Theoretical boundaries

[iris_ft]

No: HPFGUIDX 120332


Kneasy wrote:
"Rarely do either camp dig deeper or consider the situation from the 
Dursleys point of view.

But so far as I'm concerned the Dursleys POV could be important to
the overall story - just possibly.
Why do they treat Harry the way they do?
Is there, in their own eyes at least, some sort of twisted 
justification?
There could be. What if it's not hate but fear? Fear of anything
magical. What if they fear magic as much as say, the wizard in
the street fears Voldy? How would you expect them to react with
a magical cuckoo thrust into their nest? Paranoia and denial, I'd
think, just as they do now - especially as there's absolutely 
*nobody*
they can talk to, nobody they can turn to. And if it turns out that
Petunia's parents were casualties in the first Voldy unpleasantness
then it'd be even more understandable.

Certainly we now know that DD was in communication with Petunia
*before* GH. This would indicate that maybe she's had contacts with
the WW other than through her sister. So what happened? And did it
help form her attitudes? And through her Vernon's?
Just the sort of thing I like to wonder about.

See, when I read the books I don't see them as presented as evil,
I read them as held up to ridicule, a joke presentation of pompous
conformity. As slight support I'd add that's the way they're shown
in the films too. JKR has said that the character she dislikes most
is Vernon, but she's never said why. Is it because of his reaction to
Harry, or is it bigger, that he's the embodiment of unthinking 
middle-
class ignorance? Guess which I'd go for? »

Iris :
I agree with Kneasy when he says Vernon is the embodiment of 
ignorance, but I'd like to add that ignorance isn't the privilege of 
the sole "unthinking middle class".
The Dursleys abuse Harry because he's different, and that kind of 
behaviour ignores social classes. Moreover, they do it with their 
neighbours' and Harry's teachers' tacit complicity.
Harry wears old clothes and broken glasses; he's skinny and 
underfed. It's noticeable. It's obvious they don't treat him well. 
But they send him to school, with their son Dudley. But they leave 
him at Mrs Figg's. Are the Dursleys stupid? Don't they realize that 
people will necessarily see the difference between the two boys? And 
why don't the neighbours or the teachers react?
In my opinion (and of course, it's just one point of view amongst 
many others), the Dursleys picture more than ignorance. It's only 
one aspect of a more complex problem. They picture normality led to 
such an extreme point that it becomes monstrous, and leads to 
intolerance. And their willing ignorance is only the manifestation 
of their thirst of normality (take `normality' as belonging to a 
group, not necessarily the middle-class, and sharing with it the 
same ideas or behaviours). In their case, normality becomes an 
obsession, and then it becomes abnormal. Is it why JKR writes the 
Dursleys using caricature?
In PS/SS, Aunt Petunia calls her sister a freak and says Harry is 
abnormal (chapter 4). They are different from her. However, she 
behaves herself as a freak and as an abnormal person towards her 
nephew (she's ridiculous, I agree, but at the same time rather 
monstrous as a woman, IMO). What seems the most important according 
to the Dursleys is their reputation, their public image. They want 
their neighbours to consider them as `respectable normal people', 
and no matter if they behave like monsters when their door is 
locked, as long as it serves their reputation and helps them belong 
to the group. Harry being as abnormal as possible (a wizard boy! In 
Privet Drive!), they try to pretend he isn't, and they even try to 
act as if he didn't exist, locking him into a dark cupboard.
On the other hand, the neighbours and the teachers don't react, or 
they even believe what the Dursleys tell them (for example, that 
Harry is a delinquent boy) because they don't want to loose their 
own comfortable normality. They close their eyes to everything 
susceptible to get them into trouble, or to break the group unity 
(for example, being the one who denounced the Dursleys). What is 
happening next door doesn't concern them; they have enough with 
their own troubles. And they don't want to question their own values.
Unfortunately, that's not just a fictional matter. The way I see 
them, the Dursleys are here to tell us that looking normal, or 
belonging to a norm, can hide an abnormal nature or behaviour. They 
are part of JKR's game concerning appearances. To their neighbours, 
the Dursleys are exactly what Professor Quirrell is to the kids at 
the beginning of PS/SS: a mask, hiding their true nature. There's a 
hiatus between the image they give and what they are actually. And 
they apparently don't want to admit they are child abusers (that's 
what they are, IMO). They don't face their errors. Tom Marvolo 
Riddle didn't either.
You can tell me that I bother you, always talking about metaphors. 
However, the way I see them, the Dursleys and Voldemort are two 
pictures of a same problem, called intolerance. On one hand, you 
have the `domestic aspect', and on the other one, the `social 
aspect'. But they both root in the same fear of being different, and 
so rejected. The Dursleys try to fight it giving their neighbours 
the image of a respectable family. Voldemort tries to fight it 
dictating his own rules. Though they stand at the extreme opposites, 
they finally join each others, if not apparently, at least 
essentially.
Just my point of view, of course.
  
Alla :
"These books touch something within my soul that not many of the 
books I read before touched. I am still trying to understand this 
phenomena, because I read and continue to read A LOT of the books, 
other than adventures of Mr.Potter. I grew up reading and studying 
russian clasical
literature. I would NEVER consider Rowling to be the same quality
writer as I consider .... let's say Tolstoy to be, but at the same
time, none of the books by that writer resonates with me as deeply
as some of the characters of the "potterverse" do.

Wierd? Yes, you bet. I, who NEVER was obsessive fan of any book or
musical group, became an obsessive fan of the children's series.
Oh, well. There are worse things to obsess about, me thinks."

Iris:
Ooh, it's good to know I'm not alone
 Thanks for writing this!

Amicalement,

Iris