Camping, ethics, structure, from 'I am about to rant....'

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 174285

Donna wrote:
<snip> I keep thinking if I can get my thoughts organized well enough,
I would like to start a thread that just discusses the book within the
context of literary structure and form and allusions to works within
similar genres. One thing I loved about DH was that the structure and
literary blueprint of the book is even more complex than I had hoped
for - with each book the writing structure has really developed,
become more layered <snip>

> I have heard other people comment similarly to this (about JKR 
growing as a writer), but I can't help wonder that perhaps the
increase in the complexity of the writing was intentional on JKR's 
part? The reading level seems to increase; certainly the subject
matter matures; and the running themes seem to multiply. <snip> 
> Another impression I have of DH is that it uses more literary plot
devices and classic literary themes than any of the other books.
> 
> So, one could argue she increased the reading level and subject 
maturity to age along with young readers who started the series, well,
when they were young. But the rest of it....is it a function of her
writing ability growing? Is it a function of her being tuned in to
this world she created full of literary allusions and references, and
therefore inserting such allusions and references, everything from
using the names of Greek mythological characters to using lovingly
'plagarized' plot devices, became second nature to her? Or, was the
growth in her writing from book to book completely intentional from
the beginning; to reflect that HRH were growing and maturing, and that
the mystery and secrets Harry has to discover with each book were
becoming ever layered and complex. I kind of like to think she may
have set out writing Harry's story with the intention to make each
book more complex and layered in structure and form than the last one.

Carol responds:
I think it's a given that the increased reading level and complexity
are intentional. The books grow with the age of the protagonists. The
darker plots and themes require more sophisticated literary
techniques. (Which is not to say that the books are without flaws, but
neither is "Moby Dick.") The Christian themes and symbols are more
overt in this book; she's been keeping them under wraps until now.

But I'm not interested, really, in authorial intention, so much of
which is unconscious or unrelizable or both. JKR has a background in
the classics, IIRC, and certainly some of that would have surfaced,
consciously or unconsciously as she wrote, but I think we can examine
those elements when we're ready (as I, assuredly, am not) without
worrying about whether JKR intended them. The hero's journey to the
Underworld is *there* (obviously consciously intended), foreshadowed
in almost every book. The cross that Harry puts on the grave he didgs
for Mad Eye's eyeball is *there,* thes things and many others are in
the text, on the page, waiting to be interpreted, and IMO as long as
an interpretation fits the canon, it's valid. There's no single "right
reading," but I imagine there will be plenty of wrong ones!

The thing about a great work of literature (and it's possible that DH
is a flawed masterpiece; certainly, it's a complex work of
literature), is that it has layers of meaning. "Veil after veil may be
undrawn, and the inmost naked beauty of the meaning never exposed," as
Shelley famously wrote. (Of course, not all readers will agree about
the beauty, but I'm talking about meaning.) JKR herself does not fully
understand what she's created. The creative process is a mystical,
magical thing beyond the conscious intention of the writer. The whole
is larger than its parts, some of which are flawed. (We can work
around inconsistencies like Moody's magical eye being aboe to see
under the supposedly perfect Invisibility Cloak through willing
suspensions of skepticism or off-page explanations that make sene to
us individual or doublethink. But the other components--the structure,
the narrative technique, the allusions, the archetypes, the classical
and biblical parallels and symbols, are there for readers to see and
interpret whether JKR intended them or not. I have no doubt that this
tale grew in the telling and that parts of it got away from her and
that she did not have the advantage of rewriting it backwards to work
out flaws and inconsistencies and find out "what really happened."
She's not Tolkien, and even he didn't get all the bugs out--which
doesn't keep LOTR from being a masterpiece. I reserve judgment on DH
and the Potter series. (We can never make the number of students at
Hogwarts or the ages of the Weasleys add up because JKR can't so much
as count to ten on her fingers. But that's a mote in the book's eye, a
minor flaw that should not blind us to larger matters.)

I have a feeling that these books are like Dumbledore, seemingly
mischievous and eccentric, sometimes funny, sometimes dangerous,
concealing something deep and slightly sinister in their depths. But
I'm not sure. I just think that discussions of authorial intentions or
what we expected from the books but didn't get will lead us to a
deeper understanding. Right now, for me, it's all about Dumbledore.
Until I understand him and why we're clearly supposed to see him as
benevolent and wise and worthy of naming your son after, I won't be
ready to look at structure and genre.

Snape I get. He's the "good Slytherin," whose courage and love enabled
him to risk his life repeatdly for the right side without recognition
or reward. He earned his redemption. But Dumbledore reminds me too
much of the Old Testament God (Yahweh) for comfort. (I'm trying to get
past the Unforgiveable Curses, which, IMO, can't be rationalized. They
are evil, invading the mind and the body as Dementors invade the soul,
and with all the other spells in Harry's arsenal, he should not have
Crucio'd even Amycus Carrow.) Maybe I expected JKR to be Tolkien and
saw them as the One Ring that can't be wielded by the good side. I
*am* disappointed in that aspect of the books, but I'm not going to
let it blind me to what else is there.)  

Aside: Maybe Snape is the wily Odysseus, combining cunning and
courage, while Harry is a more straightforwardly heroic figure,
overcoming doubt to sacrifice himself for the greater good (he says so
himself), a figure who, IMO, has more in common with literary Christ
figures than any figure out of Greek epic or mythology. (I am *not*
saying that he's Christ or that the story is a Christian allegory--I'm
talking about parallels. Christ would not have thrown a Crucio. And
Christ did not get in a last taunt at those who crucified him. "They
know not what they do." Voldemort knew quite well whom he was killing
and why. What he didn't know was that he was the one who would die.)

But I'm not there yet. I'm still dealing with the story itself, still
trying to get all of it into my head (I forgot Harry's epiphany
regarding DD's memories in the cave in an earlier post). 

Complete, complete aside, wholly irrelevant to this post. What would
have happened if Voldemort had *not* gone after the Elder Wand? Could
he have used his own wand on Harry with Harry's wand broken? Did
Voldemort bring about his own downfall, as Grindelwald seems to have
predicted?

Carol, feeling guilty for actually liking Grindelwald in his death
scene and under no delusions that he's good