Innocent Alby?

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 123029


>>Renee:
>JKR has said DD is the epitome of goodness... 
<snip>
>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?<

Betsy:
I'm going to completely disagree with both of you here.  But I have 
also come to the conclusion that I've been reading the books 
differently from you both.  I've never thought of these books, from 
PS/SS on, as "fairytale."  Children's literature, yes, but not 
fairytale at all.

Let's tackle the Dursley's first.  There are some caricature elements 
to their behaviors.  There's Vernon and his middle-class love affair 
of everything status quo and aversion to unkept lawns, foreigners, 
and men with long hair.  And then there's Petunia who's obsessed with 
keeping up with the Jonses and gossip.  Dudley is of course, a 
classic bully.  But I was struck with how well Harry, who's supposed 
to be the abused child in this household, is treated.  Anyone who's 
read "James and the Giant Peach," can tell you that for a children's 
book hero who's supposed to be under the control of mean, nasty 
relatives, Harry had it pretty good (hell, Cinderella would be 
jealous!).  That immediately told me that we were not dealing with 
the usual fairytale world.

So when in OotP my view of the Dursley's suddenly changed, I wasn't 
shocked, or surprised by an abrupt segue into "reality". For 
me, "reality" was *always* there.  It's just, Harry is more aware of 
the dangers now, and so are we.  And I did not see the Dursley's as 
suddenly more evil or nasty.  I was actually struck by a sort of 
desperate nobility in Vernon's decision to protect his family.  
Here's this Muggle family being dragged unwillingly into a Wizard war 
in which they and theirs are completely helpless.  If Harry has not 
been around, Dudley would have died.  There was no way for Dudley to 
protect himself.  I could well understand Vernon's desire to kick out 
the boy who brought this inexplicable danger on his son.

Which brings us to Dumbledore.  

>>SSSusan said:
>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.<

Betsy:
This is a perfect illustration of why I take all interview "canon" 
with a grain of salt.  Was JKR seriously trying to say that 
Dumbledore is supposed to represent an almost God-like goodness?  I 
doubt it; the books don't bare this out at all.  And was this a 
speaking interview, or did she write this down?  Because if she was 
speaking I think it's unfair and unwise to parse her words too much.  
Yes, Dumbledore is a white hat.  Yes, he's Harry's ultimate mentor in 
the whole "Hero's Journey" story line breakdown (can't remember the 
term for this - sorry).  But from reading the books, Dumbledore is 
immediately shown as human and fallible. 

Our first introduction to him in PS/SS has Dumbledore doing something 
he is reluctant to do, leave Harry with the Dursleys. (And I might 
add, we are also informed that two people he cared about had been 
murdured. So much for omnipotent power.)  We, the readers, already 
know that this isn't a place we'd leave a child, and McGonagall 
confirms it.  But Dumbledore feels he has no choice.  And the missing 
twinkle in his eye when he puts baby Harry on the Dursley's doorstep 
(SS p.16 Scholastic paperback), gave me the hint anyway, that he 
wasn't thrilled about what he had to do.  Dumbledore was doing the 
best he could under circumstances he could not control.

So I've never bought into the whole, Omniscient!Dumbledore, and I'm 
confused by people who have.  Especially as their anger at his 
failings turn them into Puppetmaster!Dumbledore advocates and poor 
Dumbledore suddenly becomes the epitome of the heartless strategist. 
(I'm new to this list, but I've been lurking around HP blogs for a 
while now. <eg>)

Therefore, I *loved* the insights into Dumbledore's power OotP 
brought us.  Chapter 27, The Centaur and The Sneak, was *thrilling* 
for me.  Here we, the readers, finally get to see Dumbledore reacting 
to a situation as it unfolded.  Fudge and Umbridge spring what they 
hope to be the perfect trap on him, and we get to see Dumbledore turn 
everything around on them using nothing but his quick wits and a 
little wizarding power.  PoA shows us a little of this, when 
Dumbledore lays out the time-turner plan, but it doesn't compare to 
what we witness in the headmasters office.  Now I could see why 
Dumbledore had McGonagall's and Snape's unquestioning loyalty.  And 
the final battle in the MoM, when Dumbledore took the gloves off...  
goosebumps.  Serious goosebumps.

I didn't forgive Dumbledore's mistake because JKR told me I should.  
I forgave him because I was impressed by his honesty, touched by how 
he cared for Harry in that final scene in his office, and also 
completely understood the reason for his mistake.  My God, how do you 
tell a child that he alone will be responsible for ridding the world 
of its biggest threat?  How easy would it be to tell someone as sweet 
and innocent as Harry that he will have blood on his hands, or he 
will die?  I would put that moment off myself.

>>SSSusan:  
>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?<

Betsy:
See, I've never seen the fairytale, symbolic aspect to the stories 
(aside from the literary critism that can be done to any work of 
fiction).  Sure there are wizards and fairys and dragons and 
invisiblity cloaks, but what drew me into this world is how mundane 
and real JKR paints it.  From Stan Shunpike's disinterested spiel of 
public service employees everywhere, to the Weasley's anxious 
economies to keep their children in school supplies, JKR has 
introduced us to a world where the magical is everyday, and wizards 
put their pants on, one leg at a time.  So for me, the "realistic" 
isn't an ugly and sloppy intrusion.  It's been there the entire time.

Betsy, who wonders if she's the only one whose read the books this 
way.