Suspension of disbelief WAS: Why should we care if Harry's not really needed?

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 182385

Betsy Hp:
<SNIP>
But yes, I do expect child adventure stories to have a reasonable
reason for the child being the one on the adventure. It's not like
its impossible or anything. Other children's stories have come up
with reasons other than the adults being idiots for their child
protagonists to be front and center. (The adults are busy and/or
distracted. The adults are too set in their ways and/or the task
needs a certain level of purity to achieve.) Frankly, I think it's
the first thing an author should consider.

That JKR showed her adults literally sitting around (maybe pranking a
few bad guy offices) waiting for Harry to save their skins? That
pushed my envelope of "suspension of disbelief" too far. For me
anyway.
<BIG SNIP>

Alla:

Well, but I mean the reasons that you listed other reader can 
consider to be exactly what you (and sometimes me as well) think of 
as idiotic behavior of adults in Harry Potter, no?

For example, absolutely if I sit down and think that nobody bothered 
to research Voldemort's quest for immortality but Dumbledore, while 
at the same time TEENAGER find out about horcruxes, I will think of 
it as pretty idiotic behavior. My thing is that contrary to you this 
is not something that I care to think much about, you know? I mean, I 
will think about it as possible and plausible AU scenario, but I am 
concentrated on Harry and like to follow his journey, etc.

But at the same time here is another related example, which I am 
guessing you will still consider idiotic behavior (and this IS a 
guess, so tell me if I am wrong), while I will consider as perfectly 
reasonable and in character behavior for adults involved.

Dumbledore was not telling anybody about horcruxes and telling Harry 
to involve Ron and Hermione only. Do I think it is sheer idiocy? Oh 
you bet I am. But I also think that it is perfectly consistent and 
very in character for Dumbledore, so I really do not need to suspend 
my disbelief all that much here. Another thing, while I think that 
the ONE mention by Dumbledore of the huge task that he leaves to 
Harry and that he and his teenage friends are only people capable of 
doing should have caused several other order members to slap him 
silly and tell him – tell us what it is old man NOW, you are not 
leaving teenager to fight Voldemort without adult's help, I also 
think that once Dumbledore is dead, adults behavior IS reasonable.

I think it is reasonable in a sense that they KNOW Harry and they 
know that once he promised, it is useless to pester him and it is 
better to leave him alone.

To go back to your original list of reasons, what I am trying to say 
is that one's mileage may vary and what one considers good reasons 
for adults to be unavailable, another will think as idiotic ones.

Like for example, in the Secret Garden I find it perfectly 
understandable for Colleen (this was the boy's name, yes?) to be 
absent, but at the same time, children in that book are not saving 
the world, so my demands to suspend disbelief are lower. But take 
Artemis Fowl, where freaking twelve year old knows everything and 
does the things for which I wish he would have been spanked for the 
longest time (and to tell you how aggravated I was when I read that 
book, I NEVER wish even for fictional character to be spanked EVER) , 
oh dear god, no I did not buy the reasons of his parents 
noninterference. Was his mom sick and his father absent all the time 
or vice versa? But mind you his adult butler ( or whatever servant he 
was) just went along with everything that child wanted to do. So what 
I am trying to say is that I am sure author of Artemis Fowl went for 
adults are busy or distracted part, and to me it is still idiocy.

You also mention as the reason that would be good for you is that 
certain purity is needed to achieve the task. Eh, you are not buying 
that Harry's task also needs certain purity, but I absolutely am 
buying it, you know? So again, I think that it is all in the eyes of 
the reader IMO.

Betsy Hp:
A caveat: I haven't read a ton of children's books (including the
ones you're using for examples, Alla). So maybe it *is* generally a
given that the grownups are just stupid in children's books. It's
not something I easily buy. But if it's just part of the genre,
well, there you are. <g>
<SNIP>

Alla:
Well, the funny thing is that my favorite books while I was a child 
was already teens' or adults books ( Dumas, Verne, Sabatini, Scott, 
etc). I mean after my fairy tales phase, I was very into adventure, 
but adventure where adults played main roles, so I did not read many 
books where kids were main characters either. Those books went into 
adulthood with me as well.

I started reading more books like this while I was reading Harry, 
partly because I liked them as well, but also partly that I needed an 
easier reading in English than I needed in Russian obviously.
So yes I can say that during last few years I read quite a few of 
them. IMO it IS part of the genre, while every author sometimes 
manages to come up with more or less convincing reasons for adults 
being out of the picture, but rarely fully convincing, to me anyways.

JMO,

Alla