Click to subscribe to HPforGrownups
In all situations in my own life, I have found it both easier and
more rewarding when the context that obtains is one of open
communication and transparency, which by extension, creates the kind
of equality between involved parties that results when little is
hidden, when information, or knowledge, cannot or is not owned, or
held as a private possession. A far cry from the so-called magical
world of Harry Potter.
The hardest thing to accept about the apparent magical world of Harry
Potter is that, in spite of Dumbledore's reticence regarding the
reason Voldemort wants Harry dead, in spite of "the restricted
section," which, I point out, contains information essential to the
so-called heroes' quest, in spite of so many characters being
mysteries, as they say, to other characters, as Black and Snape, for
instance, are, or Neville is to the trio, signs both of
intransigence, in the first case, or betraying every sign of
Rowling's unravelling of facts on a "need to know" basis - that is,
in the context of her literary career, in terms of making the
series "make sense" at the end of it all - as is the case with
Neville, in spite of Hermione's secret use of the Time Turner, a
secret that proved quite dangerous, in particular to Hermione, and a
secrecy that had to be pierced in order to complete the given quest,
all of these ignorances involving core aspects of the story, Harry
and the trio can still succeed.
How is this possible? Are we to assume fate, a grossly misunderstood
concept in my opinion, being myself something of a secular calvinist,
declares that Harry and the trio will succeed whether or not those
around them attempt to keep them in the dark, to impose, in a way,
ignorance upon them? Do we really believe Harry's successful
encounters so far have been written beforehand, and the outcome
assured? His response to the 2nd task seems central here. His success
depends upon some inner quality, which may or may not be connected to
his so-called magical qualities, that makes him stay. He goes through
no internal debate. His staying was not quite a decision; rather, as
he later reflects, it was an action, the right one, we agree, made in
ignorance. A bit of pathos.
Let me try to demonstrate my reading of Rowling like this - The so-
called magical world of Harry Potter is, on one level, on perhaps the
most fundamental level, unequivocally nothing more than the extended
fantasy-world of an abused boy stuck in a closet. I cannot state this
strongly enough. Whether the boy is in fact adopted, or is imagining
that he is adopted, taken from his so-called real parents, whether he
attends a regular school or isn't even allowed to do that, it is his
fantasy world to which we are exposed. And the abstemiousness with
truth characteristic of that world is the signal, the flashing
lights, as it were, of the guard towers, of the circumference of
Hogwarts' famous ancient magical protection - read, the constricted
limits of the abused boy's knowing. That protection, I submit, is
directed inwards as much as it is directed outwards. Even the
widespread anti-muggle charms appear to me to be defenses against the
reality of sustained punishment. There is also mention of some
similar sort of ancient magical protection regarding the Dursley's
residence. This too, in my reading, seems as much an inwards pressure
as an outwards one.
Do we agree with Dumbledore's assessment that Harry should grow up
away from what we are supposed to believe are the horrifying and
dangerous consequences of fame, and be, rather, reared by people who
hate what he represents, mistrust and abuse him? Of course not. So we
must accept that Dumbledore's assurance about the safety of the
Dursley's house is true - otherwise, he's just being a stupid old man
who assumes family is more important than human rights. This so-
called safety certainly looks like the rationalization of someone in
a hopeless and helpless situation to me. And for someone deprived of
information, of ways of obtaining it, someone for whom the paths to
knowledge are closed, ignorance might seem strength. In a real way,
however, for such a person, ignorance would surely be some measure of
protection. Ignorance about one's actual hopeless and helpless
situation, the extent of it, or rather, intensity of it.
