Breaks my heart too. Bush and Gore are great debates, homosexual marriage is a great debate, but the relative merits of the very stuff of life (aesthetic pleasure) is opinion? Give me your address–I’ve got several hundred undergrads, grads, and professors to come picket your house and TP the trees with Hemingway and Fitzgerald.
Finagle:
Except that this is glossed over in the first 20 pages or so and handled quite humorously. To use your Cinderella example, it is rather like having the standard Grimm’s fairy tale tacked to the beginning of the book and then having half a million words about life with the Prince, and the details of living happily ever after.
There are two broad categories of children’s fantasy. One of them, what I call “episodic” fantasy, involves the temporary immersion into a fantasy world, where an adventure is had and some sort of enlightenment or revelation typically occurs. This is the model of The Chronicles of Narnia or The Hobbit (Actual fantastic elements are restricted to outside the Shire). There are also “immersive” fantasies. In these, the “real” world is magical or fantastic. These include virtually all high fantasy.
It is more appropriate for “episodic” fantasy to contain the sort of hyperbolic elements I am objecting too, because in “episodic” fantasy the protagonist must, at the end, return to the “real” world where he will still have to face all the problems he sought to escape from. The fantasy episode serves to provide him with some new character trait or self-knowledge that lets him confront those problems more effectively. In “immersive” fantasies, the protagonists can not have everything so cut and dried, because if so they never have to face any real challenges, and that is boring.
The structure of the Potter books is like a weird inversion of the “episodic” framework. I think it can be argued that the magic world is the 'real" one in the books and the muggle world is the “alternate”. It is understood that Potter’s tenure in the muggle world is a temporary inconvenience that he will outgrow with time–the implication is clearly that once Potter graduates and is independent he will be a Wizard and live in this completely separate magic world. He makes these short excursions into the muggle world once a year, is mistreated a bit, then returns to the “real world”.
I have provided direct quotes indicating that Potter is the most famous, most popular, best liked, best bred, richest, most tragic student not just in his school but practically in his whole world. SO why you may say that my position is “pretty much groundless”, you have yet to show me that that is the case.
Profoundly untrue, Cantrip. I was very surprised to see Covenant survive the first series, and he dies at the end of the second. That’s the thing about Donaldson - you can never be quite sure what he’s going to do. But then, he’s a bad example, considering the fact that he’s one of the few writers in the genre who write primerally for adults.
Abuse which he has to go back to every summer. Every summer, he has to leave his friends - his only friends in either world - behind, to be locked in his room and have his life threatened by a bunch of idiots who not only think Harry’s a burden, but are too stupid to realise that Hogwart’s is a great opportunity to ditch the ‘burden’ they never wanted to begin with.
Not that life at Hogwart’s is exceptionally good for him:
His only REAL friends are the unpopular students - Ron, the poor Muggle-lover; Hermione, the Mud-Blood; Neville, the klutz.
That he’s HARRY POTTER isn’t enough to make other people like him. In fact, just the opposite. It draws attention to him - the Slytherins chose the Mighty Harry Potter as their victim (that he hangs with Ron, Hermione, and Neville doesn’t help), and everyone else - save a few Muggle-borns who weren’t raised with the story of Harry Potter - holds him in such awe that they’ll never get close to him.
He’s constantly being berated by teachers who think he’s not being the kind of role-model he should be, or living up to his potential, and one teacher actively LOATHES him.
Oh, yes, this is a charmed life.
Wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy.
I kept hoping. I guess prayer does work.
That and I can’t quite believe even SRD could bring himself to like Covenant. I was envisioning Donaldson writing the last book, with an eager look on his face, tongue out on one side of the mouth, drooling with anticipation to finally get rid of the single most unlikable, annoying, crybaby, self-pitying, unsympathetic, horrible protagonist ever inserted into a published fantasy novel!
pant-pant-pant Apologies…Thomas Covenant isn’t my favorite character…in any series.
Tengu:
Except that in every novel the summers are treated as quick asides–there is little evidence that anything about them particularly bothers Potter–he might be unhappy, but they are quickly over and he returns to the “real” world.
