Joining the posting dots (was Re: Manifesto?)

[annemehr]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "mooseming" <josturgess at e...> wrote:

> 
> When I first came to hpfgu [...] My reading came 
> predominately from a plotaholic perspective,

*Anne reads rest of post*
I see you've branched out a bit. ;)


Jo:
> Harry's orphan status is symbolic of the 
> need to identify and choose ones own authority figures. The choices 
> he makes will reflect JKR's views on what that might be. 
<snip>
> James on the other hand doesn't feature at all, the one 
> time he appears in Harry's life in POA it turns out not to be him 
> but Harry himself. In a way this makes him doubly absent. Further 
> along in the story James becomes a negative influence (Snape's worst 
> memory) whilst Lily's role expands to balance James' flaws. James 
> the father is both deceased and a bit of a git.

Anne:
You surprise me a bit.  To begin with, not having ever got "St. James"
from the text, I was not so taken aback by his "downfall" in the
Pensieve.  Just because everybody praised him to the orphan's face
didn't make me assume he had no faults.  Not everybody praised James,
of course, even though I took Snape's words with a barrelful of salt.
 All right, I didn't believe Snape at all.  But then,  McGonagall
called him a troublemaker, too.

But James was very much there in PoA.  He was the source of Harry's
Patronus.  As Dumbledore said, Harry found James within himself that
night. In a way, Harry was right the first time, he did see his dad. 
I think this really does mean that James' part in raising Harry, and
in trying to protect him on his last night on earth, means something.

On the other hand, yes, he is indeed dead, so with the realisation
that Harry does need more fathering, I enjoy the rest of your post:

Jo:
> However, HP is stuffed to the rafters with alternative father 
> figures, what of them? I give you, in no particular order:
> 
<snip>
> Arthur: contender but geek and somewhat overburdened with kids 
> already

Anne:
May I add, principled and even-tempered. Harry seems quite comfortable
with him, too, and doesn't mind asking him questions.  It'd be nice to
see Harry hang around with a father-figure he could relax with (Lupin,
though very kind, carries too much painful history for that), but
sadly, that's not at all likely to be.

Jo:
<snip>
> I leave until last of course the strongest contender, Dumbledore: 
> understanding, educating, supportive, caring, talented, respected, 
> powerful, wise. Are we to believe then that Harry's search for a 
> father will bring us right back to the beginning. The king is dead, 
> long live the king!

Anne:
Actually, I don't think so.  Well, in a way, yes, in that Dumbledore
will do his best by Harry as he attempts to bring about the downfall
of Voldemort.  But if Harry comes right back to the beginning, I think
he will find that his father dies again.  I'm betting Dumbledore
doesn't literally die, but that Harry finds DD can not actually give
him all he needs to vanquish Voldemort.  The son grows up and leaves
the nest, and has to make his own way in the world.

Ew. That sounded trite.  Bet JKR can say it better.

Jo:
> Does JKR really want us to accept that there is 
> nothing wrong with benign dictatorship as long as the right dictator 
> rules? At the conclusion will Harry inherit DD's (invisible) mantle 
> and lead the world forward ever improving but fundamentally 
> unchanged? New labour here we come, Hermione tweaking the laws 
> against magical creatures (countryside alliance representative 
> Lucius Malfoy threatens revolt), Hogwarts Commission for the 
> Regulation of Interhouse Competition publishes a two volume draft of 
> directives for discussion.

Anne:
There's an old quote by JKR somewhere about continuing to fight for
what's right, even when it's impossible to win.  I'll try to dig it
up.  But, no, I think all that will be accomplished is the one grave
threat in the person of LV being removed (at whatever cost), leaving
the wizarding world with nothing more than the chance for each
individual to be decent.