[HPforGrownups] over analysing?

[elfundeb]

No: HPFGUIDX 173445

Reply written 3 days ago but somehow not posted --

montims:
I know that we all need to discuss the book(s), and I am very grateful that
there is this great group, with such excellent ideas, but while we are
teasing out every last strand, I really feel that we should appreciate that
in JKR's eyes:

DD is the epitome of goodness
Snape is brave and noble
the Marauders were lovable pranksters (though not as lovable as Lily...)
Harry and Ginny love each other with a deep and abiding love, as do Ron and
Hermione
everything turns out for the best
etc etc etc

Debbie:
I do hear what JKR says, but I am not compelled to agree with her.  I can
only interpret the events in the books in the light of my own life
experience, which necessarily differ from hers,  JKR cannot make me see
James and Sirius (or the Twins, for whom that moniker fits much better) as
loveable pranksters no matter how much she tells us so.  In any event, James
and Sirius were not lovable -- ask Lily, who will tell you they were
arrogant toerags.  What is missing from the narrative is any basis for
understanding how James ceased to be an arrogant toerag and captured Lily's
affections.  Our only testimony comes from Sirius, who has not proven to be
reliable.  This is a storytelling gap that prevents me from appreciating
James' good qualities.  I must take it on faith.

As for Dumbledore, aren't we better off knowing that Dumbledore really
*isn't* the epitome of goodness?  Dumbledore was a flawed human being (as we
all are) who was much better than most at concealing his errors and his
pain, not to mention his agenda.  As a longstanding and fervent member of
PACMAN,* I prefer this Dumbledore.  He was a good leader who succeeded in
the concealment of his own flaws and weaknesses behind a facade of strength,
compassion and moral goodness.  He was uniquely qualified to lead the Order
through a period of wartime, because he could make tough choices for the
greater good.

As Headmaster, his experience enabled him to set a tone that fostered
self-discernment.  In other words, he allowed others the opportunity to
learn from their mistakes, as he had learned from his own mistakes.

But perhaps Dumbledore's greatest achievement was to recognize Harry's moral
superiority to himself.

montims:
We, who analyse every detail, can and will reach other conclusions, and
conclude that something is creepy, someone is sinister or a childabuser or
whatever, but I really feel that that is due to JKR not having written more
specifics, or hammered home her beliefs. I think she thinks that having a
character say "everybody loved her", for example, is enough for us to
believe it.

Debbie:
I think she does believe this.  However, it's the job of a good novelist to
*show* us how loveable a character is rather than to tell us.  I often
suspect that JKR believes she has given many more clues to a character's
nature than she actually has, because she fills in the details.  JKR has
lived with her characters and her story for so long that she doesn't seem to
appreciate that the lack of information often results in other visions of
her characters.

Overanalysing?  I have not yet begun to analyse . . . and when I'm done I
expect my opinions of the characters will differ from JKR's.

Debbie
off on a week's holiday which will include a careful reread of DH

*PACMAN:  Perfectly Angelic Characters Make Bad Novels


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]