I'm not sure how much of this line Rowling is conscious of when she
writes. I have no intention in this post of addressing that
particular moot area. Rather, this is my reading, and as it seems
both a general response to the digests I've been getting, on one
hand, and an idea that has been an acute difficulty for me since I
first read the books, I thought I'd post it in a new thread, see if
perhaps this one gets past the Ministry of Moderators.
darkthirty
replies to Marcus and Amanda
My so-called reading, just to make a general point here, is not
hooked to this or that literal inner working of the canon - I am
talking about the canon as a whole, its outer workings, as it were,
or, more precisely, the commerce of truth in the books, and what that
might mean in terms of the popularity of Potter. (Aha!) Why are tens
of thousands of adults discussing it in minutest detail? Is talking
about Harry Potter like discussing last night's game? Is it like
discussing real news? Is it catharsis? There are thousands of fantasy
worlds created by thousands of authors, none have had this impact. So
why Harry Potter? This is the origin of my reading - self-conscious,
critical, and not of the "my favourite characters are Moody and
Snape" (true) or "just how bad is Fudge?" (very) sort. Isn't
it
rather more a question of why everyone seems to have these generally
pronounced preferences for certain characters? Or how is it Fred and
George, and our enjoyment of their antics, can lead to such debates
as have recently appeared in this group?
Marcus:
>...unless you are prepared
>to tell me that he keeps daydreaming and daydreaming and daydreaming
>the same scenario over and over and over again until he gets it
right
>and all the details worked out.
Amanda
>If this is a true interpretation, why does he come back to the
Dursleys, to
>"reality," at all? Why does he not allow himself to "stay"
at
Hogwarts over
>the summers, too? Will you tell me Harry has internalized the
pattern of
>terms and holidays to the point of being unable to escape it, or
will you
>say that all of the experiences with reality that he cannot
otherwise deny
>or sublimate are compressed in his fantasy to the summer break?
darkthirty:
In a manner of speaking, yes, I am saying that, just as WE go over
the details of the books, over and over again, trying to "get it
right," in this group, for example, so might someone imagining a way
out of a hopeless, helpless situation go over the details of their
life, trying to get it right. (Or, for that matter, the person
writing the books.) But again, it is no simplistic "Harry is dreaming
this and the author at the end will have him wake to his dismal
world." What I read in the books is, at times, or rather, partially,
all the time, the dismal world behind the fictional story of a boy's
progress through a magical world that accounts for, and explains,
much of what he has had to put up with in the non-magical world. I
don't see it as simply a silly narrative technique of Rowling's, as I
have stated. Whether or not she has any commerce with such ideas as
mine is not the point at all. I am not discussing, and do not mean to
discuss, something that only Rowling knows. What I am discussing is
the sense I get, from various key moments or trends in the books,
that the stepping, the walking, through this magical Potter world, is
extremely careful, that the meting of so-called truth, which I freely
admit IS a narrative device, indicates to me also not only a fear of
continuity problems - that is, structural problems with the series of
novels itself, also well accounted for by the author herself,
Rowling's fear, I suppose - but a fear of falling into the chasm, the
gaping void, as it were, just where narrative borders on the real.
Think how carefully Grindelwald is placed in time, but not, to this
point in the story, examined. Why is that? On the same card as the
reference to Ten-pin bowling! Now, to me, that particular
juxtaposition is an overt signal of something a bit more meaningful
that just an example of Rowling's sense of humour, which is one of
the techniques she uses for giving us an "out" as it were, from
belief. The muggle artifact collecting of Arthur - a little wink to
we adult readers, and a reasonable fascination for an odd sort of
wizard to the youngsters. The author is, as far as I can tell, quite
clearly "playing" our world, alluding to it, but I don't believe the
reason she is doing this is merely to make the books "fun" for adults
to read to their children, or "reasonable" to the kids, or anything
quite like that, though that is partially the reason, no doubt. No,
some of these "allusions" are very dark indeed - the muggle air show
at the Quidditch World Cup comes to mind. If the fantasy world
reading truly doesn't "exist" in the books, we adults, we thoughtful
and critical readers, would have to invent it. Do we not, in fact,
dance around it, in our discussions of the Potter books in hundreds
of groups or lists, tens of thousands of fan fictions, dozen
scholarly works etc.?
Amanda
>Further, there are a few scenes where the story is *not* filtered
through
>Harry's perceptions or colored by his presence.
darkthirty
Since Rowling has clearly stated who Hermione "is," (I wonder...)
the
books are, in one reading anyway, an exposition and extrapolation
of "someone else's" fantasy, and the narrative focus is always a step
removed from young Potter. Book 1 Chapter 1 is Rowling's, or, like
David Copperfield, in another voice, a "knowing presumption." Once
some details of the history are told, however, there is a narrative
shift, as there is in Copperfield. That is to say, for the rest of
the books, the narration pretty much follows Harry's progress. The
chapter may not read all that different from the rest of the books,
but there is no question that a narrative shift has taken place. It
might as well have been called a prologue, since that is really what
it was. But see my later point regarding Rowling/Hermione.
