JKR's story vs. JKR as a person (Re: Victory for TEWWW EWWW)

[Jen Reese]

No: HPFGUIDX 173310

> lizzyben: 
> Of course not. I'm sorry if my post wasn't clear; I was trying to 
> get a handle on some concepts that I'm not really expressing very 
> well.  I'm saying that all authors put some of their self into their
> characters - as JKR has acknowledged about Hermione or Lupin. And I
> think Snape & the Slytherins represent a part of JKR too, a part 
that she would rather condemn & judge instead of integrating or
> understanding. I'm talking about things from a psychological
> perspective, *not* a social perspective. 

Jen:  I agree with many of Jung's theories and get your line of 
thinking here; what surprises me is the idea that because JKR created 
a fictional work, that work defines her as a person to the extent 
that we can perform analysis on her deeper motives and impulses.  
Guessing at her intentions and motives for the story and her 
characters is par for the course around here, but it seems a bit of a 
stretch to say her work means we know her personally.  To me that 
also aserts she didn't take into account her world or her characters 
and how she honestly believes they would act in any given situation.  

lizzyben:
> And there's something about the total condemnation of a house 
> of "emotion", combined w/Harry's statements that he likes that 
> Ginny doesn't ever cry, JKR's refusal to ever allow Harry to cry - 
> it's like she's saying that emotion, itself, is bad? 

Jen:  I understood this to be consistent character development for 
Harry myself (more on Slytherin house in a moment).  As she said in 
an interview in 2000:  "Harry is vulnerable. He's suffered. He's 
damaged in some ways."  She elaborated more on this recently by 
saying something to the effect of if Harry were a real person he 
would be more damaged by what's occurred in his life (sorry, searched 
and couldn't find that interview).  In his fictional world, he's not 
an utter mess but there are aspects to his character that reflect how 
much he's suffered.  Considering emotion somehow shameful or 
distasteful at times seems consistent with his early life at the 
Dursleys to me (speaking as a social worker here in RL and attempting 
to say something consistent with my professional experience - you can 
take it with a grain of salt of course!). 

lizzyben:
> I'm just at a loss to understand the way JKR resolved the House 
> system. Were fans really begging JKR to make Slytherin *more* evil 
> & unredeemable?  IMO, it seems like fans were begging for a good 
> Slytherin, a redemption for the House. JKR never gave it - and her
> total condemnation of anything resembling Slytherin-ness is just, 
> odd, to me. I don't get it. I don't get why she did it. 

Jen: My only answer is that apparantly in JKR's mind, this wasn't how 
the WW would act - like Harry, the WW is damaged.  There aren't 
psychologists; magical people don't spend much time comforting each 
other or processing through emotions - Harry is left almost alone to 
deal with his grief save for an occasional intervention by a friend.  
Would I want to live in this world?  Not anymore, though I did want 
to after reading book 1.  However, I don't believe this world is 
anything but fictional or that it's a mirror for JKR's psyche even 
though I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment that the WW cuts 
off their emotional side.  I suspect it's due in part to living in 
such a dangerous place where survival seems primary.  

I honestly think right now, until I hear otherwise, that JKR 
considered unity of the houses to be an impossibilty in the WW we've 
watched evolved over seven years.  Not that it couldn't ever happen, 
but in the blip of a centuries old world, that's the point to which 
the world had evolved.  And even nineteen years later it's not 
appreciably different in my eyes, although my own personal hope is 
many who acted to oppose Voldemort do want a better world and are 
working toward that end. It's hard to tell from the epilogue.

lizzyben:
> The problem is that JKR never managed to integrate the "shadow" 
> House, the shadow figure into the overall narrative. And IMO the 
> novel suffered for it.

Jen:  I haven't made any final decisions yet, need to re-read and 
hear more from JKR, as well as read analysis on this list.  It wasn't 
exactly the book I expected and it's taking me time to make any final 
judgements.  I definitely understand why others express what you 
have, lizzyben, and understand people who are done with the series; 
it's not a world with a consistent moral compass for me at the moment 
even though I'm open to having my views grow and change as I 
understand more.  Or perhaps accept the flaws of the WW in the end 
and make peace with 'her story' - that's my hoped for outcome for me 
personally.

lizzyben: 
> And the overall message of the novels *is* scary to me,
> because it seems to say that we can just instantly judge people as
> less worthy, almost less human, based on a label. While JKR condemns
> that mindset in the text for Muggles, she supports exactly that type
> of thinking when it comes to Slytherins. All of them, 25% of the
> population, are totally immoral & evil? 

Jen: Not to change your mind (in fact, it might make it worse for 
you - I hope not) but as a way to offer at least one personal thought 
that JKR has expressed about her own thinking, here's an interview 
comment from her from 1999, Assoc. Press:

"I see children as innately good unless they've been very damaged. 
That's where I'm coming from."

That comment came after what I believe underlies the ending of the 
series: 

"I wasn't going to pretend that an evil presence is a cardboard 
cutout and nobody gets hurt," J.K. Rowling said Thursday in an 
interview on NBC television's "Today" program. "If you're writing 
about evil you genuinely have a responsibility to show what that 
means and that's why I'm writing them the way I'm writing them."
**********************************

Jen:  At the moment, my belief is JKR sees the children in Slytherin 
house as those who have been most damaged by the evil that is 
Voldemort (and the evil that has come before due to the serious flaws 
in the WW) and is saying that the prejudice and hatred running 
through the lines of certain families over generations has caused 
severe damage to these kids, more damage than the children in other 
houses.  Should they be hated for being damaged?  Absolutely NOT.  
But they have been and it's caused the breeding ground for dark lords 
to continue until real unity is a goal of the majority of magical 
people.  Very sadly, that didn't happen in the scope of her 26-year 
journey through the WW.

Jen, who may very well be in denial about JKR and her story but still 
wants to hold onto something she's invested 7 years of her own life 
in before reaching a final decision.