Harry's experiences : what's missing ?

[cubfanbudwoman]

No: HPFGUIDX 116217


Kneasy: 
> > But to expand the concept to a more general level - I'm going to 
> > ask the fans to do something they may find difficult.
> > 
> > Put aside thoughts of what you *want* to happen.
> > Now provide evidence - from the books, from JKR interviews, her
> > website, wherever, that there will be a happy resolution.
> > 
> > Because I can't see any such evidence.
> > 
> > Cries of "Oh, she must!" don't work, nor do expostulations that
> > "She couldn't do that in a childrens book" because she didn't 
> > write the books for children. On more than one occasion she's 
> > stated that she wrote the books *for herself* -  and it wasn't a 
> > particularly easy time in her life, either.

Alla:
> Oh, Kneasy, thanks, but no thanks. :) I will hold on to my "happy 
> delusions". 
> 
> Last time I checked - no one made "metathinking" evidence 
> foribidden one yet.
> 
> Seriously, though what do you mean by " ending like no other" ? 
> Memorable, like no other? I think she will manage 
> that . "Bloodbath"? I doubt it, because no matter how many times 
> she will repeat that she wrote the books for herself, I will 
> consider it in part to be a marketing trick. I have no doubt that 
> she writes the books for herself too, but , IMO, she clearly 
> oreints the books toward the younger audience.
 

SSSusan:
I'm here *not* to offer up canonical evidence of a happy resolution, 
for, being admonished to set aside our wants, I agree w/ Kneasy that 
there isn't much IN THE BOOKS to assure us of this.  So I'm here, 
rather, to address that "she wouldn't because they're children's 
books" point. 

I often hate the "but they're CHILDREN'S books" argument *because* it 
gets used often, imo, simply to avoid whatever issue is being 
raised.  (NOT talking about you, here, Alla!)

That being said, I'm going to attempt to sort of argue two sides of 
the children's books statement. I know that JKR has said (and I 
believe it) that she is writing these books for herself.  She HAS, 
however, also used the words--numerous times--"children's books," 
along the lines of, "When one is writing children's books, as I 
am...."  I remember being struck, as I read through the interviews 
section of George Beahm's Muggles & Magic: J.K. Rowling and the Harry 
Potter Phenomenon, just how often those words have come out of her 
mouth.  [Book is at home; I'll provide quotes later if asked!]

Here is one example, from Salon, in 1999:
Q:  What was it like when you realized the book [SS/PS]was a success?

A:  I had been very realistic about the likelihood of making a living 
out of writing children's books -- I knew it was exceptionally rare 
for anybody to do it -- and that didn't worry me. I prayed that I 
would make just enough money to justify continuing to write, because 
I am supporting my daughter single-handedly.


And another from Scholastic:
Q: What do you think it is about Harry Potter that connects with so 
many people?  
A: It's very hard to think about my work in those terms, because I 
really wrote it entirely for myself; it is my sense of humour in the 
books, not what I think children will find funny, and I suppose that 
would explain some of the appeal to adults. On the other hand, I 
think that I have very vivid memories of how it felt to be Harry's 
age, and children seem to identify strongly with Harry and his 
friends. ... I never thought about writing for children --- 
children's books chose me. 


My point is, while JKR is writing the books for herself, to tell the 
story in her own way, and while she's said she didn't SET OUT to 
write children's books, she *does* reference writing children's books 
or writing for children.  

**I** think what she's saying when she says she's writing them for 
herself is that she doesn't think of herself as writing *formulaic* 
children's books, nor does she think certain topics can't or 
shouldn't be brought up [in particular, death].  In that way, she's 
not "doing" typical children's books, but I do think she is writing 
with children in mind.

Does that distinction make sense?  They're not standard children's 
books; she doesn't want to be locked into standard acceptable 
practices or topics for children's books; yet she is writing books in 
large measure for children.  So while I don't think there are things 
she believes she CAN'T introduce, I think there are things she WON'T 
introduce per personal preference.

No, I'm not JKR, and I don't mean to sound as if I'm speaking for 
her!  I'm simply trying to point out a distinction I see between 
writing "typical" children's books and writing books where an author 
purposely doesn't want to and won't promise to skirt tough issues as 
many children's books do... but at the same time still acknowledging 
that she is writing in large part for children.

Alla: 
> Just look at the battle at MOM, please?
> 
> Which curses kids were hit with? "Dancing legs"? Ron was attacked 
> with the brain?
> 
> Yes, Sirius fell through the Veil, yes, Harry was possessed, but 
> altogether impressive picture of violence? I don't think so, not in 
> my opinion.


SSSusan:
These are good examples of what I'm trying to get at.  JKR is NOT 
going to avoid hurt, betrayal, death, loss, anguish, the unfairness 
of life, political incompetence, treachery, or evil, because she 
doesn't want to, and she thinks it's important for people/children to 
deal with them.  But I do think we can tell that she is writing in 
large part for children in HOW she presents these things.

Example.  Many people on this board have expressed the view that it's 
fruitless to debate about the relative merits of Harry/Hermione, 
Ron/Hermione, Harry/Ginny, etc., because JKR is showing no signs of 
pairing anybody off in a love match by the end of the series.  Debate 
this all you will, but I wonder if the reason so many people feel 
it's just not "there" and is, rather, simply in the minds/hearts of 
the fans is because JKR is purposely leaving the relationships non-
sexual in nature. 

Harry has a kiss with Cho [offpage], we see Roger Davies snogging w/ 
someone in the tea shop, we see Ron's jealousy over Krum, but we're 
not SEEING anybody hitting the sack--even older characters such as 
Percy & Penny, Charlie, Bill,....  Why is that?  Because it doesn't 
*interest* JKR?  That could be.  Could also be that she's writing a 
deep, complex, multi-layered series which adults love to discuss and 
analyze but which she's actually targeting primarily to children.

Boy, is this EVER a convoluted way of saying that on one hand I think 
Kneasy is right--there is NO assurance that the ending will be 
happy.  But I come to that conclusion acknowledging along the way 
that I think JKR *is* writing with children in mind, BUT emphatically 
saying that I don't think one can "use" that as an argument for a 
happy ending *requirement*.  That's where the "for herself"/not 
standard children's book part comes in.  JKR may be writing for 
children, and I believe she may be tempering the "bloodbathy" kinds 
of descriptions for their sake, but she's also NOT promising 
a "standard" children's book with a happy ending just for the sake of 
the kids.  

I suspect I'll take a lot of grief for this, as I don't think I've 
been particularly clear....

Siriusly Snapey Susan