JKR's comments (was: In defense of DD WAS musings on Dumbledore)

[Renee]

No: HPFGUIDX 158793

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" <rdoliver30 at ...> wrote:
>
> > > 
> > Magpie:
> > Sorry, but I think most of us if not all of us ARE blaming JKR 
> > here.  But if other people keep jumping in to defend DD as if his 
> > actions are perfectly logical and examples of his great goodness 
> > we're going to say we don't think they are.  If one can claim 
> > Dumbledore did everything right logically and ethically based on the 
> > events in canon someone else can argue he didn't on the same level. 

Lupinlore: 
> Well, yes, exactly.  Of course we are "blaming" JKR.  Dumbledore, 
> after all, is not a real person.  He is a character in a universe 
> created by a particular author.  Furthermore, he is a highly symbolic 
> and meaning-laden character within said universe.  Most of all, he is 
> a character about which the author very much wants to "sell" a 
> particular message -- a message that she has, indeed, made blatantly 
> direct by making public statements about how said character is 
> supposed to fit within her fictional universe -- i.e. that he is "very 
> wise" that he is "the epitome of goodness," etc.

<snip>
 Many of us simply don't accept the sale of DD 
> on the terms JKR is trying, rather stringently, to impose.  Largely, 
> this comes from the fact that we see DD's attitudes and actions as 1) 
> a mass of contradictions even when measured by standards of 
> consistency internal to the story itself, and 2) as not being 
> consistent with the symbolic interpretation JKR wants to sell with 
> regard to this character and the metadynamics (the "moral" 
> or "morals") of the story.
> 
> So, who else is there to blame?

Renee, now:
The adult reader avidly dissecting the series?

JKR hasn't done a perfect job, as far as I'm concerned. She's got a
plot, heavy with symbolism, on the one hand; she's got a long list of
remarkable characters on the other hand - and she simply hasn't
succeeded in melding the two seamlessly all along. 

The plot with its symbolism comes first and the characters are often
squeezed into their projected roles regardless of whether these roles
really fit the author's concept of their personalities. This obviously
leads to perceptions and interpretations that are at variance with
JKRs intentions. The "epitome of goodness" statement, but also the
comments concerning the popularity of Snape and Draco, very clearly
illustrate this problem.  

JKR has managed to make many of her characters come alive, yet their
lives take place within a preconceived structure that determines their
actions. In a series where choice is of the utmost importance, they
have no choice but to do what their creatrix has decreed for them
according to the preordained course of the plot. Of course all authors
manipulate, but in JKR's case, the strings are quite clearly visible,
and I think this is what jars.  

Ultimately, the "epitome of goodness" statement serves to highlight
JKR's flaws as a writer, it seems. Apparently she doesn't always get
her point across clearly enough, if she needs to resort to
extra-textual means to do so. And writers who fail to get their point
across aren't very good writers, are they? 

Or is it that we're inclined to read a series she hasn't written - a
mainstream story aiming for psychological realism, rather than a
fantasy series that, while not only written for children, is certainly
meant to be read with childish wonder rather than with the dissecting
and sometimes cynical eye of the adult?
  
Renee