When Rowling abruptly turns our attention from Harry and Molly in the
hospital near the end of GoF, just who is being protected, or what?
(Well, literally, Harry IS being protected, from Skeeter.) The
carefully constructed character of Harry Potter? Hermione's, or
rather, Rowling's image of him, and, by association, ours? Are we
being protected, from direct exposure to Harry's pain? Would crying
break Harry's isolate attractiveness, sad as it is? If so, why would
that be bad? Would we, as readers, turn from it, from the books? Is
Rowling protecting her character? What exactly does that isolation
mean, and why do we not really want him to cry? I would answer by
saying that the danger here is that this careful fantasy world will
crumble into dust not because of some plot hole, some careless story
thread, but because Harry's "character," the central column of the
structure that is the books, would break, and the defense against the
dark world would crumble. Rowling writes this scene pretty
unambiguously, don't you think? In much fan fiction, of course, a big
deal is made about Harry finally crying for real, because the writers
are on to something, but no one seems to tackle it at the core. Fan
fiction doesn't read like the canon, not on this level to which I
refer. If Harry started crying, he wouldn't stop until he found
himself in our world, until we found ourselves back in our world, in
a manner of speaking. We want Harry to stay isolate until that bad
guy Voldemort is defeated, to satisfy OUR desire for resolution, OUR
hope for a fantasy world (Potter) that pays OUR "deepest desires"
some account. But there is no truth in it - in that sense, the Potter
books are very much Erised.
Amanda
>I'd think that if he were trying to
>rationalize his fate by inventing the safety factor (of the
Dursley's house, ed.), that would be one of
>the first things his fantasy addressed. Nor does he seem to embrace
>ignorance; he receives knowledge gladly. He does not go seeking
information,
>but he does not hide from it.
darkthirty
The Dursley's need not be any more real than the rest of the Potter
world, muggle or magical. I didn't say my reading was any more
unambiguous than Rowling's writing. In the book, the question came
when Potter had a chance to possibly NOT stay at the Dursley's.
Perhaps he'd had no hope of such a thing before. To answer your other
point, I think it is damn near impossible NOT to learn, wherever and
whoever we are.
As more evidence of my point, I put forward Harry's admission that he
fears dementors (insanity, or, if you will, loss of mind, de-ment -
described in the book as loss of all happiness, that is, in my
reading, loss of the fantasy world) more than anything or anyone
else. It is his mind that is his safety, or feels most threatened.
Not his heart, not his mother's (and we do not know who his genetic
mother is, for certain, at least from the canon, as all references to
his mother could well be made about an adoptive mother, no references
to Lily having ever been pregnant etc.) love, but his mind.
Out of curiousity, what did you make of that particular revelation?
Why would Harry fear insanity more than he fears Voldemort, unless
Voldemort were merely an idea of evil, or rather, a representation of
the forces he sees in array against him, and insanity was a far more
immediate, constant danger? He fears it because it would cost him the
only idea of happiness he has, which is more than a little mythic. He
might also be equivocating (fantasy world) where equivocation is
impossible (magical world).
Amanda
>a realistic world would be one
>where it is not only possible but probable and likely that he fail.
Is that
>correct?
darkthirty
That significant allies keep important truths from Harry indicates to
me that he, the abused boy, is imagining them, is creating meaningful
contexts for his helplessness, positing allies, where perhaps there
are too many enemies. I don't expect realism from the Potter books,
not the sort I think you are referring to. The reading can be
realistic.
>> How is this possible? Are we to assume fate, a grossly
misunderstood
>> concept in my opinion, being myself something of a secular
calvinist,
Amanda
>"Calvinist," deriving from a proper name, should be capitalized.
(Sorry.
>Can't help it. Personality defect. Cursed by an editor at birth.
Etc.)
darkthirty
Generally I capitalize the word.
>>His staying was not quite a decision; rather, as
>>he later reflects, it was an action, the right one, we agree, made
in
>>ignorance. A bit of pathos.
