HP as escapist children's literature (was Harry's DADA skill)

[julie]

No: HPFGUIDX 182755

 
> 
> Pippin:
> I can only speak for myself, but I think we adult readers are meant 
to
> become disenchanted, not just with the Potterverse but with what we
> might call the consensus  universe of modern fantasy:  archaic 
social
> structures,  one-dimensional characters and most of all the escape
> from moral complexity. No Tolkien characters  ever had to look at 
what
> they'd done and ask if they were  any better than Sauron --  either
> they are, or they no longer care. 
> 
> Now, JKR isn't saying that escapism is wrong, IMO, but at least I
> think she'd like her adult readers to understand that it *is* 
escapism
> -- that life in such a place would not be nearly as nice as we like 
to
> imagine it would be, not if the populace  bore any resemblance to
> actual human beings. 
> 
> I think that like Terry Pratchett JKR has taken the world of magical
> heroes and tried to imagine how it would work if it were populated 
by
> real people instead of one-dimensional archetypes. 
> 
> But JKR takes it further. Pratchett heroes can be Machiavellian,
> cowardly, manipulative, clueless, close-minded etc, but always for
> comic effect, never to the point where the reader starts to lose
> respect for them.
> 
>  JKR dared to cross that line, and so we have  choices: 
> 
> a)We can lose our respect for the heroes, and with it all delight in
> their victory and the world they saved.
> 
> b)We can read with the innocent heart of a child, making no more
> demands  than a child would make. To a child, IMO, Harry's crucio is
> Harry's crucio -- it's neither a commentary on the permissibility of
> torture in the real world, nor an unforgivable thing for which there
> has to be some consequence. To the child, IMO, the story does not 
need
> to say whether Harry made a mistake and learned better, or whether 
he
> was right in the first place. Harry came out all right, and so he 
must
> have made whatever the child thinks the right choices would be,
> because that's the way it works in stories.
> 
> c) We can put moral blinkers on and overlook  behavior that would
> otherwise be egregious (and it's scary how easily we adults can do
> this when it's a character we want to admire.) Children, of course,
> are notoriously less willing to pretend that the emperor's not 
naked.
> 
> Or, and this is what I believe what JKR is hoping we will do
> 
> d)We can forgive. 
> 
>  We have the opportunity to be like Dumbledore and hand out second
> chances knowing full well that our mercy might be abused, knowing 
that
> we might be fools, not even knowing whether there's any chance of
> repentance or remorse. That's not easy.
> 
> But that's the way it is for grownups. Children in their innocence
> believe that  doing the right thing is easy for good people, and 
only
> hard for bad ones.  Adults understand that to be good often requires
> doing what is hard, and that sometimes despite our best intentions, 
we
> may fail. But for the adult, IMO, that doesn't make us bad -- it 
only
> makes us human.
> 
> Pippin
>

Julie:
Interesting analysis. The thing for me is, I don't think JKR
was trying to *say* anything when it comes to most of the 
moral issues in the HP saga. Of course her beliefs are inserted
here and there, as most all fiction reflect the personality
and mindset of their authors. 

I think this is where I got tripped up in DH. I thought JKR
was trying to say something about morality, ethics, the state
of society, etc--all those tricky complexities that make up 
the human condition--and I mean with deliberation, not just as
a side product of her own views naturally being relfected in
the saga. But JKR herself said she was not writing a morality
play, but was simply telling a story that came to her and
demanded to be told. (Really, I should have listened to her!)

This doesn't take away the entertainment value of the stories,
or dismiss the moral issues that do naturally come up along
the way, but it does allow for the fact that many of the issues
are dealt with inconsistently (e.g. the morality of casting the
Unforgivable curses), brought up and subsequently ignored (e.g.
House Elf rights, unity of the Houses), and that quite often
morality is decided on a situational basis. It was never JKR's
intent to send moral messages, and I don't even think it was
her intent for us--adult readers or otherwise--to "get" certain
messages out of HP, like a sense of disenchantment with the
Magic World. Rather this disenchantment is a natural byproduct
of her personal interpretation of that world (and there is 
nothing wrong with the message coming from how the story 
developed in the telling rather than as a message very 
deliberately delivered via a story constructed for just that
purpose).

I hope that makes sense! And it's just my interpretation (and
based in part on JKR's interviews when she replied one too
many times with a surprised "Really?" to questioner/reader
interpretations of various HP scenes/characters/plotlines). 

The more general inconsistencies of character and story are
a different matter, and I think how much that bothers you 
depends on your own personality. I am a planner, a list-maker,
and a logical thinker, so for me it is hard to understand 
how JKR could not keep better track of the people, things,
and situations within her made-up world. It seems just a 
bit too sloppy for me. But my sister doesn't really notice
or care about such things, being that she is a much more
spontaneous and action-oriented person (a Gryffindor to my
Ravenclaw I suppose :) So I can see how JKR (a self-avowed
Gryffindor!) could be less concerned with such detail and
more concerned with simply telling a story.


Julie, still fond of HP and the Magical world, and more
willing to accept what we got rather than what I wanted.