DD's dilemma - Protections and Perspectives

[lupinlore]

No: HPFGUIDX 126370


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214"
<dumbledore11214 at y...> wrote:
> 
<SNIP>
> 
> 

> 
> I am wondering about something else though - I remember some time ago 
> somebody remarked that not paying much attention to psychological 
> well-being of Harry and many others could simply be due to the fact 
> that JKR endured many tough times in her life and emerged  the 
> winner. Maybe her philosophy is that anybody could beat whatever life 
> throws at them by themselves, no outside help needed and she applies 
> that philosophy to her characters, Harry in particular, but 
> definitely not only him.
> 
> Just speculating,
> 
> Alla.

Hmmm.  I don't know, Alla.  First of all, IMO, if JKR thinks that
she's dead wrong.  But that is, of course, my experience matched
against someone else's.

However, more to the point, I really doubt JKR has much of a formal
philosophy she's working from.  Oh, she has opinions of course, and
tendencies and beliefs.  But I don't think they are mirrored in the
books in any conscious way MOST of the time.

Rather I think she is just trying to tell the story as she wants it to
go.  And frankly, I think she is often rather unaware of lots of these
issues until and unless they are pointed out by another party.  That
often happens with authors.  You get so wrapped up in the story you
are trying to tell that you develop a kind of myopia.  I don't know
how many times I've written something and had someone come up to me
and say "Why did you say so and so?"  To which I answer "I
said/implied/meant no such thing!"  Yet when they show me the
manuscript with passages marked I go "Oh, well I guess I DID say/imply
that, didn't I?"

I think lots of the issues we (we meaning fans) see in the books arise
from this tendency.  For instance the issue of the Slytherins.  I
think JKR just needed some people in the early books to be the
villains.  I doubt the whole issue of marking a quarter of children at
Hogwarts as "evil" crossed her mind until it erupted in fandom.  I
think the issue of Veritaserum and Legilemency with regard to Sirius
in Azkaban functioned the same way.  Was JKR attempting to send a
message about trust in authority or the application of technology to
court cases?  I doubt it.  These were useful plot devices and in the
haste and intensity of writing the books I don't think she even
realized until afterwards that they cut against one of her major
subplots.  By not having psychological counseling at Hogwarts or in
the WW is she sending a message about self-help vs
professional/amateur counseling?  I seriously doubt it.  I think that
in her intense focus on the storyline she just never thought about
that issue.

For what it's worth, stepping out of the canon for a moment and doing
a little authorial analysis, I think Siriusly Snapey Susan is right in
a comment she made to me off list recently.  That is that JKR probably
thought "OK, Harry at Dursleys, here's the reason, subplot closed,
moving on."  All the issues implied and imbedded in that subplot may
well not have occurred to her until it was too late.

This all goes along with what we have seen many times.  JKR just isn't
the best in the world when it comes to keeping track of implications
and details.  If it doesn't directly concern the storyline she has
envisioned, she tends sometimes to slide over things, leaving all
sorts of tangles and confusions and objections in the wake of her pen.


Lupinlore