There is no evidence that either Ron or Hermione are unpopular or disliked by anyone except for one small group of bullies. Ron’s brothers are enourmously popular.
Where do you get this from? In the Sorcerer’s Stone Harry is described as “one of the most popular and admired people
at the school” (244). There is no evidence anywhere that anyone but a small clique of bullies and thier sponsoring teacher have anything but the highest regard for him, except for two brief periods–right after he loses his house 250 points in the first novel, and right after he is believed to have unfairly enterered into the big competition in the fourth novel. In both these cases the situation was quickly resolved.
Mea culpa, Alessan. I have to admit, I only read the first two books of what I now assume is the first series - I frankly couldn’t stand it, had no interest in the protagonist (I kept wishing he’d die so the damn book would end), and lost interest when he still couldn’t figure out how to work the damned ring. But if Covenant is a bad example, I withdraw him.
Manda JO, you’re forgetting a good portion of Chamber of Secrets (I don’t have the book with me, so I can’t give you page cites) - for most of the latter half of the book (after he speaks Parseltongue to prevent the snake from harming Justin), Harry is reviled and shunned by most of the school.
In addition, Harry suffers from his fame - Colin Creevey seems to me to be an embodiment of many of the problems of a famous person. He’s a fawning toady, and while you might argue that only Harry Potter has fawning toadies, to Harry he’s a royal pain (and I as a reader don’t like him too much, either, although so far he’s one-dimensional) that he (Harry) would rather not have.
Potter knows intellectually - because he has been told - that he is the iconic “Harry Potter”, but he never seems to internalize it, although others accuse him of doing so. He’s basically a nice kid thrust into a situation where he is famous but tries to behave like anyone else.
And despite the fact that Rowling disposes of his time with the Durseleys rather shortly, it is clear that his time with them has had a profound effect on him (his delight when Sirius tells him he can come live with him, and his despair when that doesn’t happen in Book 3, e.g.).
Maybe we’re not talking about quite the same thing, but I think his situation would make a reader feel that, hey, he has all these advantages (money, fame, athletic ability) and he still can’t get the girl (Cedric does) or make new friends his own age beyond his initial small circle (he treats Pavarti (sp?) badly at the dance in Book 4, etc.); maybe my situation isn’t that bad after all.
Just my $.02.
What’s your point? The point of the books is Harry GETTING OUT OF THERE. But unlike most kids in these sort of stories - he doesn’t get out permenantly, or learn to love what he left behind. The Dursleys are just as horrid as he thought - and capable of much worse. And he has to keep going back.
That Rowling doesn’t dwell on this after establishing it doesn’t mean it didn’t effect him.
Besides - in Philosopher’s Stone, it’s 1/3 of the way through the book before he gets out.
And you obviously miss the point. Ron’s brothers are a DISADVANTAGE to him. He’s compared to the great Weaseleys of the past - and he fails that test. He’s not as smart as the older 2, or a brilliant Quidditch player like the twins. He’s…the leftovers.
Yes, they have high regard for him - he’s HARRY POTTER. THE HARRY POTTER. Colin and Professor Lockeheart are the best examples of what I’m talking about - he is, to most of the students at the school a legend, not a person. He can’t be friends with most because they hold him in high regard.
BTW, could you give a context for that quote? I would look it up but you gave no page reference.
MandaJo, interesting paper, although I don’t agree with the bulk of it, and interesting topic~
So Harry’s not typcial – why is this bad? Usually, calling a main character “typical” is a negative comment on a book.
The quote about Harry being popular and admired is just that – the more refined point being made by Rowling is that popularity and admiration are no substitute for true friendship. When Harry has disagreements with Ron and Hermione, he is unhappy and miserable regardless of what the rest of the student body thinks of him. He knows the real thing of value is his friendship with Ron and Hermione. Both for the sake of plot, and because most kids that age have some friendship ups and downs, the road of their friendship is not always smooth … but we are rewarded to see all three friends come together in moments of crisis.
