lit. crit. and Potter

[mooseming]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Sean Dwyer <ewe2 at a...> wrote:
> Thankyou Carolyn for those interesting threads, some very thought-
provoking
> ideas.
> 
> <agéd croak>
> Mmm, in the time I've been on these lists, it surprises me how 
little standard
> criticism there is!
> </agéd croak>
> 
> By "standard", I mean of the sort that Porphyria employed. I 
recognise there
> was always a matter of culture shock (surprisingly little to this 
older
> Australian perhaps), and a lot of deliberate archaism to be sorted 
out, and so
> in some respects that these questions were asked early (Carolyn's 
msgs run
> from Jan-Jul 2002) is no surprise, but they are not more developed 
is just as
> interesting.
> 
> Naturally we are fans, and prefer to immerse ourselves in the 
Stimmung
> (excellent word!) JKR has dreamed up for us, and seem to prefer 
questioning
> the internal logic of characters. But insofar as we are trying to 
see where
> JKR may be going, the external logic of the story must be also 
examined, and
> we should not shy from that. 
> 

> 
> Sean
> 
> -- 
> "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people 
you do."

Disclaimer
I have no background in lit crit, formal or otherwise. I am not sure 
what you mean by `external logic' but thought that the following 
might be applicable ball park wise. If not please accept apologies 
in advance. I am aware that some styles demand the inclusion of `in 
my opinion', `it can be seen as', `one interpretation is',  `it is 
possible to propose', on reflection however, I can't be arsed with 
all that. If your tastes run that way then I firmly encourage you to 
move on and read something less hypertension provoking. I do not 
believe what follows is necessarily true, accurate or more valid 
then other viewpoints. Do I care? Nah.



I once considered why stories of the fantasy genre are generally set 
in a feudal world and decided it was probably because there were no 
organised financial institutions. In feudal times Kings went into 
battle besides their foot soldiers, sharing a moral belief system, 
requiring a commitment to their right to rule (if not the individual 
then to the role). In other words the themes of power, authority, 
morality and action remain directly, observably linked, there is no 
abstraction via the commercial world. If the writer is interested in 
an absolute embodiment of these themes (usually in reference to a 
personal journey) then this era will suit their purposes.

Ambiguous stories on the other hand rest more easily in a Modern 
world. Here power, morality and action are more fragmented and less 
transparent. King-like figures operate in isolation in an arch 
villain Bond type way and foot soldiers are also free agents in a 
cold war spy style. Much more scope for intrigue, multiple betrayal, 
shady moral behaviour etc. If the writer is interested in  a more 
complex portrayal of the themes, their relation to each other and 
the individual then this era works for them.

HP however is set in a Post Modern world where morality has, for 
some, become entirely divorced from other concerns.  This separation 
is expressed in the magical/muggle divide. The magical world 
represent the moral sphere whereas the muggle world represents the 
political sphere. The muggle world is grey, conformist, material and 
without substance. Although in the books magic is an inherited trait 
it is not dependent on who your parents are and JKR is giving the 
reader the choice of which world he/she wishes to inhabit or 
identify with. She is essentially saying morality is a choice take 
it or leave it. 

Within the magical moral world there is conflict, there has always 
been conflict, there will always be conflict. How was it resolved in 
the past, how will it be resolved in the future? These are the 
questions which drive the action. These are the questions on which 
we are being encouraged to speculate.

As we stand at present we (both the readers and Harry) do not have 
sufficient information to answer these questions. We have clues 
however. General perceptions are that previous conflict will 
significantly inform future behaviour and therefore outcome. The 
how, the what, the when and the where of those previous actions are 
hotly debated.

We have two major signalled, but not elaborated on, events. The 
Hogwarts founders fallout and the events at Godric's Hollow.

Resolution of the former was achieved by the banishment but not 
destruction of the bad (Salazar Slytherin). The outcome was 
persistent internalised conflict, represented by the division of the 
school houses and a legacy of  suppressed expression as represented 
by the chamber of secrets. Resolution of the later was achieved by 
the partial but not complete destruction of the bad (Voldemort). The 
outcome was more unresolved animosity (on both sides) and the 
continued subversion of `dark' magic. Some (not mainstream) 
speculation has proposed that additional complications were created 
at that time. The present conflict should therefore have a different 
strategy in order to provoke a different, and hopefully more 
positive, outcome.

One such strategy would be to move from dualism to pluralism. 
Dualism gives us the eternal two sided conflict re-enacted through 
generations. Participants must choose either  one belief system or 
the other. In HP terms you are either with Slytherin or you aren't. 
Pluralism whilst acknowledging the existence of good and evil 
recognises that they aren't inherent in any single unified belief 
system. In HP terms you can be both a member of Slytherin House and 
a member of Hogwarts. Pluralism allows you to condemn the offence 
without condemning the offender.

Hogwarts is the home of pluralism. Its ethos is cooperation, 
communication, forgiveness, trust, tolerance and redemption. It is 
the place for second chances. The house to which you are assigned 
does not determine your moral choices, those are individual. 
Subscribe to the school philosophy and all will be well. 

Even those unable to coexist within the school because of 
temperament or individual needs have a space of their own, the 
Forbidden Forest, outside the school itself but within the grounds:

Dragons scorch you
Spiders thrive
Unicorns fix you
You might survive

Home to the dispossessed, the discarded and the downright dangerous 
it is anarchical but not amoral. I like to think of it as Hogwarts 
equivalent to Australia (joke).

Hogwarts is ailing however, the first conflict left its poison. An 
inability to effectively teach DADA, inter house conflict and 
individual  vendettas which spill out into the greater magical 
world. The second conflict is, at least in part, a result of the 
poison from the first, it did not resolve any of the long term 
issues indeed it may have exacerbated these. From this perspective 
our saga will be complete only when the poison is flushed from the 
Hogwarts system. The moral world must learn from past mistakes, 
balance must be restored.

What though of the magical/muggle divide? Will this also be 
addressed? Does JKR truly believe that muggles are essentially 
laughable, pitiable but mostly harmless. Is the balance of existence 
ok if morality operates separately from the mundane?

I am rationally amoral but by nature morally inclined. I would 
dearly love JKR to address the above because I, for one, could do 
with some guidance.


Regards
Jo