The OOTP Gripe List, v. 5,432

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 126111


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" 
<bob.oliver at c...> wrote:

<snip gripe list>

Pippin:
 I wonder, are Dumbledore and the other OOP!characters 
(Lupinlore  didn't mention Molly and the Marauders so I'll add 
them to the list) really OOC with respect to the way JKR depicted 
them in previous books, or are they only out of sync with the pop 
culture stereotypes that the reader, with JKR's sly 
encouragement, superimposed on them?

Was there ever justification in canon for thinking that Ron's 
ambitions were as unrealistic as Sancho Panza's, or was that an 
expectation formed by Sancho himself and all the generations of 
loyal but hopelessly out of their depth sidekicks who followed in 
his footsteps? 

Whoever said that Molly was June Cleaver with a wand, or 
weren't there always indications that, kind and loving though she 
is,   she has a tendency to play  favorites and is a poor judge of 
character?


Did canon ever show Ginny as a simple innocent, or did we think 
she was because, like Snow White,  she  accepted a gift from a 
stranger and was cast into a trance?


Did everyone in canon see   the Marauders as angels with 
dirty faces, or did we, the readers,  wish that characterization on 
them?

Did anyone promise us that Harry would always be clever 
enough to see through the traps the villain laid for him, or did we 
think he would because he's the hero?


Did anyone say we'd always like Hermione? That she'd always 
display just the right mixture of superiority and fallibility that
we'd find endearing?  Or are we trying to fit her into the cultural 
straitjacket of a proper literary heroine?

JKR did say that Dumbledore is the epitome of goodness. But 
once you get away from fuzzy platitudes and down to hard cases, 
is there consensus about what goodness means? Isn't it a 
matter of passionate and bloody dispute?


I think JKR snuck in another object lesson in the power of 
stereotypes.

Pippin