Orphans - Harry and Tom

[Ceridwen]

No: HPFGUIDX 150873

Alla:
> 
> Not that I am really disagreeing with what you are saying. I guess 
> all that I am saying is that I don't think JKR changed that much in 
> the "orphan set up" so to speak, I guess to me she developed it or 
> maybe took it to another level, I don't know. 

Ceridwen:
Yes, definitely another level.  To me, Harry is more believable than 
the other orphans I've run across in reading.  Just remembered 
another orphan book, Michael O'Halloran.  Heart of gold, again, 
always willing to do right, but here is where I think JKR differs 
from the usual orphan story - other orphans are satisfied with their 
status quo.  Harry isn't.  Michael O'H doesn't mind being poor.  And 
it is presented as maybe being preferable to being rich and jaded.  
Keeping the classes seperate, and the hero supports it.  But Harry 
doesn't support being the grateful recipient of the Dursleys' crust 
of bread.  He dreams big dreams, he fights the lies they tell him 
about his parents, he resents the way he's treated.  Very believable 
for me.

Alla:
> I mean, sure, with 
> every book Harry acts more and more defiant towards Dursleys, but 
at 
> the same time to me PS/SS WAS the classic "Cinderella" set up, 
where 
> Harry indeed works as a house elf, abused, neglected, then 
discovers 
> new world and leaves the old one behind, you know - all the classic 
> orphan stuff. 

Ceridwen:
Oh, absolutely.  PS/SS was classic Cinderella.  But while Harry 
worked like a house elf, he didn't have the subservient attitude.  He 
would never punish himself for going against the Dursleys the way 
Dobby did when he went against the Malfoys.  And it was harder for 
Dobby to make the break, in his head, I think.  It took him all book, 
but when he got his sock, he was as defiant as Harry.  I think Harry 
was a good influence on him!  *g*

Alla:
> At the same time while I am saying that i don't see 
> the radical changes, those changes MUST be somewhere, don't they? I 
> mean, I also read plenty of stories about orphans and while I 
> definitely sympathized with many of those characters, Harry is the 
> orphan with whom I sympathize the most. 

Ceridwen:
I think it's Harry's spunk.  Not a word I really like, but I think it 
fits.  Especially in the earlier books.  Harry doesn't just fight 
against the adversity that the world, or LV, thrust on him, he 
actively fights against the specifics the Dursleys toss his way.  He 
doesn't see any reason to be beholding to them.  He is not a 
doormat.  Sometimes, when reading the orphan story, I just cringe at 
the way they meekly go along with the more powerful people.  Always 
so sweet, what kids are always sweet?  (Okay, my husband's nieces, 
but who else?)  What kids take a foot to the teeth and ask for 
another?  These are, of course, the more mealy stories foisted on 
kids a hundred years ago.  Their spunk is only in fighting 
circumstances and finding a home at last.  Harry, I think, wants to 
do better.  I think he wants to make his home, not just find it.

Alla:
> I think that maybe the difference is that JKR truly lets Harry grew 
> up, you know, books gets darker and darker and as Harry grows up, 
> indeed he changes from traditional orphan to becoming CAPSLOCK 
> Harry, etc?

Ceridwen:
This is yet another thing I love about the series.  Harry does grow 
up.  He has teenaged moods, enhanced by visits from LV.  He has 
troubles in school, which are not all because of his inabilities in 
certain subjects, but sometimes because, like other kids, he fluffs 
off and doesn't study as hard as he could.  Harry, and really, all 
the major characters, seem real to me.

Oh, one thing I was thinking of tonight, I think Harry is 
foreshadowed to be a wizard along the Dumbledore lines.  Mainly 
because his mistakes, when he makes them, are large.  The MoM, for 
instance.  But, that's another thread, I think.  Yet, it ties into 
the orphan being without parental guidance, too, in that he has more 
freedom and therefore makes mistakes that his friends who rely on 
parents, don't or can't.

Alla:
> *(snip)*I could not expect Tom, who "never loved 
> anybody" be a normal child and  it turns out that he indeed was not.
*(snip)*
> Where I was surprised was the portrayal of orphanage. I sort of 
> expected to find out that truly evil people raised Tom and that is 
> also played a part in his upbringing.

Ceridwen:
I thought he might have had such great disappointments that he became 
bitter early in life.  Being an orphan certainly qualifies!  Maybe 
being bullied by older kids and having no one to turn to, or the 
matrons being cold and not responding to his needs.  The amoral child 
shown to us in the Pensieve was a surprise.  I did expect more 
bitterness, and less, well, glee in his powers.  And with the choices 
theme, I expected that his turn to the Dark Side... er, Dark Arts, 
was more of a choice made by an embittered soul.

The orphanage, I think, was what I expected.  I didn't expect a 
maternity unit, but that's just window dressing to get Merope's final 
chapter told.  I saw a staff that cares, but is overwhelmed.  Maybe 
the orphans saw it differently.  The staff was nothing like the 
Dursleys!  And, I didn't expect them to be.  But, I have some 
information about orphanages in the US at about that time, so there 
is that difference.

In some ways, Tom does seem to follow Harry's model.  He wants more, 
and he fights to get it.  He isn't satisfied with his situation.  
Where they differ is their approach, with Tom being so evil that 
turning that way completely as an adult made sense.  I think he 
differs from the traditional orphan in that he's the bully.  In most 
orphan stories I've read, the orphan, of course the protagonist, 
would never be mean.

Ceridwen, having fun with speculation again.