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

[madorganization]

No: HPFGUIDX 130447

> >  Alisha:
> >  Wow, that really got my defenses up, so I'll try to keep calm 
about
> >  this.  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. 
> 
> K:  I don't know that I agree on this point.   I don't think that 
> "literature" always has to serve some artificially ennobled 
calling, 
> like making us Aware Of The Plight Of Others.  I think that is an 
> artificial construct papered together by universities and Serious 
> Authors.    To my way of thinking, books are like trains; they are 
> there to take the reader on a journey.   Sometimes you want to get 
on 
> the train to go to a fun place, like the shore.   Other times you 
may 
> want to get on to go to visit an elderly aunt or fulfill a court 
date 
> in another town.   One train isn't better than the other.  They 
both 
> serve a purpose.
> 
> My hope for this lifetime is to see the false snobbery about 
Literature 
> vs. Novels abolished.   Not every damn book has to be Theodore 
Dreiser, 
> and not every book that isn't about Man's Inhumanity To Man is 
trash.
> 


Alisha:
We're just going to have to disagree on this one.  By the way, I 
never once suggested that fiction as opposed to literature was 
trash.  I enjoy a good, entertaining book as much as the next 
person.  I just think that there is a time and place for both.


> 
> >  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.  Sometimes we need to know 
that
> >  good people have good things happen to them.
> 
> 
> K :  And sometimes we are adults who can figure out what we need 
on our 
> own, without being preached at by an Author Who Knows Better.   
So, we 
> put down the electric bill and the phone bill and turn off the 
news of 
> the latest explosions and pick up a book to take the train to the 
> seaside for twenty minutes or so.

Alisha:
And sometimes we can realize that when we want to hear a certain 
viewpoint we read a certain book and when we want another one we 
read another one, but either way, we are being preached at by an 
Author Who Knows Better.


> 
> [This is my problem with Oprah's book club.  Every book is about 
> someone being  raped or killed or dying of AIDS.  Now she's 
abandoned 
> all pretense and embraced Faulkner.   Oprah may have an easy 
enough 
> life to routinely depress herself when she reads.  I do not.]
> 


Alisha:
Again, I don't think we'll ever see eye to eye on this.  The purpose 
of reading a book about rape or AIDs or something like that is not 
to depress oneself.  It is, partially, to experience catharsis (a 
cleansing of one's emotions by experiencing the emotions of others).

 
> >   And sometimes it's
> >  true, that does happen.  However, a happy ending does not
> >  necessarily make a good ending.
> 
> K:  Is this the castor oil school of reading?  "The boy dies, but 
it's 
> GOOD for you, so read it and heal!!!!"
> 
> I'd compare this case to _The Sisterhood Of The Travelling Pants_. 
Both 
> are books with young people, and both deal honestly and upfront 
with 
> death.   Both books end happily, even though there is much 
grieving 
> along the way.  I don't see why this is a bad thing.

Alisha:
Again, I never said this was a bad thing.  Sometimes you need a 
happy ending, and sometimes you need a sad one.


> 
> >   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. 
> 
> K:  It may not be necessary for the structure of the story, but I 
think 
> it is necessary for the theme of the story, as I've mentioned 
> previously.   These are stories about maturity and ad hoc 
families.   
> They are not stories about Christology, and Harry Potter is NOT 
Sydney 
> Carton.
> 
> 
> 
> > 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. 
> 
> K:  Hamlet is a different story altogether.  It is a tragedy that 
is 
> clearly played that way from beginning to end.   It is a populist 
play 
> designed to offer the audience the Schadenfreude of seeing that 
the 
> Royals in the Palace are even more snafu'd then they are.   When 
you 
> were living in the dirt and crossing rivers of urine to buy 
spoiled 
> meat, this kind of play had an odd sense of feelgood about it.    
You 
> went in _knowing_ that everyone was toast.
> 
> Harry Potter is not structured this way at all.
> 
Alisha:
If that's really what you think about Hamlet, good for you.  An 
example is not a one to one ratio comparison.  It is a jumping off 
point.
 
