Theoretical boundaries

[lupinlore]

No: HPFGUIDX 120352


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" 
<dumbledore11214 at y...> wrote:
> 
> 
> Lupinlore:
<SNIP> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Oh, no, no, no. Of course I am not saying that it is illegitimate 
to 
> have a problem with these themes.
> 
> I think I  am experiencing language problem again. I think I 
> misunderstood what you meant by "narrative turn". Please bear with 
> me and correct me if I misunderstood you.
> 
> 
> I thought that you were saying that your problem with OOP was that 
> particular themes were presented inconsistently and particular 
> characters were OOC as comparing to the previous books.
> 
> So far so good, right? If you meant different thing, please tell 
me, 
> because then my argument fails.
> 
> 
> I was explaining why I thought exactly the opposite. I thought 
those 
> themes were presented quite consistently througout the series and 
> the characters were developing quite consistently througout the 
> series.
> 
> I was also saying that seeming inconsistencies  (in my opinion 
only) 
> could be explained by the fact that Harry is growing up and he sees 
> more than he saw previously.
> 
> Let's go back to the themes. First of all abuse and these dreaded 
> Dursleys. I am not really sure why people are saying that Rowling 
> suddenly introduced abuse as theme in OOP, while in my opinion the 
> abuse was presented VERY consistently throught the books.
> 
> I mean, sure, Dursleys looked much more caricature like in the 
> earlier books, BUT Harry's suffering was VERY real, starting from 
> him spending ten years in the cupboard. in PS/SS Petunia tries to 
> hit him with the frying pan, in CoS he is locked up with the bars 
on 
> his windows and he is afraid that he will die from hunger, etc., 
etc.
> 
> Am I being confusing again? I disagree that abuse theme SUDDENLY 
> appeared in OOP. I think it was always there, just  looked a  bit 
> more fairytale like.
> 
> Let's talk about characters being OOC, in particularly Dumbledore, 
> since you raised this argument, right?
> 
> Correct me if I am wrong, but I think you said that Dumbledore 
> SUDDENLY appeared to be manipulative in OOP. I think Dumbledore can 
> ALWAYS be read a manipulative. I mean we can argue about his 
> motivations, etc, but the possibility of Manipulator!Dumbledore in 
> my opinion was always there.
> 
> After all, he does not suddenly tells Harry to go to Dursleys in 
> OOP, right? He leaves him there in the first book, despite 
> McGonagall objection and says some very strange things while doing 
> so.
> 
> 
> I am sorry if I am not clear againh. I suppose my only point was 
> that in my opinion only themes in OOP were consistent througout the 
> books.

Okay.  I don't think you are having language problems, Alla.  Your 
English, as usual, is excellent.  I think the point we are working 
toward is rather subtle.

I agree that, taken as a whole, one can see the characters' as 
consistent in terms of their ACTIONS.  What has shifted, however, is 
the TONE of the narrative.  And therein lie many of the problems.

As has been pointed out, the early stages of the HP saga were told in 
the form of a modern fairy tale (which is different than a medieval 
fairy tale, I acknowledge).  Now, modern fairy tales function by 
certain rules, and therefore we respond to them emotionally on a 
certain level.  One of the rules is that terrible things happen, but 
nobody *really* gets hurt and the villains get their just rewards 
anyway.  So we don't get outraged that the father in Hansel and 
Gretel tries to abandon his kids in the woods, for instance, because 
the story takes place in a fairy tale.  Another way of saying that is 
that the modern fairy tale is a particular genre that has a 
particular tone and that therefore raises a particular response.  

Now, OOTP is *not* a modern fairy tale.  It is something rather like 
a dark melodrama with magical elements.  That is a totally different 
genre.  We respond very, very differently to melodrama than we do to 
modern fairy tales.  Things that do not necessarily raise our ire in 
fairy tales *do* in melodrama.  And it is that shift of TONE, of 
GENRE, that raises the problem.  Imagine, if you will, a sequel to 
Hansel and Gretel that has Hansel suffering emotional shock from 
being abandoned by his father in the woods, and draws him as a 
believable adolescent rather than a childish caracature.  That would 
be similar to what happened in OOTP.  (Yes, I know that the 
comparison isn't EXACT, but I think it serves to make the point).  
The actions would still be the same, and still consistent, but what 
was not emotionally problematic in the fairy tale *is* in the sequel.

I think what I and others are getting at when we talk about 
inconsistency is *MAINLY* tone -- although I do still think there are 
issues with characterization, that isn't what I'm talking about 
here.  Because the books are linked together, when the tone shifts, 
our view of the events in the earlier books is suddenly wrenched into 
a different mode.  What was not problematic before, because it was a 
fairy tale, IS now.

Now, the question is, what do we make of this change in tone.  It is, 
as a narrative technique, good writing or not?  And that is very 
subjective.  Some find it original and fresh.  Others, a great many, 
aren't so sure.  By changing genre, JKR in effect changes the rules 
about what can and cannot be expected.  Is that interesting, or is it 
a form of narrative cheating?  One of my friends upon reading OOTP 
was highly insulted, as she saw it as an exercise in JKR taunting her 
readers, in effect saying "AHA! Gotcha!  You *thought* you knew what 
was going on but I fooled you!"  I wouldn't go that far, but I'm not 
prepared to say I think the sudden change in tone was a particularly 
good idea.  One can make all sorts of intellectual arguments as to 
why it's appropriate, given the developing age of the characters, 
etc., but as a *narrative* technique, i.e. as a method used to tell a 
story, it left a lot of people with a sour taste in their mouths, and 
set the stage for the enormous emotional backlash we've seen the last 
couple of years.

Another way of putting it is, did JKR intend to create the kind of 
emotional backlash she did with OOTP?  I rather doubt it.  I'm sure 
she intended to be provocative and surprising.  I'm not at all sure 
she intended to generate the kind of distaste and anger she has in a 
lot of quarters.  Now, I think this is due to the fact, as I've said 
before, that she doesn't realize what the implications of the story 
seem like to somebody who's coming at it fresh without her years of 
pondering it.  For instance, I really rather doubt she intended for 
people to react so negatively to Dumbledore.  But that is because she 
has dwelled with this story so long she in effect didn't realize what 
she was saying when she had him say and do a lot of the stuff he did 
in OOTP.  Oh, I think she meant to humanize him and show his flaws.  
I *don't* think she meant him to come off as stupidly as he does, or 
to raise all the moral issues OOTP raises -- such as all the 
Snape/Dursley abuse stuff.

Wow, long answer.  But I'm still just grazing the surface of this, 
which is enormously complicated and can be rather subtle.  But I 
*think* I've touched the main point.  Let me know if I have not.

Lupinlore