Respecting the Dursleys( was:Re: Hi everyone -- banning the books)

[Jen Reese]

No: HPFGUIDX 159602

Pippin:
> Exactly.  When have our sympathies ever been a reliable guide to
> the nature of a Potterverse character? In the real world,
> those who suffer are seldom made cute and cuddly by their ordeals. 
> We forget that the sweet, resiliant Oliver Twist/Harry Potter types
> whose stories are told to sell novels and newspapers are not a 
> representative sample and we  think we would automatically feel
> sympathy for any abused child. IMO, JKR means to show us how wrong
> we are.
 
> Arguably, Dudley needs help far more than Harry does, but how
> many of us have ever felt moved to hope that he gets it?

Jen: 
One paragraph does not a reversal make. It's more like venting. 
Funny, I don't feel wrong to hold my opinion that Harry's likely 
identification with and sympathy for Dudley will be more important 
than my own. I don't need JKR to tell me about the reality of abused 
children when her entire series justifes that particular issue so 
her plot will work!!

When have our sympathies been a reliable guide? Well, I'm willing to 
bet my sympathy for Harry is right on the money. That my feeling of 
compassion for the beleagured Order members, despite their flaws, 
will not turn out to be a 'gotcha' by JKR. That believing in the 
Weasley family will not steer me wrong. That agonizing with and 
cheering for the Trio will not end up in a surprising twist. I've 
already confirmed to my own satisfaction that Dumbledore was meant 
to be essentially good after HBP.

Sympathy is a movable feast. I don't think JKR is toying with 
readers so much as prioritizing her plot over her characterization 
sometimes. She's definitely willing to sacrifice adult characters to 
keep the children as the heroes. We see this in the graveyard, the 
MOM battle, Dumbledore's 'mistakes' in OOTP, the Shrieking Shack, 
and so on. That's fine, it works in the story. The moral high ground 
is a slippery slope though.

Jen R.