> 
> >  That's what's important. 
> >  JKR may be able to tell her story without having Harry die.  
That
> >  would work.  It would also work to have Harry die to show that
> >  sacrifice is sometimes necessary for victory. 
> 
> 
> K:  I think she shows that in numerous ways, but also shows the 
hero 
> still standing for a purpose.
> 
> >  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.
> 
> K:  What books are you reading?  On that first train to Hogwart's, 
> Harry was newly happy, and not all that healthy.  He was 
undernourished 
> and maladjusted.  Dumbledore even comments on it later.   Unlike 
Frodo, 
> who lived for many decades in the somnolent peace of the Shire, 
Harry 
> had a rough go from the beginning.   Unlike Frodo, who lazed 
around 
> with his friends for months before starting on his journey, Harry 
is 
> thrown right in.
> 
> Frodo is an allegorical character who embodies the lost hopes of 
all 
> the young men who left Britain to fight a war they didn't 
understand 
> against a tyrant they feared.   They came back to an island that 
had 
> been despoiled by the tentacles of that war and realized that the 
realm 
> for which they watched their friends die would never return.   
That's 
> the story Tolkein wrote from his own experiences, viewed through 
the 
> lens of his Catholicsm; a religion that celebrates the sacrifice 
of 
> Christ.


Alisha:
Allegory is the forbidden word when dealing with Tolkien.  He 
despised it in all forms (which is why he didn't like the Narnia 
Chronicles, though C.S. Lewis was his best friend).  Many people try 
to argue that LOTR was an allegory of WWII, but it simply doesn't 
hold water.  For that matter, Harry Potter could be seen the same 
way.  (LV=Hitler, etc.)  And the idea of losing something to help 
others is a theme carried through much classical (and pre-Christian) 
literature.  Think of the Iliad and the Aeneid.  

> 
> As I've opined previously, Rowling is writing phase 2 of what 
Tolkein 
> wrote.   She grew up in that Britain, on whose empire the sun now 
> routinely sets.   Think of the Harry Potter novels not as twins to 
the 
> Tolkein works but as a protracted playing out of the Cleansing of 
the 
> Shire.   Britain's problems are no longer with Mordor (Germany), 
but 
> with its own outmoded class system.  The snobby Purebloods are 
Sharkey, 
> and the Halfbloods, Muggleborns, etc. are the Hobbits.
> 
> So many people seem to be caught up in the Campbellized version of 
the 
> Hero's  Journey that I think they will be disappointed if Harry 
> _doesn't_ end up paying some grave psychic price and spending his 
> twilight years in a dodgy tower block with a needle and cookspoon.
> 
Alisha:
It's not Campbell that has given us this idea.  It's human 
experience.  People who go through the sorts of ordeals that Harry 
has gone through do experience trauma.  This is what so many people 
are arguing to explain CAPSLOCK!Harry from OotP.  Something inside 
him must change.  The experiences he's had mean he will never be 
able to experience the normal growing up period he would need to be 
a completely well-adjusted adult.

 
> >   To bring in a
> >  similar story, he'd have to be like Frodo, broken by his
> >  experience. 
> >
> >  -Alisha
> >
> >  " 'But.' said Sam, and tears started in his eyes, 'I thought you
> >  were going to enjoy the Shire, too, for years and years, after 
all
> >  you have done.'
> >  'So I thought too, once. But I have been deeply hurt, Sam. I 
tried
> >  to save the Shire, and it has been saved, but not for me. It 
must
> >  often be so, Sam, when things are in danger: some one has to 
give
> >  them up, lose them, so that others may keep them.'"
> >
> >  J.R.R. Tolkien
> >  Return of the King
> >
> >
> 
> K:  As an aside, I think that there can be a small allegory made 
to the 
> Hobbits thusly:
> 
> Sam=Harry
> Merry=Hermione
> Pippin=Ron
> Frodo=Dumbledore
> 
> That is why I have always thought that Dumbledore will take the 
ship to 
> the Grayhavens.  Er, die, I mean.
> 
> Katherine, who is of the Neil Stephenson/Stephen King school of 
> Fictional Equivalences.
> 
> 
Alisha:
If you are so opposed to my using LOTR as a comparison for HP, I 
wonder that you would use this allegory to predict DD's end.  It 
seems a bit double-standardish to me.

-Alisha: who is weary with having to explain again that this is only 
my reasoning for why we /might/ not end up with a healthy, happy and 
alive Harry.