Yes, the Weasley’s were quick to “adopt” Harry. In many ways, we need this to move the plot along, so someone (the Weasleys) can always be explaining wizardly things to Harry and to the reader. For Harry, the Weasleys serve as a substitute family in many ways, but they can never replace the loss of his own parents. He grapples with his feelings of loss throughout the book, not just when he is with the boorish Dursleys. These feelings are not left with the Dursleys when he returns to school. He notices that others get mail, and he does not – not just because he is an orphan, but because the Dursleys don’t like him. The fact that his aunt and her uncle don’t have any affection for him continues to be in his mind.
You mentioned that Ron’s brothers are enormously popular, and say there is no evidence that Ron himself is unpopular. However, are you forgetting that one of Ron’s own problems is that he cannot live up to the standards set by his brothers in academics (Bill), athletics (Charlie), student leadership (Percy), and general antics (the twins)? We see this in the mirror of Erised. He might not be violently disliked, but there is a definite sense that he is largely ignored and passed over because he is not meeting the expectations set by the older Weasleys.
As Ron shares his family with Harry, Harry tries to tactfully share some of his wealth with Ron. He makes purchases with the intent to either casually give them to Ron, or to share with him. Since Harry is our protagonist, we see more of his deliberations over this. We might guess that Ron on his end also encourages his family to reach out to Harry. I don’t see how this can be viewed as patronizing by either boy – they are sharing because of a geniune sympathy for the other child. While I don’t think Harry, Ron, or JK Rowling would say that wealth makes up for having a loving family, what we are seeing is each boy sharing what he has.
With both Ron and Harry, we see this theme being played out – that admiration and popularity are not a replacement for the understanding and empathy that comes with sincere friendship. By the fourth book, even Fred and George are frustrated by the lack of understanding they encounter, and the fact that they are seen only as cut-ups.
I also think that some of the issues raised in this thread might need to wait to be resolved until we have the entire series to read (and that time can’t come soon enough, IMHO!)
Oh, come on, think of poor slythe, reading “Which Backstreet Boy is the Hottest” and “List Your Pets!” all day. I’m just trying to expose him to some Kulture. 
IMHO already has a lot of threads about the relative merits of various books and art, so I thought this would fit in well with the locals. I think it would be cool if IMHO was the place for literary and artistic critiques; then we’d always know where to find 'em. If you wanted to talk about whether Harry Potter should be banned or causes children to gun down others with AK-47s, that would be more of a GD…IMHO. <g>
Cantrip:
Ypu are rihgt about this–I forgot this incedent. But it really just continues the pattern of Potter temporarily loosing his popularity–which he dislikes–and then haveing to work and struggle to get it back, even though he never wanted it.
The papparatzzi chick (Rita Skeeter) is another example of this sort of thing, but I think it falls into the same catagory as the problems with being very rich and having poor friends, or very well bred and having commen friends. In many ways the modern fantasy is to grow up and be a celebrity, and I have trouble with the arguement that the trials and tribulations of that celebrityhood are worse than rejection and obscuity. Potter has his cake and eats it too-he is universally admired but is self-assured enough to scoff at that adoration.
It is clear that he dosen’t like the Dursleys, but there isn’t any real evidence that his life is a living hell. He seems to be able to put it in perspective and sit it out, and he dosen’t spend the year dreding it or anything.
Note that when Harry gets turned down by Cho, she says she is sorry, and “truly looked it” (Goblet 397).
I am not saying, and have never said, tha Potter is a completly worthless charecter. What I am saying is that I don’t like him as the representitive of the ultimate fantsy life for children–someone’s whose burbens are the things kids want–money, fame, destiny.
Tengu:
I mostly addressed this in my responsse to Cantrip’s post, but I want to add one quick point–it is relevant how much time and text is spent on teh Dursley summers. We are seeing the world from POtter’s point of view, and the way the Dursley summers are skimmed over suggests that they are not a critical factor in Potter’s life. And if the “point of the books” is geting Harry out of there, why bother with 90% of hte novel where the Dursleys are never mentioned or alluded too?
