. I however am lost in the world of a child who
> has the strength of character to rise above things I
> could not. If the writing is not as refined as others
> oh well. I must not be adept enough to know or care. I
> don't try to push you to read it if it isn't appealing
> to you. Why do you feel you must try to lessen it for
> me?

I feel it is important to add a few points which occurred to me as I 
picked my way through the crossfire tonight.

1/ Psychology references.  Maslow's heirarchy of needs is not 
necessarily the only chart for these waters.  It is true PTSD was 
earlier described as shell-shock but it was expressed in a number of 
different ways, and its expression can be changeable as a young 
person continues to develop.  There is no prescription for the manner 
in which people respond to crisis.

2/ Children's literature and complexity.  The children (and other 
characters in HP1-4) may seem 'simpler', but JKR had already mapped 
out the series when she started PS/SS.  The characters are very 
complex: consider Hagrid, who has chosen a simple philosophy 'DD is a 
great man' as a manner for dealing with his very complicated life.  
It is no mean feat to achieve a non-cardboard Hagrid (and even if you 
think he is a cariacature, he has his moments of effectiveness).  
Hermione is also complicated, she has a large amount of knowledge 
(which serves the plot) but exists in many, many contexts as an 
outsider (girl, muggle-born, swat) without being stereotypically 
bitter, cynical or otherwise angry.  Consider other marked outsiders 
from popular culture and see if you can think of one who carries her 
burdens of marginalisation with anywhere near as much grace.  
Ron's 'wind beneath my wings' role is explicit in OoP, which is 
uncomfortable because we have been able to ignore his lack of the 
spotlight in earlier boks - but JKR was conscious of it, she was 
setting all this up...

3/ Children's relationships are simple... Find me a simple 
relationship in the first three books! (Involving main characters).  
Yes, they are blunt and open and young in the earlier books... but 
read 'Lord of the Flies' and then consider Malfoy vs Potter.  JKR 
mentionned in a recent interview how people view the books with rose 
coloured glasses and think of them as innocent, while a lot of ugly 
stuff about power and death is actually happening in all the books.  
I think these books are good because they portray the complexity of 
childhood with a brutal directness, (softened at times with 
affectionate narrative but never hidden).  I don't think the 
relationships are simple.


Anyway, I thought maybe this would be of some interest...

n03au