Ending the series (was Dept. of Mysteries, "Love" room.)

[madorganization]

No: HPFGUIDX 130433

> Alisha:
> > Wow, that really got my defenses up, so I'll try to keep calm 
about
> > this.
> 
> First off, kudos for a temper well kept.  ^_^

Alisha:
Why, thank you. :)
> 
> > I never said that happy endings made the difference between
> > fiction and literature.  I said that literature tells us what we
> > need to hear as opposed to what we want to hear.
> 
> This is quite a strong, yet somewhat ambiguous, statement, and I 
was 
> wondering if you could elaborate on why you think this is the 
case.  
> I'm a little opposed to the idea of a clear demarcation between 
fiction 
> and "literature", anyway (although I certainly admit that there 
are 
> specific examples which fall pretty clearly to one side of the 
> spectrum), and I'm not really sure what you are trying to say 
here.  
> How do we differentiate between what we "need" and what we "want" 
in 
> fiction?  If, as you seem to imply further into your argument, we 
> sometimes "need" positive messages as much as negative ones, who 
is to 
> say Harry Potter cannot be an example of such? (Sorry if I've 
> misinterpreted your position.)

Alisha:
Hmm...I think you have misinterpreted my position.  I'm not saying 
that Harry Potter can't end with a whole, happy, very much alive 
Harry.  I'm not even saying that this would be a bad thing.  What I 
am saying is that it is entirely possible, plausible and 
understandable that the series will end with Harry broken or even 
dead.  And this is not a bad thing.  Either ending could be done and 
done well, and neither would make for a poor ending to the series.  
I only wanted to point out to those who seem to think that only a 
happy ending would work or be appropriate, that there is much 
precedence for the opposite to be true. 

 
> 
> While I think "telling" the reader something is an integral part 
of 
> literature as a whole, I disagree that the quality of the message 
is a 
> good measure of the difference between classic "literature" and 
mere 
> "fiction".


Alisha:
I disagree here.  I love to write "fiction".  I am very good at 
coming up with stories that are interesting.  My problem is that 
when I'm finished, any workshopping I've ever had done on my pieces 
seems to bring up the same issue.  "What's at stake here?"  IOW, why 
is this important?  A story, or a piece of fiction can be 
interesting, entertaining, even moral, but in order for it to be 
literature (something that has the ability to survive into future 
generations as a work worthy of in-depth discussion) it must have 
some theme or deeper significance from the author.  Often times the 
author may not be aware of what this is, but it should still be 
there.  I see the difference between "fiction" and "literature" to 
be similar to the difference between Art and something that is 
artistic.  I do collages, that's artistic.  It requires a certain 
asthetic sense, but I'm not an artist.  I don't seek for anything 
beyond beauty in my work.  I think literature has to be more than 
just a good book, it has to have larger social implications.  

I have to be honest here.  I really don't think Harry Potter falls 
into the literature category.  I love it, and it is exceptionally 
good fiction, but I still don't see it as literature.

> 
> > Sometimes we need
> > to hear that Elizabeth Bennet, for all her poor upbringing and
> > uncouth family, wins the heart of Darcy and goes on to do great 
and
> > noble things with her new position.
> 
> And, sometimes, don't we also need to hear that an orphaned boy, 
> saddled with abusive caretakers, a dire prophecy, and an immortal 
> nemesis can't find peace and happiness and family somewhere down 
the 
> road?  I'm being a bit facetious here, but this message boils down 
to a 
> universal "truth" in literature:  the downtrodden *do* have hope.


Alisha:
Yes, sometimes we do, indeed, need to hear this.  But sometimes, 
that is just what we want to hear.


> 
> > Sometimes we need to know that
> > good people have good things happen to them.
> 
> So why not Harry Potter?

Alisha:
No reason, unless the result is a cop-out ending where everyone 
lives happily ever after because it will make people happy.


