One last try (re: Parenting Harry (was: Re: I don't like him much))

[eloise_herisson]

No: HPFGUIDX 120183


Oh dear. How can such hostilities break out over what I am supposed 
to have said about the nature of a character in a fictional series? 
It's even more unenecessary when I have repeatedly tried to make 
clear that my primary point had nothing to do with the nature of 
character himself let alone my approbation or disapprobation of him, 
but of a function he performs.

Now as it happens, I *agree* with just about everything that several 
of the more recent posters (who have engaged in reasonable dialogue) 
on this thread have said. 

This in particular seems to be a sticking point where what I'm saying 
gets countered by an argument against what I'm *not* saying:

<eloiseherisson at a...> wrote:
>
> > However, the argument I was making was that Snape is the only one
> > who *consistentely* disciplines Harry and ties to curb his rule
> > breaking tendencies and that even Lupin, who cares deeply for
Harry
>
> > and does attempt to exercise some control over him, ultimately
> > fails in this role. How does Lupin's giving the Map back to Harry
> > out of nostalgia contradict that?

imamommy:

>Look, IMO only, I think that most (not all!)of the Trio's
>rulebreaking is, in their minds at least, for a greater good. Harry
>usually has good reasons for breaking rules. Maybe it's because I
>had clueless parents and had to sort of chart my own course, but
>Harry's independent tendencies strike a chord for me. I think Lupin
>identifies with Harry, and knows that there will be good uses for the
>map in the future.

I'm not sure what I can say to that other than to re-read the quote.
*of course* the trio are rule-breaking for good reason. As someone 
wrote yesterday, there's even reason to think that JKR might be 
suggesting that rule breaking for good reason is sometimes the right 
thing to do.

*But* Lupin was not at that point having the function (either in the 
fictional world, or as a literary device) of being the upholder of 
the rules that Harry breaks. Is there anything controversial in that 
statement that I've missed?


Is it clear where I'm coming from? (I'm not addressing 
imamommy now.) I'm not commenting on the validity of the rules, the 
necessity sometime to break them, the style of enforcing them, the 
virtue of the characters, just on there being a role of being the 
rule-upholder. Above all, I am not commenting on, approving of or 
disapproving of Snape's actions.

Now I am trying very hard (as I have all along) and bearing in mind 
Lupinlore's latest exhortations to make myself very clear.

I have said that Snape performs a particular function in the text, 
one which I described as being the unpalatable side of parenting, 
being the Enforcer, if you like. (Just as a side note, although I 
defined this as a parenting role, it doesn't then necessitate that 
the role will be performed well.)

Take Snape out of the text, as some would clearly like to do, and 
tell me who there is as a constant throughout the series, performing 
that function?

Rule breaking is a constant theme, is it not? Harry frequently flouts 
the rules, goes for midnight wanders, sneeks out of the castle, etc., 
etc.. Now if there is no *consequence* for breaking the rules, they 
might as well not be there. Rule-breaking becomes a complete dud as a 
theme in the series. Where is the excitement, the frisson of fear, if 
when Harry wanders the corridors under his Invisibility Cloak, the 
worst that happens is that he'll have a nice little chat with 
Dumbledore or that McGonagall will be stern with him and give him a 
reasonable punishment?

Now yes, there is Filch, but he seems to have a function as Snape's 
lacky; Snape seems to be the teacher to whom he goes with 
troublemakers.

What I am saying is that Harry pushes boundaries and those boundaries 
are marked, are personified, if you like, by Snape more than any 
other character. Snape is the most serious immediate consequence of 
any discovered rule-breaking. When Harry wanders the corridors with 
the Map, it is Snape for whom he is on the look out.

Now yes, others do step in sometimes. Lupin mentors him, reasons with 
him, but still has no long term effect in that Harry still goes to 
Hogsmeade, still ends up going to the Shrieking Shack, etc.. 
McGonagall reminds him of the rules, even gives him detention in 
PS/SS, but is strangely uninvolved as the head of his house.

And then there's Umbridge, who fortunately is not a long term fixture 
in the series. 

With her the stakes for rule-breaking are raised even higher and I 
think that's the point. For the books to work, it's not good enough 
that Harry happily trolls along at school, finding out all the 
information he needs until he's in the position for an exciting 
denouement, he has to overcome real obstacles with real (but lesser 
than Voldemortesque) consequences. Harry is at school, so many of the 
obstacles he has to overcome are rules. These aren't exciting unless 
the effects of breaking them have serious personal consequences. 
That's why having the enforcers be so unsympathetic is so effective.

Now before anyone deduces from all this that I'm saying that bullying 
and child abuse is OK, I'm not. I'm observing that JKR has placed 
these two characters in the text and trying to explain why they might 
be there, what function they might perform and why making them so 
mean to Harry is an effective plot device.

~Eloise