[HPforGrownups] Re:LOTR/ Harry SPOILERS

[Katherine Coble]

No: HPFGUIDX 130464


On Jun 10, 2005, at 3:38 PM, madorganization wrote:

> K >
>  > 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.
>
>

K:  It wasn't your suggestion per se.  More a sentiment that permeates 
the current world of publishing and literary study.   See my other post 
re.  Writing.

\ >
>  > 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.
>

K:   No.  There is a difference between sharing an experience and being 
preached at.   Harper Lee shares experiences.   Maya Angelou preaches.  
  Jane Austen shares experiences.  James Joyce preaches.

>
>  >
>  > [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).
>
>

K:  I guess it's clear that our approaches to reading and writing are 
different.   Which happens, believe me.

>  > >   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.
>
>
>
>  >
>  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.
>

K:  I think I've said before that I hate Hamlet.  I really do.  Trust 
me on this.  I hate Hamlet and I love that they all die.


>  Alisha:
>  Allegory is the forbidden word when dealing with Tolkien. 

K:  It may be what he thought, but he still wrote from his experiences.



>  He
>  despised it in all forms (which is why he didn't like the Narnia
>  Chronicles, though C.S. Lewis was his best friend).

K:  He also perhaps didn't like that at the time Lewis had a larger 
audience and was more influential.  I've always thought his whole 
"allegory is so beneath me" is an extension of the Ivory Tower 
philosophy I lament across the board.   Lewis was very unOxbridge at 
times.



>   Many people try
>  to argue that LOTR was an allegory of WWII, but it simply doesn't
>  hold water. 


K:  Please note that I did not say the books were an allegory of WWII.  
I said that Frodo was an allegorical character.   There is a 
difference.   He is born of Tolkein's experiences in life, which just 
happened to be WWII.



> 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. 
>

K:  Yeah, I know.  But since you've already said that HP isn't 
literature, I guess it's okay if the books have a happy ending, right?


>  >
>  > 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. 


K:  The larger portion of this list and other discussions reference 
Campbell to an astonishing extent.  And yes, I've not said the 
experiences don't change him.  I just don't think that the negative 
experiences preclude him reaching a happy conclusion.   That's what I'm 
arguing here.   I think that there are many folks on this list who 
believe that being through negative experiences means that one is 
unable to have a happy life.   Or, as you say "broken by his 
experience."    Many of us believe that he DOESN'T have to be broken 
utterly, merely matured.   I think it is all the fashion these days to 
glory in the suffering of mankind and celebrate the broken hero.   I 
don't want JKR to follow that fashion, and I presume from what I've 
read in this and other discussion forums that many are of the same 
mindset.

>
>  > >
>  >
>  > 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.
>


K:  Please understand that I wasn't opposed to using LOTR as a 
comparison at all.  I do it myself.  I just am arguing with your 
reasoning that Harry=Frodo.   I think it is a faulty comparison within 
the structure of the story.   You argue that Harry will end up broken 
by his experiences and, by extension, that death or diminishment is a 
necessary next step.



>  -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.
>


K:  We all know the reasons.  We are very familiar with Literary 
conventions.  We are explaining again that a happy ending isn't the 
redheaded stepchild of world literature.  I've given many examples that 
directly oppose your thesis.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]