DD's dilemma + owl post/Readers' Response

[lupinlore]

No: HPFGUIDX 126391


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "cubfanbudwoman" 
<susiequsie23 at s...> wrote:
 My thoughts about DD in the OoP speech 
> were *between* Pippin's and yours, though.  I don't see DD as 
> as "stiff upper lippish" as some other male British literary 
> characters, but I definitely couldn't imagine him emoting all over 
> the place either.  I *do* see that single tear as indicative of a 
lot 
> from a man who isn't likely to do a lot of crying.  
> 
> So much of it, I think, still hinges on whether you are able to 
> believe that DD did what he *believed* he *had* to do regarding 
> Harry's life from 15 months to age 15.  If you do, then the degree 
of 
> sadness & remorse he showed to Harry is likely satisfactory.  If 
you 
> do not -- if you're looking for a complete justification of why he 
> did what he did, where he now believes he screwed up -- then I can 
> understand that the scene would ring hollow.
> 

Yes, I do believe you've hit on it, Susan.  It does VERY much ring 
hollow for me and for at least some others (a dozen or so of my 
personal acquaintance, anyway).  And unless we get a MUCH more 
complete justification of Dumbledore's actions or lack thereof, 
including a detailed explanation of what he would do differently and 
an expression of remorse for the pain he has caused Harry, the books 
go to the dumpster.

As for the question of why take the books to the dumpster, I can 
offer some rather entertaining explanations [:-)] and then the 
serious one.  I guess if you're a Freudian you could say it 
represents a socially acceptable sublimation of rage toward the 
author.  Or if you are an environmentalist you could say it's a 
contribution of much-needed absorbent material to land-fills badly 
in need of seepage prevention.  Or if you are a Foucaultian it is 
the act of rejecting material at variance with the dominant episteme.

Now, for the serious explanation.  I have limited room on my 
bookshelves and can only keep books I'm inclined to revisit -- which 
means books that are either practically useful to me in some way or 
works of fiction into which I can enter without jarring dissonance.  
Now, the "goodness" of Dumbledore is a theme/plot element near the 
heart of the Harry Potter series.  I could readily believe it until 
Book V by the theory that he didn't know about what went on at the 
Dursleys and if he had he would have acted firmly to stop it (I know 
the thing about the letters was cutting against that, but as it was 
only a minor thing I could ignore it or come up with various 
theories to explain it).  Now, with Book V, such jarring dissonance 
is introduced into the presentation of Dumbledore that neither I nor 
many people of my acquaintance can believe in him as a good 
character anymore.  Sorry, just can't do it.  His speech in OOTP is 
just completely unconvincing and totally unsatisfactory.  And unless 
the future books act to defuse this dissonance with detailed 
explanations of why a "good" character tolerated child abuse (and 
that IS what he did), then the dissonance will likely grow into a 
complete inability to suspend disbelief at all with regard to the 
story.  At that point the books become 3500 pages or so of land-fill 
seepage prevention material.  Or to put it another way, they 
represent about four linear feet that can be used for something I 
can either use or believe in, like dog grooming manuals.

Of course someone might well say that just because some people feel 
dissonance that does not mean there is a problem to be fixed or that 
JKR is under any obligation at all to give further explanations.  
Definitely true.  But then neither is anyone under any obligation to 
like her books or keep them on the shelf, either.


Lupinlore