Theoretical boundaries

[lupinlore]

No: HPFGUIDX 120373


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" 
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:

> 
> Seeing Harry in the limited terms of one's own attitudes and 
experiences
> seems to defeat the whole object of reading a magical fantasy; we're
> looking at an imaginative 'other' and though comparisons between
> the WW and ours may be interesting and even valid to a certain 
extent, 
> to castigate the cast because they act in ways different from us 
seems 
> pointless. Of course they're somewhat different with somewhat 
different 
> values, the books would be pretty flat if they were just a 
confirmation of 
> our own prejudices.

Don't ever make the mistake of thinking that someone in "limited" 
just because they are openly emotional and openly approach material 
from the standpoint of their own experiences.  That isn't being 
limited, it's just being honest, and in most ways is wiser than 
aspiring to some sort of "neutrality" that (almost) no one can ever 
really reach, except as a kind of intellectual affectation.  True, 
the books would be flat if they simply confirm what you already know 
and believe.  However, it would also be strange if one agreed with 
everything the books say, assume, present, or imply, now wouldn't 
it?  That would be a negation of self and one's own personal values, 
which most of us are not prepared to do.

So when it comes to the Dursleys,et. al., many of us are simply not 
prepared to say "Oh, it's only a book."  Because we have a deep 
emotional response based on our own values, and that matters to us.  
It is not limited or silly or pointless.  It is an expression of our 
deep emotional selves.


>  
> I like the WW; I particularly like it's differences, the different 
flavour, tone,
> call it what you will. Others don't seem comfortable with this. I 
see that
> as their problem, not mine. If they don't have sufficient 
imagination or 
> objectivity to put aside the real and immerse themselves whole-
heartedly
> in the fictional, well.... I remember a fragment from another book, 
can't 
> remember which off-hand, but set in the future and old books are 
being 
> precied and condensed. Moby Dick is categorised thus: "Nineteenth
> Century knowledge of Cetaceans was erroneous."
> 
> It doesn't do to shine too hard a light on the wondrous.

If that type of immersion makes one happy, go for it by all means!  
But never make the mistake of thinking that such is a superior way of 
approaching a book or an issue.

As for it being a "problem," why so?  People are unhappy with certain 
things and find them pernicious and morally suspect, if not downright 
repugnant.  How is it a problem to express that genuine feeling?  
Because it is emotional?  Because it does not follow the normal 
routes of academic discourse?  Because it requires one to be firmly 
based in "this world" and not "that world?"  Not a problem at all!

Don't ever assume people are stupid or have no imagination just 
because they prefer to remain grounded in real, and from their 
perspective, serious and important experiences.  It is a different 
perspective, certainly, but a perfectly valid one, and a very 
important one.  After all, if not for people like that most law, 
scripture (of any religion) or moral philosophy would not exist.

It is, I suppose, as you alluded to in an earlier post in reference 
to Vernon Dursley, a somewhat "middle-class" way of approaching 
things.  So what?  There's absolutely nothing wrong with a healthy 
middle class mentality.  It is serious-minded, morally aware, and 
prepared to strongly assert what it feels to be correct.  It is the 
basic foundation of orderly and civil society, and suppresses the 
opposite tendancies of mob rule on one side and aristocratic 
arrogance on the other.  It is true that such a way of looking at 
things can be taken too far.  It is true that sometimes those of us 
with such an outlook can be dismissive, even cruel, towards things we 
find frivolous, foolish, or morally destructive.  So what?  All 
mentalities can be carried too far or expressed in problematic ways.  

Vernon Dursley is a caracature of the middle class.  Granted.  But 
please don't think that those of us who, I daresay, share some of 
Vernon's values (stability, moral seriousness, and interest in a 
decent society) are like him, just as not every wealthy person is 
like the Malfoys, every intelligent person like Hermione, or every 
poor person like the Weasleys.

Lupinlore