JKR Morality (was "Stereotyping")

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 85032

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Matt" <hpfanmatt at g...> wrote:
> Quick response to a few points raised by Steve:
> 
> I wrote:
> 
> >> ..., I disagree ... that it is ok for a bestselling author simply
> >> to ignore the fact that her book is being read by millions 
> >> upon millions of children. 

> 
> Steve responded:
> 
> > But I must reiterate that the author does indeed NOT have an 
> > obligation to those millions of children reading the story. If the
> > ...story, ..., is to drift in the direction of the most extreme 
> > SLASH fan fiction, then so be it. 
> 


> MATT:
>
> I'm not sure whether you are making an objective moral claim here or
> just a practical point.  If it is a moral claim, we could continue to
> debate whether power carries with it a moral duty to exercise the
> power responsibly; suffice it to say that it does in every
> widely-accepted ethics of which I am aware.  ...edited...
> 
> If your point is instead the practical observation that Rowling is
> legally free to write what she will, then it doesn't really have any
> bearing on my original disagreement with you.  ...edited...
> 

bboy_mn:

If you and only quoted the first line of the next paragraph which began...

"Now realistically, my sick little scenerio is never going to happen, ..."

I used an example in the extreme to illustrate the point. In reality,
it is clear that JKR DOES have a sharp eye out for the
'appropraiteness ratings' of her books. Look at the way she handles
swear words. Even Harry's kiss with Cho never really occurred on the
printed page. It happened off page and was related to us in
conversation with Ron after the fact. So, JKR is giving due
consideration to the appropriateness of her books. 

In doing this, I think her only objective is to write the story so it
does not exclude any age group. However, she has said as well as
implied that she is not specifically writing children's books, and by
the same token, is not specifically writing literature for adults. 

She is writing this story for herself. She is telling the tale the way
she knows it must be told, and I still say beyond her own internal
moral compass as a writer independant of the story, she will not and
should not bow to or be guided by the demands of the reader. 

Readers do not want Harry to die in the end. I have predicted a
worldwide day of mourning that will create a grief that will come
close to crippling the world, if Harry Potter dies in the end. It
could be beyond the magnitude of the death of any living person in
history. Keep in mind, that just my opinion.

BUT, and that is a big but, JKR will not compromise her artistic
vision to save the world that grief. You may say it is immoral or
unethical or just plain nasty of her to inflict that on use. But if
Harry was destine to die from the beginning, then I think I can safely
say that reader's feelings be damned; Harry will be dead in the end.

The point is, that a good author writes with consideration for her
readers, but she does not bow to their will. If they know so much,
screw 'em (pardon the French), let them go write their own books.


On the issue of Moral Ambiguity, it's clear from what you said that we
are on the same page in this matter. In saying moral ambiguity, I was
simply implying that characters are not absolutely 'Brady Bunch' good
or 'Snidely Whiplash' bad. (Am I the only one who knows who Snidely
Whiplash is?) Harry is not TV sit-com Disney World good. There is a
level of moral uncertainty. We see many things he does that are wrong
by the fromal standard of the world around him, but we as reader see
deeper, and see that he is guided by strong moral fiber. But it's not
'listen to what I'm telling you and accept it' obvious; it's more 'see
what you see, feel what you feel, and know what you know' obvious.

While you question the terms I used, based on what you said, I think
we are in sync on this aspect of the discussion. And I admit, that
'ambiguity' wasn't a perfect fit for the 'shades of grey' I was trying
to reflect, but I was having trouble coming up with a brief direct
term that said it all.



> Matt quoting me quoting him:
> > 
> > bboy_mn (in previous post):
> > 
> > When you say, "I wish there were more strong female 
> > characters" and "there is a particular type of female 
> > character I would like to see portrayed", you are 
> > stating an opinion, and as I said, opinions are like 
> > noses, everybody gets one. 


> To which Matt replies:
> 
> I didn't say either of those things.  
> 
> I appreciate the sentiment, but again, you are attributing others'
> wishes to me.
> 
> -- Matt

bboy_mn:

Sorry about the misquote. When threads and posts start getting
unusually long, it's easy to lose track of who said what.

Based on this recent post, if I had to restate myself in the most
concise possible way (one can only hope), I guess I would say that any
author writes with some consideration to the audience, but does not
have any obligation to bow to the will, or social or political desires
of that audience. Once you let the readers start writing the book, the
artistic vision is lost, and it is to the artistic vision that the
writer has the highest allegiance. 

If Harry is destine by artistic vision to die, then like it or not, in
the end, Harry will be dead.

Just a thought.

bboy_mn