Problem with OotP? (was: Pampering)

[Renee]

No: HPFGUIDX 118700


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" <bob.oliver at c...> 
wrote:
> 
> 
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" 
> <delwynmarch at y...> wrote:
> > 
> > And then, things changed in OoP. The Dursleys suddenly seemed to
> > become real people, Dementors haunt the neighbourhood, Harry 
starts
> > bullying Dudley, Uncle Vernon tries to strangle Harry and gets
> > shocked, and Aunt Petunia knows about the Dementors and receives 
a
> > Howler. Things aren't fun anymore.
> > 
> > So of course now, we're forced to consider the Dursleys like real
> > people, and the way they treated Harry becomes very real abuse. 
It
> > doesn't make sense to me because, just like you Kjirstem, I never
> > really considered the Dursleys to be real people. But hey, it's 
> JKR's
> > story, she can take it wherever she wants. We readers are not 
> forced
> > to follow all the way, though. For now, I'm still happier with
> > Parody!Dursleys.
> >
> 
Lupinlore:
> I think herein lies the heart of the problem with OOTP, and much 
of 
> the problem with the "turn" of the series in OOTP.  I suspect that 
> JKR wants to go "only so far, no farther" with the darkness and 
> realism.  That is, we are supposed to accept certain things 
without 
> accepting their implications.  The problem is, you can't have it 
> both ways.  That's akin to throwing someone out a window and 
yelling 
> at them to stop halfway to the ground.
> 
> Thus we are supposed to accept the Dursleys as "real" but not 
accept 
> the implication that their "real" behavior constitutes abuse.  We 
> are supposed to accept Dumbledore as a real person who made a real 
> decision with real knowledge but we aren't supposed to accept the 
> implication that he is therefore party to said abuse.  But that 
just 
> doesn't work, because you can't have it both ways.  If the 
Dursleys 
> are supposed to be "real" as opposed to over the top parodies then 
> they are child abusers.  And if Dumbledore is "real" in that 
context 
> he is party to child abuse.  What is acceptable and 
uncontroversial 
> behavior in a fairy tale is not acceptable and uncontroversial 
> behavior in a story that aims to be "real."

Renee:
The turn towards more realism in OotP (a tendency already vaguely 
present in GoF) may be a function of the series, intentional on 
JKR's part: the black-and-white, less-than-realistic worldview of an 
immature boy aquiring more and more greytones as he grows up. 
Caricatures and fairy tales tend to work with black and white, which 
explains the Dursleys in the first books. 

I'm not sure, though, if JKR quite pulls it off. The change is a bit 
abrupt, maybe partly due to the fact that it took her so long to 
write OotP. And IMO, Slytherin House poses more of a problem than 
the Dursleys. 

In a fairy tale you can have a bunch of easily identifiable, no-good 
kids who show their true colours at the age of eleven. In a more 
realistic story, an element like this is somewhat disturbing; it 
smacks of predestination. Nor can it be countered by having one or 
two 'good' Slytherin students - unless these can act successfully as 
advocates of the true values of their house (as opposed to all the 
Pureblood nonsense) and effect a change in attitude towards their 
house in general. Maybe that's what the Sorting Hat's new song is 
pointing to. I do hope Book 6 will undermine the idea that one out 
of four kids chooses to be a potential terrorist at the age of 11.

Renee