> 
> >  And sometimes it's
> > true, that does happen.  However, a happy ending does not
> > necessarily make a good ending.  Harry Potter's story is a
> > distinctly moral story (not religious, not allegorical, just
> > moral).  Therefore it is necessary that Good triumph over Evil in
> > the end.  It is not, however, necessary that Harry lives and
> > Voldemort dies.
> 
> I agree wholeheartedly, but I disagree that the reverse is 
necessarily 
> true.


Alisha:
So do I.


> 
> > Think of Hamlet (depressing, I know).  Hamlet
> > doesn't survive the story, but he takes down his unscrupulous 
mother
> > and his villainous uncle before he goes.  That's what's 
important.
> > JKR may be able to tell her story without having Harry die.  That
> > would work.
> 
> I still agree. (Wow, we're on a role here.) ^_^
> 
> > It would also work to have Harry die to show that
> > sacrifice is sometimes necessary for victory.  I do think, 
however,
> > that even if Harry lives, it won't be the happy ending most 
children
> > are expecting.  If JKR is to make this story believable and real,
> > then Harry will never be the same again.  We won't ever see that
> > happy, healthy boy we met on the train to Hogwart's.
> 
> . . . Aaaand, here's where I balk.  First of all, Harry wasn't 
really 
> happy or healthy when we met him, was he?  He was supressed, 
> half-starved, un-loved,  &c.


Alisha:
I agree, and I think I should have phrased this differently.  When 
we first met Harry, he was all of those things.  But when we first 
saw him on the Hogwart's Express, he was happy, at least, though 
perhaps for the first time in his life.


> 
> In some ways, I think one of the biggest themes of the series is 
about 
> Harry slowly repairing and, in many way, constructing his psyche 
anew.  
> He learns (sometimes slowly) to have friendship, to have a family, 
to 
> have a home, to sacrifice himself for others and to allow others 
to do 
> the same for him, to rely upon other people, to take their 
feelings 
> into account -- all of the things he missed out on when he lived 
with 
> the Dursleys.  Really, the story *starts* with a broken Harry.  It 
> doesn't really make thematic sense to me, then, to have the story 
end 
> where it started -- with a Harry that isn't whole.
> 
> Now, one can argue that the damage to his psyche done by the 
Dursley is 
> quite minimal given the circumstances, but this speaks directly to 
> Harry's inborn (or perhaps *instilled* -- by his mother) 
resilience and 
> inner strength.  Give these qualities, I find it quite realistic 
and 
> in-character that he will be capable of enjoying a reasonably 
happy, 
> normal-ish life someday.  Sure, there will be scars -- but 
everybody 
> *has* scars.  Perhaps the message might be that pain and suffering 
and 
> old wounds are a part of life, but that doesn't preclude one from 
> *living*.


Alisha:
I find these points intriguing, and, as I said, I'm not saying this 
can't or won't happen, I'm just arguing that the other options 
should not be dismissed.  
I think that one of the reasons people read fiction is because the 
characters are familiar.  But the reason people don't stop reading 
after three chapters is because there's something there that they 
don't see everyday.  You compare Harry's scars to the scars 
that "everybody" has.  But Harry isn't everybody.  Not everyone has 
their parents murdered when they are 1 (right in front of them, I 
might add).  Not everyone has repeated attempts made on their lives 
by a madman who's trying to take over the world.  Not everyone sees 
a schoolmate die when they are 14.  The things that Harry has gone 
through mean that his wounds will necessarily be deeper than most 
people's.
I do, however, agree that this does not preclude him from living.  
He may live, but he will never be the same again.


> 
> > To bring in a
> > similar story, he'd have to be like Frodo, broken by his
> > experience.
> 
> LoTR is, of course, an excellent story, but I see no reason why 
JKR 
> might want to rewrite it.  She gets sued for plagiarism enough as 
it 
> is. ^_~

I'd be horrified if she tried to rewrite it, but you can't deny the 
similarities.


Alisha:who's spent the last 4 years studying "literature" and 
wouldn't mind if she got to have a happy, fluffy ending for once, 
just not with this series.