Amanda
>I'm not at all sure I know what you're saying with this. The second
task,
>the Egg?
darkthirty
The second task was rescuing valued people from the lake. The egg was
a way of delivering (or not) information about what that task was.
Amanda
>You must have been coming in through that third-corridor route.
Watch out
>for the three-headed one.
darkthirty
I prefer a different way of writing, but this is as close as I can
come to what I think Fluffy expects.
In conclusion, let me restate that I never said "this is all the
daydreamings of Harry." (More like, "this is all the daydreamings
of
a hundred million fans.") For one thing, daydreams are normal.
Fantasy worlds are pathological, sometimes, in some situations, and
great art other times or in other situations, or even at the same
time. There is other danger in trying to impose artificial naivete
upon a literary work, which, for some reason, has caught the
imagination of the world like no other. For another thing, I have
stated, perhaps not loudly enough, that it is not only not the only
reading, but it is not my only reading. It is a parallel reading, as
the magical world in Potter is parallel to the muggle world in
Potter, which are distinct, but have points of contact. The fantasy
world of Potter tries to account for many muggle world events or
situations, where Harry is involved. Part of the attraction is that
Potter can do the same thing for ourselves. What I do not think
Rowling will try is to have these books attempt to account for the
general reality of our real world, just as what happens in the
magical world does not account for most of what happens in the muggle
world. If she did, she'd be a very crazy Potter, and we'd be crazy to
accept it. Perhaps this is the difficulty for her in the later books.
(That would be the ghosts of Grindelwald delay theory, perhaps, or
the broken pin-setting machine theory.)
The gist is that, just as Harry has to continue, his heart's quest,
his sanity (his fantasy world), as it were, to believe, in spite of
obstacles or enemies, mendaciousness or hostility in his path, so
must we readers, in the face of the absolute impossibility of the
novels' premise, believe. Without this fantasy world reading of which
I speak, Rowling is far too easy a time of it, especially for we
adult readers, in startling contrast to the experiences of Harry
Potter. And the books would not be a tenth as popular as they are.
Perhaps we should question whether Rowling really is Hermione at all.
Myself, I think she's more Harry than anyone else. Supposing this to
be the case, supposing Rowling's comment about being Hermione must be
taken with a grain of salt, wouldn't my reading become a little
clearer? (Please don't make me say it!!!)
It's like knowing that this reading is quite possible, but believing
anyway. First, one must acknowledge just how much one is "suspending
disbelief." Otherwise, it is merely a blab about last night's game.
darkthirty
Responding to Eileen, Carol, and Porphyria.
Thanks to the group for the feedback on this topic, which
is so obviously important to me. I need to make one thing
clear, however. I am not, in any way, attacking either the
books, which I read, and read to my 6 year old son, or
their popularity. (I'm even at Schnoogle, under darkthirty,
of course.) Nor do I expect "realism" from them, in some
large philosophical sense. What I practise is what I
consider a realistic adult reading of them, especially in
regard to the treatment of "truth" in the canon. If the
reference to Grindelwald, so early in the book, indeed, at
the first mention of Dumbledore, bothers me on one level,
it is because Rowling chose to put the reference there.
We have just found out how bad wizards can get. And
then, there is this Wizard card.
Eileen
I think it's time for Tolkien and Lewis.
darkthirty
As I pointed out in my email to you, a copy of
which I didn't keep (I hate webmail forms that can't be
recovered... my mistake) Tolkien was writing about a
completely different world, he didn't throw in little
references to Ten-pin bowling or plug-collecting, and
Middle Earth was not a hop, floo or platform from "our"
world. There are significant differences between the
stories. Tolkien was loathe to admit any reference at all to
"our" present world, loathe to admit any level of allegory.
Rowling's story not only makes these references, they
are central elements of the plot! Her witch/wizard world
depends on the muggle world. They are parallel. This is
quite significant, in more ways than one.
Eileen
I think it's important to make clear that this
"abstemiousness from truth" is not a hallmark of Harry
Potter only, but of most fiction, especially that which we
know as fantasy or fairy tales.
darkthirty
There is no abstemiousness from truth in
Tolkien. There is, rather, an over-abundance of it,
volumes worth. The hobbits' allies spend a great amount
of time and energy trying to hammer the real state (and
real estate, as it were) of Middle Earth into their heads.
Knowledge becomes very important to the fellowship.
Knowledge weighs down all of them in the end, but lack of
it would have been their demise. Not so Potter.
Knowledge comes "after the fact."
Carol
My only answer to that is that the books are not
reality. They are fiction. And not just any kind of fiction,
but specifically fantasy. How real should a fantasy have
to be?
Eileen
We, the readers, in this understanding, are reading
and creating this world in protest and escape against our
world, against reality.
C.S. Lewis
"The dangerous fantasy is always superficially
realistic... The one is an askesis, a spiritual exercise, and
the other is a disease."
darkthirty
Well, this seems a bit dangerous to me, in the
context of this thread. I wouldn't necessarily put it that
way, but now you mention it, perhaps I do perceive
something in the "spiritual exercise" that doesn't fully
appreciate exactly how much, or exactly what, belief is
being "suspended." A realistic reading of the books seems
to require the knowledge of what beliefs one is
suspending. Rowling tosses asides about "our" world,
posits a universe where "our" world and a parallel magical
world exist side-by-side, and in this context, places a boy
who seems "destined." That to me seems a context that
could be perceived as compromising and compromised,
not only within the story, but in the larger context of the
books' popularity. They are popular, I hazard, because
they compromise. We desire a world where our "deepest
desires" hold sway, a world where we just *are* whatever.
"Just Harry." This is nothing like Lewis' or Tolkien's
worlds. Just being Frodo doesn't mean a thing.
Eileen
If one wants to believe that Joy does not exist...
darkthirty
But Erised and the dialogue around it made it
clear that the thesis being presented, in contradiction to
the actual treatment of truth in books, was that Erised
was a fraud. Erised becomes useful only when Potter
has, in the context of the books, dropped the fantasy. My
reading is that the real fantasy exists on a much deeper
level. My reading also doesn't find much joy in the Potter
books, or rather, it finds joy, so far, only in the pathos of
someone sustaining this fantasy, which makes life livable,
in the face of facts, of evidence, of truth. Harry's apparent
love for Sirius, for instance, is unconvincing. Hermione's
love for Harry is quite convincing, or Cho's for Cedric. The
books are more adult disguising themselves as children's
books than children's books appealing to the adult. The
very age of the characters is the key here. "Wish I'd gone
to school at a place like that, where merely saying
something would make it so." Etc. Why are we grown-ups
so interested in this school? Why is all the fan fiction
about ships? There seems to be an advanced strain of
"unconditional love wish fulfilment" going around. Besides,
of all the things I could say about Harry's character, the
only one I feel confident about is that he is "without
malice," at least in the fantasy world. In my reading, this is
far more important than "joy." In my reading, Harry is, in
fact, a greater hero than he could ever possibly be in the
magical world of the books.
Carol
She writes in such a simple style, with lots of
humor, but underneath it all lie plenty of serious questions
about life.
darkthirty
Exactly. I am trying to point to the very serious
question of the relationship between what we are, for
instance, and what we know. We know the world is
horrifying and terrible. Are we? As support for this, I refer
to the houses. They are all *in* Hogwarts'. And just how is
my reading denying there are serious questions? A
fantasy world, even in the pathological sense, or
especially in the pathological sense, is full of serious
questions.
"Harry and the trio will succeed whether or not those
around them attempt to keep them in the dark, to impose,
in a way, ignorance upon them? Do we really believe
Harry's successful encounters so far have been written
beforehand, and the outcome assured?"
Carol
Does this ultimately matter? Isn't that a question
about life in general, not just the HP series?
darkthirty
On the one hand, I get the impression that my
reading makes some think I expect something of
Rowling's "world" that I don't find there. This is just not
true. I am stating what I do find there. A sense that, in
spite of everything, Harry is "destined" to succeed, so far.
