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

[festuco]

No: HPFGUIDX 130484

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "madorganization" <alishak at s...>
wrote:

 
> 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.

Gerry

One of the problems I have with literary criticism is that critics so
often want to presume what people should read, why they should read it
and how they should react. Especially when it comes to entertainment,
which [sarcasm]is ofcourse not of the same value as a deeply literary
work that has a Purpose and Teaches us something [/sarcasm]. 

Critics tend to forget that most of the books they hyped up in their
days are forgotten a couple of years ago, while there are a lot of
books they disdained that survived. Dickens is already mentioned. 

Critics also tend to forget that quite a lot of people are not in
reading to be Taught, but because they want to immerse in a story, so
they can forget about their real life experiences. And yes, they can
pick literature for that as well. 

I studies literature, and one of the things I learned is to analyze to
analyze, to analyze. The most important reason I did not want to go on
with it was that the people who taught me could no longer truly be in
a story, they had to be the separated reader, analyzing what happened,
very busy with what The Author Wants To Tell, instead of letting
themselves be touched by the story and see what happens in the
interaction. 

Now I like analyzing, I like finding out why a character or a scene
works for me, but not to the extent that I want to separate my own
reactions and emotions from the text to find out the message of the
author. If the author want to tell a message, I suggest he writes a
sermon. 


> 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.

Gerry
Yeah, that's the probem I have with many 'literary' authors. Beautiful
style, deep message, too bad they cannot write a story. And ofcourse
thinking that you know better, and preaching to the reader quite often
is nothing but arrogance and it makes the story weaker. 
 
> 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).

Gerry
Or curiosity, or thinking now you know something about it, or whatever
other reason people might have. The problem I have with these kind of
books is not that they exist, but that they are made somehow more
important and better than books that do not have a 'deep' theme, are
not about misery and how it is dealt with. 

Ofcourse there is a category of people who gain something from reading
such a book, for some people it might actually help them emotionally.
But it is not the be all and end all. I don't want to read books about
relations that don't work, about people with cancer, about rape or
other day to day misery people experience. Why not? Because they don't
help me, they just make me angry. I read for beauty, for enjoyment,
for fun, or because I don't want to think about some things in my very
real life. I don't want to read a story about cancer, I've experienced
a good friend dying from it, and no way a story will do justice to my
experiences. I don't want to read a story made up abouot AIDS, I'm
convinced it will do no justice to the real people who actually have it. 

Harry Potter, on the other hand, helps me deal with my real
experiences. Helps me to escape, gives me joy and hope and those I
take with me from the story, to my very real life. I think that is one
of the reasons escapism (so much disdained by critics) is important.
Because it helps you deal with your own life, it gives you strenght
and nourishment. For me this is true. For others it might be
completely opposite. But I don't need a critic to tell me what I Need
nor an author. 



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

Gerry
Why do you suppose it is another who can tell a reader what they need?
To me this is a very arrogant point of view. 



> 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.

Gerry
I'm sorry but that is rubbish. There is enough psychological evidence
to see that the experiences themselves are not the most important, but
it is the way someone deals with them. People with horrible
experiences quite often are much less traumatized than people with far
less experiences but who do not have the inner resources to cope. 

Harry, as we see him from the beginning and as we see him develop, has
quite a lot of inner resources. And quite a lot of potential for
happiness.

Gerry