Somethings not right

[Grey Wolf]

No: HPFGUIDX 80820

 Golly wrote: 
> I thought [Lori's post] was a very insightful and sensitive assesment 
> of Rowling's intent versus its effect.  Why are people so resistant 
> to any criticism of Rowling's text? 
> 
> Golly.

I can't talk about the others, but I can tell you about my own problems 
with Lori's "criticism" - it is based on the wrong idea of what the 
book is. (::gets dreamy "good old times" look::) When I was at school, 
I was taught the styles of writting (not just prose and poetry, but 
also subdivisions of each). Inside prose was novel, short story and so 
on. One in particular is "fable" - short stories with a clear moral at 
the end (and usually animal characters. 

One I can remember involves a raven in a tree with a cheese in his beak 
and a starved fox at the foot of the tree. The raven laughs at the fox, 
dropping the cheese, which is eaten by the fox. Moral: don't laugh at 
other's misfortunes, you never know when tables might turn. (Or 
something along those lines)

HP is *not* a fable. It's neither short, nor has cute animals as main 
characters or a moral specified at the end. Lori treated it as if it 
was, which is why so many people have answered. Rowling's intent cannot 
be guessed, to start with. But even if we could, and it was to show how 
cruel that was, she still has to work through characters with 
distinctive personalities.

As I did a few days ago, in another thread, let me look at this from 
the other side: what would've happened if Harry had gone directly to 
McGonagall with the tale? Answer: it would've been so out of character 
for Harry that the screams would be heard miles from this board. Harry 
does *not* trust his elders. He used to trust Dumbledore, but he's felt 
betrayed by him all book. 

The story, I think, will have a moral at the end of the sevon books. It 
won't be printed, though, but will be a statment all throughout. There 
have been, so far, many good pieces - most coming from Dumbledore. In 
this occasion, we have it again: "I kept secrets and death was a 
result". Yes, it comes later in the books, but still applies to the 
circunstance we're talking here. Parents worried about the message 
their children are getting could point this out (and even flip back to 
when Harry should've realised it). 

But Harry isn't all knowing - he's learning. And in learning, mistakes 
happen. And certainly, JKR cannot stop the flow of the books every 
chapter to deliver a moral, because it would turn the novel she is 
writting into a fable and I, for one, wouldn't read it because of it.

In short, The moral is there, not immediately, but later on. There is 
plenty of evidence that Harry was wrong at hidding it, and can be 
paralleled to Dumbledore's mistake of hidding information from Harry. 
It could be argued it is the main theme of the book, in fact, set at 
different planes throughout. A LOON might even want to go through it to 
find other examples of hidding info = pain.

Tom Wall wrote:
> > However, I think sarcasticmuppet hit the nail on the head: there 
> > were many reasons for Harry not talking to anyone about this 
> > treatment. 
> 
> Golly:
> Sure but there are many ways to get around this.  In order to show an 
> act is wrong you don't have to have your hero refrain from doing it.

Yep. For example, you can have the wise mentor do the same mistake and 
point it out at the end. Which is what JKR did.

Golly:
> In POA Rowling pulled this off beautifully when she had Hermione turn 
> the Firebolt in.  Hermione made the sensible choice and Harry was 
> angry about it.  
> 
> Rowling could have gotten around this issue if she wanted. Instead 
> she chose to have Harry martyr himself to the truth.

Yes, because it fits Harry. As I said above, this means the 
characterization overrides everything else (if it is to be a good 
novel, mind you, IMO) and Harry has always misstrusted talking to 
teachers. The few times he does, he's never been back-up, in fact 
(talking to Hagrid about Snape in PS, for example). There is plenty of 
canon reason for Harry to keep silent - I for one don't see *how* Harry 
could've told anyone (except Hagrid or Lupin, but both are unavailable) 
and stay in-character. Yes, he could've gone to Dumbledore, but Harry 
has always seen him like a distant authority figure - he only 
voluntarily goes to him twice (IIRC), both in GoF. And that tenous 
trust is smashed by Dumbledore's atitude from the start of OoP.

Golly:
> Hermione's not usually one to cover other people's mistakes to their 
> detriment.  Rowling saw Harry's refusal as noble and a sign of 
> strength.(Though it may be a foolish kind of nobility.)

On the contrary, Hermione will respect, most of the time, the right to 
decide of others (will get to firbolt issue down the line). She does 
not report the rule-breaking of the pair in PS (when they leave for a 
midnight duel), for example. Someone would get hurt that night (if 
there had been a duel, that is) and yet all she does is threaten to 
talk to Percy (and only talks - she has ample time to tell someone 
since she knows from early that day, and yet never does).

She of course chooses to cover the fight on thhe troll, but it could be 
argued it wasn't in detriment of the pair. From then on, we are told 
she's more relaxed about rules, which suggests she does help cover 
their rule-breaking. She certainly participates in stealing from Snape 
in CoS, and so on and on.

I never have caught the "noble and sign of strength" moral you seem to 
think JKR put in. Harry was waging a war agains Umbridge (she'll always 
be Dolores -Pains, in Spanish- to me :D), and this is his battle, which 
is a form of strength, but I still got the feeling all along that it 
was a mistake, confirmed by Dumbledore's confession at the end.

> > TOM: A discerning reader would note that Harry frequently makes bad 
> > decisions, and tragically, he does so with the best of intentions. 
> 
> GOLLY:
> Yes, but the message of giving up your pride to tell the authorities 
> something embarrassing is not here.  Neither is the idea that one 
> child speaking out can make a difference for others.

No. There isn't a message about the dangers of fossil power, or the 
quickly dissapearing forestal masses. Nor does she tackle the problem 
of abortion, or superpopulation and its control. I haven't seen 
messages about the problems of communism or capitalism, either. There 
is only so many messages that can be crammed into a book before 
becoming transparent. JKR, IMO, is a genious for putting so many in HP 
almost seamlessly (and certainly without forcing it). But certainly, 
not *all* moral messages will be in there. Many, yes: worker's rights, 
enslavement, racial issues, good/evil etc. etc.

Golly:
> The message that Harry was wrong to keep his abuse a secret was lost 
> on me.

That's a pitty, because it is there - when Dumbledore admits he 
shouldn't have kept *his* secrets.

GOLLY: But none actually go to DD no matter how many times they 
> suggest it. None ask the teachers what they should do?  Not even 
> Hermione who trusts DD.  It is very much in Hermione's character to 
> go to an adult about something this big.

No it isn't. She has gone to teachers before, yes, but here the problem 
is another teacher. Remember PS: "Hermione, you think all teachers are 
saints [...]" (paraphrased). And it is true - she will go to McGonagall 
over a suspicious gift, but this is much more complex. I'm sure a part 
of her heart is thinking "but... but... Umbridge is our *teacher*... 
she *might* know what she's doing... she *has* to..." etc. Hermione 
trust teachers - that is canon. So the idea of denouncing one to 
another could sink her into indecission, and just let Harry decide.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf