Innocent Alby?

[cubfanbudwoman]

No: HPFGUIDX 122982


Renee:
> JKR has said DD is the epitome of goodness, but that still doesn't 
> make him God - unless she's trying to suggest DD is God's second 
> incarnation on Earth after Jesus Christ, but somehow I don't think 
> her own beliefs would allow her to do this. And if he's not God, 
> criticism of his actions, whether on a textual level (seeing them 
> as based on DD's own choices) or on a meta-textual level (seeing 
> them as based on the author's choices) can't be countered with a 
> reference to the way God works.  
> 
> In other words, to me the rift between stated authorial intentions 
> and the text as we have it creates a problem here. This can be 
> partially solved by seeing the series as a development from pure 
> fairytale to a more "realistic" form of fantasy-cum-mystery, but as 
> the Dursleys continue to play an unpleasant role in Harry's life, 
> this doesn't entirely work. It works best if I can see the whole 
> series as symbolical and largely non-realistic.
> 
> Still, DD is one of the few characters that never entirely worked 
> for me. I can't throw JKR's qualification of DD overboard without 
> simultaneously doubting her characterisation, and if I retain it, I 
> find myself doubting her assessments that some things (such as the 
> suddennes of Sirius's death) are only realistic. From time to time, 
> this kind of thing tends to give me an "anything goes" feeling that 
> undermines my admiration of JKR as a writer and makes me think this 
> is really no more than a piece of very clever entertainment with a 
> dash of hazy personal philosophy added to the mix.


SSSusan:
A thought-provoking post, Renee.  I believe you have put your finger 
on something many do struggle with in the series.  HAVE we moved away 
from a fairytale and into the realm of more "realistic fiction" 
[yikes, is that an oxymoron? sorry, lit majors]?  It would seem so 
with the ways the Dursleys appear to have moved from caricature to 
true nasties, with Harry's raging in OotP, with the death of Sirius.  
But, you're right, Renee.  If we've made that shift, what do we do 
with characters who still seem to be sort of caricatures or symbolic, 
rather than real?  

I'd never thought of DD in this way, but I think you're right.  We 
saw his "breakdown" moment at the end of OotP, when we confessed to 
old man failings.  And, since JKR called him the epitome of goodness, 
we assume we're supposed to feel bad for him, forgive him, and move 
on, still trusting & believing in him.  Clearly, not all readers are 
interested in doing that and prefer to analyze him a bit more harshly 
in the light of the RW.  

And your bringing up Sirius' death is a good one, too.  I'm one of 
the ones who's argued that JKR should *not* bring Sirius back b/c I 
believe it would undermine the message that she seems to be trying to 
make -- that death is painful, final, and sometimes very, very 
senseless.  That's Real Life.  But is THIS?  If I'm understanding you 
correctly, you're saying that sometimes you feel like she wants to 
have it both ways.  Allow the fairytale, symbolic, don't-try-to-
analyze-this-as-real-life view of things, but then also have us see 
it all as realistic.  Have we shifted to "realistic" or is it a 
mishmash of realistic and fairytale?

I don't know.  I've not had my coffee yet.  Perhaps I'm babbling, but 
I did want to thank you for raising the issue.

Siriusly Snapey Susan