Which way?

[dan]

No: HPFGUIDX 101776

arrowsmithbt <arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
> My hope is that she's creating
> what is a *new* sub-genre, it'll be that different....

> .... is it a children's book anyway? After
> all, Oliver Twist, Nicholas Nickleby, Great Expectations, Little 
Dorritt, all
> tell the story of a child growing up - does that make them 
childrens books?

But really, it's not a "genre" at all. It's a rather finely wrought 
method for Rowling to inscribe her social critique in the widest 
possible arc, and directed toward those who will appreciate it most, 
whether they are young or old. I read Dickens when I was in senior 
public school (ages 10 - 12 or so), a time when we, as human beings, 
start developing real self-consciousness. The Potter books really re-
enact that process. The trappings of a magical world, the chrome, as 
it were, provide just enough distance from the quotidian for the 
critique to be effective. What is strange, though, is how some of 
that critique doesn't make it through, as if readers were able to 
pick and choose how thorough a critique they read. Gilderoy Lockhart 
is a sociopath - destroying people's memories. The memory erasure 
wizards who keep muggles blind to the magical world do pretty much 
the same thing, though they recieve no direct benefit from it, as 
sociopath Lockhart did, and are working for the state(s), which, 
ostensibly, represents all witchwizardom. But there are contortions 
involved - for example, those for whom the knowledge of a magical 
world wouldn't be such a stretch aren't necessarily those who do know 
about it, by agreement with the ministry involved - thinking of non-
magical parents of Hogwarts students, say.

The entrance of Dolores Umbridge came as a relief to many - here is 
an umabiguously "evil" character, someone for whom no sympathy need 
be reserved. But, in fact, as arguments about Snape's so-called 
irresponsible and unforgiving traits rage on the list, are we 
entirely without sympathy for her, truly? Isn't it possible that 
Rowling's social critique extends even there, and by doing so, asks 
just such a question? We laugh with those who enjoy Ron's clipclop 
sounds in the infirmary, but are unsettled at the same time that 
their, and our response really addresses nothing. It is all they can 
do, perhaps - revel in Umbridge's dishevelled, panicked state. Some 
on the list, Shaun in particular, have described feelings of horror 
in regard to school life, with reference to such teachers. But taser 
and handcuff equipped guards patrol the corridors of schools in the 
US as we speak, for example. 

In a symbolic reading, we could say that Umbridge, representing brute 
human will to power, needs a dose of that far greater, awesome, 
indifferent force of nature, understanding of which is represented by 
the centaurs, to set her right. But such a reading avoids the social 
implication of Umbridge, sets aside the social critique for a bit of 
fun.

As the series draws closed, maybe these questions won't all be 
solved. Rowling's project doesn't seem focused on solving - the 
witchwizard/muggle world balance, the ethical implications of memory 
erasure, for instance - the state of the house elves - the house 
system of Hogwarts etc. etc. But even if it does, there are those for 
whom these questions have little to do with their own reading. That 
is what I don't understand. For me, the 1700 pages so far (or more, I 
forget) don't stand as foreplay to some vast orgasmic conclusion, but 
are, from start to finish, a creative act, a finely balanced, even 
enchanting (in offering ways out when there seem to be none) method 
for maintained social critique.

I hope I've made sense here.

Dan