To reiterate, yes it does. Rowling, as author, chooses what aspects of Potter’s life are important enough to write about. If it is not in the text you can’t jsut say that it “must be”–nothing exists beyond what can reasonably be supported sign the words given. We could, for example, conjecture that the muggle practice of circumsizing boys has effected Harry in profound ways–but since thier is no evidence of that, we have to let it slide.
That is the problem that Ron has with himself. There is no evidence that Ron’s low self-esteem translates into Low-Ron esteem on the part of his fellow classmates. He appears to be rather well liked, although not as popular as Potter. For what it iw worth, i think that the books would be a lot better if Rowling ditched Potter and made Hermoine nad Ron the main charecters.
I addressed the “fame problem” above. But i don’t see being limited to two close friends (and the Quidditch team) as being a particularly hard fate. That is the model of most children. THe only difference is tht everyone that is not a friend or teammate treats him with awe instead of the more ususal indifference. If this is living hell that you wouldn’t wish on your worst enemy, sign me up.
I did give a page number–244 in the Sorcerer’s Stone. The line quoted is said by the narrator (somewhat omnicient) and is supposed to contrast with the temporary loss of popularity the trio suffers after they loose the points for thier house.
I beg to differ with you. I think the thought of losing one’s parents is the worst fear a kid has. I know from my own experience growing up and from the reactions of my kids when I read them the books. Lord Voldemort scares them, sure, but he is a much more abstract character than mom and dad. Even teenagers are afraid to lose their parents, though we embarrass them by the mere fact that we exist.
Harry, and Disney to some extent, illustrates to kids that they can face the worst tragedy they can imagine, and still survive. Harry is a survivor. Contrary to your title that he is a “Me, Me” guy, Harry doesn’t whine about what he doesn’t have nor does he wallow in self-pity. I mean he lost his parents, has crummy foster parents, is kind of nerdy looking, ain’t a rocket scientist in the academic department, and is a target of Lord Voldemort - the witch equivalent of the devil. But does he feel sorry for himself? Nope. Instead, he faces his challenges, even the ones that make his stomach hurt, brushes himself off and gets on with it.
Except, of course, you’re doing exactly that by claiming that Ron must be popular because he’s got popular older brothers, and that Harry must have a good life because he’s got money and fame - despite the fact that the text of the novels says exactly otherwise. Harry’s embarrassed by his fame and money, and the Slytherins take special delight in making his life miserable. Ron’s nothing - he’s in his brothers’ shadows.
‘Well liked?’ His brothers treat him as brothers treat eachother - friendly ragging, but they have his back. To Ginny, he’s her Big Brother. Harry and Hermione like him. The Slytherins actively hate him, and noone else in the school is mentioned as having any real feelings towards him one way or another. Seems, on the whole, he’s ignored, and of those that don’t ignore him, the majority hate him.
Indifference is far better than awe. At least indifference can change for the better.
Ok, unless the American hardcover is significantly longer than the British ‘Paperback’ (which only goes to page 223), that would put it into the last chapter. After he’s killed Voldemort, and thus managed to win Griffindor the House Cup.
Sounds more like the popularity is transient than the loss thereof.
Sure he’s got money, and fame. But he doesn’t want it. He want to be ‘normal’ (normal for a Wizard, anyway). The fame and money just mean everyone knows it when he gets in trouble. They don’t get him away from the Dursleys, permenantly. They draw Draco Malfoy’s attention.
Fame and Money don’t make everything good, and I don’t think it’s a bad thing that the readers of the books find this out through Harry.
If I’m not mistaken, that (244) is the correct page reference–at least in my copy (which I happen to have here at the office). The full quote is “From being one of the most popular and admired people at the school, Harry was suddenly the most hated. Even Ravenclaws and Hufflepuffs turned on him…” It’s right after they lost Gryffindor 150 points in the Norbert affair.
Could you provide a cite for this? I’m not sure to what gifts you refer.