Of course it matters. This group spends a lot of time
debating the possible reasons Voldemort wanted Harry
dead, for example. They debate what, about Harry's
destiny, is the issue. And all this talk about Trelawney's
other prediction. (What I really think her other prediction
was was that once, when she heard Dumbledore was
going bowling in town, she said he'd bowl three strikes on
his last game, which he did.) Now, being a secular
Calvinist, I believe in a sort of fate, not the debased idea
of it that permeates popular culture, mind, but a subtler
and more intricate working. Calvin advocated for, and
built, secular universities, because he believed real,
unconstrained knowledge would also illuminate the
spiritual - they weren't contradictory regions of truth at all.
Just as there were these forces, for lack of a better term,
in nature, so there were these forces in people. I agree,
basically, sans religion.
Carol
I don't think Dumbledore knew just how bad the
Dursleys would be to Harry.
darkthirty
But Dumbledore had "learned" of how bad they
were. And still sent him back.
Carol
One method of literary criticism is to see a text as a
reflection of an author's subconscious. I think this can be
fun and interesting, but I don't think it adds all that much to
an understanding of the text.
darkthirty
But Carol, what is an understanding of the text?
Are you suggesting that *only* debates about Crouch's
mark (?), Moody's (?) foe glass, Voldemort's reason for
wanting Harry dead, the houses to which the Marauders
belonged etc. etc. add "understanding" to the text? I
cannot accept this. My reading, indeed, is exactly the
opposite of this. 1500 pages. That's all we have.
We should have cleared up all the bits long ago.
Instead of looking at the world of the books as self-
contained, which, as I have pointed out a few times now,
Rowling herself plots against, I can only look at them as
they really are - that is, extremely popular with all ages,
with some fearful continuity problems, lots of humour, very
horrifying and very touching moments, and a plethora of
difficulties, in terms of "serious" ideas. If I am talking
about anyone's "subconscious," I am talking about the
adult readers'. This is completely tied to the canon, it is
not some comment about fantasy books in general.
Porphyria's reading of darkthirty
there is something particularly self-contained, nearly
solipcistic about Harry, and that the world of the books is
extremely walled off from the real world.... the HP books
have a particular aversion towards knowledge that merits
some analysis... the usefulness of knowledge must cede, must fail, to
make room for the supremacy of will power, love, loyalty and
other qualities internal to the hero -- feelings that would
sustain an abused boy but still preserve his protective
fantasy.
darkthirty
Wish I could write that clearly
Porphyria
What saves him is his extraordinary strength of
will with the Priori Incantatem effect.
darkthirty
That event is the best example of a particular
part of the reading. It's like the WWF (which I do NOT
watch!) (Snape as the Undertaker?) Scripted in the heart,
but on, well, a somewhat different level than the WWF,
less beer and more herbal tea. But like the WWF anyway.
I stand by that.
Porphyria
the narrative makes it physically, iconically clear that
*Hemione's logic will enable Harry to pass to the next
level, but she herself must at that point cede the heroic
function to him.*
darkthirty
I would merely add that this observation, though
to the point, and wonderfully put, doesn't quite give the
same emphasis I would give it. That is, it is at this point
that Harry must dispense with Hermione, her logic, his
dependance upon her and it. I would, that is to say, put
the active focus upon Harry. Even though the book "reads"
more like yours.
Porphyria
We see evidence of Harry's intellectual
nonchalance in a variety of tiny details. Harry isn't
insightful or curious unless a life is at stake.
darkthirty
Unless he perceives a life is at stake. His
perception is coloured by ignorance. It's funny, but the
biggest oversight, I thought, was his not asking about the
darned socks! Really. It was such a Parsifal moment. I
kept thinking - "oh, Harry will know why Voldemort tried to
kill him when he's able to ask Dumbledore about the
socks." Funny.
Porphyria
qualities found in fantasy, desire and strength
of will. They are touching, inspiring, but still trapped in a
self-contained view of the world; the don't address the
outer world of logic and learning, but the inner one of the
heart.
darkthirty
My reference to perhaps the most famous book about
"educating the heart," as one critic saw it, David
Copperfield, was a bit too casual, perhaps. I just hope
Draco doesn't turn out to be Ron's and Ginny's
Steerforth, though Arthur's a fair Macawber, Neville a
pretty good Traddles, Hermione does seem a bit Agnes,
Figg a bit Betsy... well, you get the point.
darkthirty