Concerning Harry’s status as “Most Tragic”, I’d like to point out others reactions to the dementor (PoA, 85-86): “Ginny, who was huddled in her corner looking nearly as bad as Harry felt, gave a small sob…” Ginny, who had led a relatively idyllic (if poor) life until her encounter with Voldemort’s diary, nearly collapsed as well. Neville was horror-struck, with his voice taking on the high-pitched tension it took in GoF when reminded of his parents’ condition. Ron was relatively lightly affected, and Hermione’s reaction wasn’t even noted. Do you suppose dementors draw on overall personal suffering, as opposed to some “index of tragedy”? Let’s establish a scale:
Hermione–Comfortable life, with presumably well-off parents and no real trouble. She hasn’t been seriously injured in any of their escapades. Reaction not mentioned.
Ron–Poor, has gotten clobbered several times in the line of duty, overshadowed by his brothers, but nothing especially awful had happened to him. Minor reaction.
Neville–Visits his parents over the holidays, undoubtedly a source of miserable memories for him. Recipient of some pretty nasty tricks by his Uncle Algie. He’s got some bad memories to draw on–so he suffers more.
Ginny–Possessed by Tom Riddle and forced to open the Chamber of Secrets. Grade A nightmare material here–and she’s affected nearly as strongly as Harry.
Harry–Almost died at age 1; orphaned; suffered 10 years of child abuse. Freed by going to Hogwarts–where he is nearly killed (unconscious for several days at the end of PS). More abuse, followed by another, even more painful, NDE at the fangs of the basilisk. Now he believes that an escaped murderer is after him. He has the most really nasty memories to draw on, by far, so he has the worst reaction. The fact that the most readily articulated one comes to the fore doesn’t mean that the others don’t have an impact.
On quidditch: I agree that quidditch is a stupid game, but the Seeker isn’t the only possible hero on a quidditch team–the Irish Chasers were the heroes in the World Cup in GoF.
IMHO, Harry’s good qualities far outweigh any negative characteristics he might have as a role model. He has had truly horrible things happen to him, but he doesn’t let them change him for the worse. Occasionally, he mopes a little–but it’s about things that any kid would mope about: arguments with friends, not getting to go out with his buddies, and such. That doesn’t make him self-centered, it makes him believable. I don’t really think that he’s self-centered at all. Sure, he’s the center of his universe–he’s the protagonist, after all–but he doesn’t know that. (I will admit that I’d love to see Neville come to the fore and rescue Harry’s heroic butt, just once.)
Still, it’s a thought-provoking premise, and I commend it as such. Fire at will.
I tried for someone’s burbens once; she slapped me pretty hard.
I see the Potter books showing kids that the things they want are not the things that have real value or that will make them happy. One point Rowling makes is that they are burdens; as delphica said, they are no substitute for real friendship; for maturity (which Harry is showing more and more of); for taking chances rather than playing it safe (asking Cho to the dance too late). Rowling shows that the ultimate fantasy is just not that much fun; Harry gets his real joy from his friendships, from his adoptive family, from the wonder of wizarding (not because he is “Harry Potter”, though).
I don’t think she’s saying that he has those things because of his wealth, fame and destiny, but rather that he’d have them regardless. And hell, I still dream about winning the lottery, discovering the cure for cancer and having my name go down in history, and I have since I was old enough to remember - doesn’t mean I necessarily entertained any real hope of it. ::sighs:: We’ve seen the fairy tales where the poor kid makes good; this is one where the “rich” kid (but only in the wizarding world) makes good despite his wealth, and because of his human qualities. I like that message, frankly.
Thanks. Like I indicated above, the problem is hardcover/paperback.
OK, now I can make a better response, which is ore or less in the same vein as the one before - the popularity is the transient thing. He’s popular when he wins, he’s unpopular when he loses. And when he loses, he loses big. Everyone’s put their hopes of finally getting the House Cup away from Slytherin, so when he loses - he doesn’t get ignored by people who were jumping on the Harry Bandwagon - he’s hated by his ‘friends’.
Manda, you raise some interesting points and, on the whole, write an interesting, if “straw dummy-esque” essay. Though I want to write a response extolling the literary values of Harry Potter (the books, not the character), I’m too tired, and refer to the fact that the Whitbread award would have been a tie if all the judges voted for what they felt was actually the best novel of the year (the fifth vote would have, essentially, been for Nader - cite will be supplied shortly), which should say something for HP’s literary merits.
The point I find more interesting, and more easily supported, even in my fatigued state is that “it is a truism that the protagonist in a children’s book stands as a placeholder for the child reader, representing a fantasy of what that child’s life could be like,” the implication being that children live vicariously through the experiences of the protagonist and that, with that in mind, “A close reading of the Harry Potter books reveals that Harry Potter ought not be encouraged as a role model for any child.” Against this presupposition, I agree strongly with Delphica, who says that “the more refined point being made by Rowling is that popularity and admiration are no substitute for true friendship.”
To expand this point a bit further, I’ll forward the argument that there was only one place in the series where Potter’s “advantages” helped him overcome an obstacle. (That being where his “mysterious benefactor” bestowed upon him the Firebolt, to overcome the Slytherins’ Nimbus 2000’s - or whatever they were.) At no other point in the series was there an obstacle which was overcome by Harry using his superior wealth or social status. It could be argued that his “teacher’s pet” qualifies, though given the overall temperament of the professor’s at Hogwarts, it is unlikely that they would have turned away other students in need of assistance (let’s remember that Hermione was given the time-altering device for her own use, with Harry Potter not being in the picture).
Much to the contrary, Harry Potter only overcomes obstacles through genuine acts of humbleness (arguably Rowling’s counter to his fame), perseverence, and the help of his friends (the latter two arguably a counter to the perception that wealth brings easy resolutions). Examples of these would include Harry’s tipping Diggory off about the dragon (Goblet of Fire, challenge 1), and in return being tipped off about how to open the egg; his freeing the house elf, and the elf helping him out in return. Among others, his good deeds come back to reward him. This is arguably an egocentric (or Harry-centric) tendency of Rowling’s, but it also reflects the truism that is the golden rule.
That being said, any responsible parent would and should love Harry Potter as a role model, because any child living vicariously through Potter experiences the rewards that accompany doing good deeds. By extension, then, they are being conditioned to do good deeds, to treat others with respect, and not accept easy answers (neither those associated with wealth, nor thing such as throwing Diggory to the dragons, so to speak).
To address another, more fundamental, point of yours, I do not feel that Potter’s “advantages” of fame and wealth are bad influences either. After all, as someone has said, the typical story is that of rags to riches, indicating that riches, and fame, which often accompanies it in these stories, is a desirable goal. By giving Harry these things almost from the very beginning, Rowling dispells this myth. Nothing wrong in that, IMHO.
I was about to make Cantrip’s point–I think Rowling is pointing out that the things kids daydream about aren’t really that great.
I thought your paper was interesting, Manda JO, and I agree that Quidditch is pretty dumb. But I don’t agree with your thesis. Harry starts off as an underdog, kicked around by his awful relatives. He’s totally unprepared for fame and riches, and, because he’s basically good, these advantages don’t go to his head. He values the important things in his life and has to overcome many obstacles to keep them.
Anyway, people have already said that. I was interested in your annoyance that other fantasy writers are passed over and don’t have hits like the Potter series, even though they may be better writers. I agree that Harry isn’t Great Children’s Literature, but he’s pretty close. The reason that he is so dang popular, I think, is because these books have a little of everything. Humor, sports, adventure, danger, magic, friendship, puzzles, gross jokes, budding romance, school stress–she’s packed every possible genre into that series. There’s something for everyone, and it’s fairly easy to read too! Other, better fantasy writers are often more difficult to read, and they don’t cover every single topic this way (which is good). But never fear! We librarians have taken advantage of Harry as a gateway drug–if you go tell a librarian that you liked Harry Potter, is there anything else like that?, you will probably be handed a list of Good Fantasy. Publishers have taken the opportunity to get good titles back into print (has anybody read “So you want to be a wizard”?). So many kids are being introduced to good books through Harry–and I’m not going to complain.
Um, simulpost with about three of the posts before me. That’ll teach me to run off to watch cartoons while posting… :rolleyes: