Harry Potter: Spokesman for the Me! Me! Now! Now! Generation

In My Humble Opinion
41

There are several posts about the diffuculties of living with the Dursleys, and other ways thath his life is crappy. I am going to summarize my posisition, jsut because i do not have time to do a line by line. I apologize.

First off, I am not trying to claim that Potter’s life is perfect, merely that it is mightily convienient. Nor am I concerned with the fact that “Harry handles wealth and fame well” or that ‘Harry never wanted fame’. I have no arguement with Potter-he’s a fictonal charecter. My arguement is with Rowling’s choice to give Potter all these things. I am not saying the books are shit–I am saying that they would be better if some of the challenges Potter faced were more in line with the challenges faced by Ron and Hermoine.

Tengu:

The text of the novels says that Potter is embarressed by his wealth, but they also provide many examples of how that wealth aids him (list below). No where does the text suggest that Ron is not accepted socially–as there really is no mention of his social interaction at all, we have to assume that his social status is pretty neutral. Two good friends, a nuetral socail status, and a competing gang of bullies is not exactly being a social failure.

Balence:

There are page numbers in my original post. Hagrid gives him a flute in the first novel. I can’t find my copy of the second novel right at the momment. In the third novel he recieves the broomstick, and while it is later shown to have come from Black, there is serious speculation by the trio that it may have come from Lupin–The only reason the idea seems odd to all three of them in that they douby Lupin has the money. In the fourth book he once again gets a present from Hagrid.

I agree that Rowling has constructed the story so that Potter derserves to win the pity party. What I am objecting to is that she did so. In addition to making him the richest, quickest, fastest, best bred, most famous person around, he is also the biggest victem. The rest of the world has to grow up and recognize that other people have problems, too. Potter never will have to do this, because compared to him, other people don’t. It’s like a “get out of Adulthood Free” card.

And i will remind you that the odds of that happening was ow enogh that the twins got “excellent odds” on it; the original quote was that the seeker “nearly always” wins the game, and I thnk that still stands.

I think he does–he knows he is famous, certanly,and he is never suprised about the way his various professors are so much more concerned about him than about his fellow students. A good illustraion of this would be the GoF fiasco–no one seems suprised that Potter’s name would be picked, despite his youth, inexperience, and mediocre magical abilities. The only question is how the name managed to get in there in the first place.

KKBattousai:

In no way do I present a straw man here. A straw man is when you artificially simplify your opponent’s arguement and then attack that simplified version. Here, I make a claim (“Harry Potter has faults”) and I support it. People refute it. I suspect that you are calling this a strawman because you feel that be not ennumerating Potter’s virtues I am over simplifing. That is not the case; to support the arguement “Potter has faults” (or even my slightly stronger phrasing, “Pottter is not a good role-model”), I merely have to prove that those faults exist, not that they are all that exists. Were I making the claim that Potter lacked redeeming features, then the onus would be on me to show that, and to account for any apparently redeeming feature he might have. I do not make this claim, and in fact don’t think it could be supported.

But Potter has both from the get-go. There is never a lasting choice in this book between the two things, and in the one case where Potter’s fame is interferring with a friendship, all he has to do is wait it out until Ron comes crawling back:

(This is right after the dragon incedent. Ron and Potter have had a falling out, and Potter has sworn not to be the one to make ammends)

Emphasis Rowling’s.

In this seen, Rowling lets Potter hold all the cards–he gets to be in the right, he dosen’t have to speak first, and then he gets to be magnamanous about the whole thing. In the only place that popularity costs him friendship, the reader is left with the distinct impression that Potter was in the right, that Ron was being unreasonable, and isn’t Potter just such a swell guy for overlooking Ron’s pettiness?

There is also his first broomstick, which was considerably nicer than his opponents (this is my other objection to Quidditch, for what it is worth. I dont think that a sport ought to be dependent on who can affordthe fastest broom, and the obbsession with brooms by adult and child players alike suggests this is the case)
There is his friendship with Hagrid, which stems from Hagrid’s relationship with his parents and general awe of Potter

There is the invisibility cloak,which is an extemely valuble item.

There are little things, such as a better pet, a better wand, all new equiptment. Potter never has to “make do”

There is Black, who is effectivly an extremely powerful guardian angel that Potter gets as a result of his breding.
I want to reiterate that I am not saying that Rowling should be burned in effigy–I am just saying that there are problems with the way the Potter books are constructed, and when kids read them and love them, it wuld not bve a bd thing to help themsee that Potter’s charecter could look different from a different point of view, or that he benefits greatly just from being Harry Potter. I am all in favor of anything that encourages kids to read, and Potter is a hell of a lot better than Goosebumps or Christopher Pike. But everyone treats the Potter books like they are some sort of revelutionary new thing, and I still hold that other people having been doing a better job of hte same sort of thing for years.

Genie–I have read Diane Duane, and i rather enjoyed the Wizard books when I was younger. Have you read Diana Wynne Jones?

42

Well, since this is a thread of criticism:

I hope emphasizing got corrected to empathizing before the paper was turned in.

At Last! A legitimate use for Hemingway and Fitzgerald!

(Just (mostly) kidding.)
Re: Thomas Covenant
I was put off by the first series (and agree with the with basic idea that TC was a whiny jerk). In the second series, however, I thought Donaldson did what he should have been doing in the first series (and saved us an extra trilogy): he had TC come to terms with both his illness and his mortality. TC spent both books pitying himself for things because he “didn’t deserve” to suffer them, but in the sixth volume of the series, he finally worked through the issues of resignation and acceptance (and he did work through them, rather than having a nice little paragraph on the second-to-last page in which he “suddenly realizes” “what it’s all about”). I enjoy Donaldson, but TC should have been a single trilogy–or, perhaps, a two-volume set.

43

Manda JO–of course I’ve read DWJ. She’s my favorite author ever. She is part of the point I made–I think she deserves to be far more widely read than she is, but the fact is that many of her books are difficult to figure out, whereas Harry is straightforward and easy. I think the way DWJ lets you figure out things is great, but it doesn’t make for easy popular reading. I mentioned Diane Duane specifically because I think it’s an example of an older title brought back into print by the Harry Potter craze.

I think you’re too hard on Harry–he does have the material things in life pretty easy, but if he didn’t, it would just be one more thing he had to overcome, and the books would be longer. I think he has the basics down because he’s the protagonist and gets all the hard jobs–it sets him up so that he can go right into the exciting stuff. And if you think he’s ‘the biggest victim’ now, what if he was poor too? Yes, quidditch is a dumb set-up, and it is annoying that Harry always wins, but I think everybody mostly agrees with you there.

That bit where Harry and Ron fight is, I think, pretty realistic. You’ve never been in a situation where you were misunderstood by a friend (and Ron is pretty justified, but if I was Harry, I’d be hurt too) and were too proud to explain yourself? And when I’m in a fight, and things finally get straightened out, I often suddenly get tired of the whole thing, am sorry it ever started, and want it to be over. I think Rowling was trying to convey that feeling, and you’re blowing it a little out of proportion.

And I hope you didn’t spell victim as victem in your paper.

44

Oh, and if we’re going to talk about the Dursleys, I just want to say that I think they’re the most annoying element in the whole series. What do you think of them, Manda? I find them to be one-dimensional bad Roald Dahl knockoffs. They’re completely unredeemable, not real at all, and not very funny because they aren’t real and Rowling can’t pull it off the way Dahl could. So there.

45

:: takes a deep breath and steps up to the plate ::

Manda JO,

I think that you are falling into a common mistake that many people, especially graduate students, make–that anything so popular has to be bad. You can do a “close reading” of anything and come up with just about any conclusion. An example of this are the ubiquitous “homoerotic readings” that have been done to so many classic works. (Huck and Jim–homosexual, interracial, and pedophilic?? Some have said…)

You grossly underestimate and overestimate many of the factors that influence Harry’s life. First of all, you can not dismiss the abuse that Harry suffered at the hands of the Dursleys by saying “Harry didn’t seem to mind.” Before he went to Hogwarts, he did not know anything else, and it has ben documented over and over that in cases where a person is routinely abused, that person will begin to see the abuse situation as normal. Harry suffered not only neglect from the Dursleys, but outright humiliation. Maybe it is better to receive no Christmas present at all than to receive someone’s worn-out socks, especially when you see your cousing being showered with gifts and affection. In the summers between Hogwarts sessions, he knows that there is a specific ending point to his suffering, and this allows him to make it through. He also develops avoidance techniques, basically staying away from them and counting the days until school starts. Knowing that there is a set endpoint allows many people to endure horrible situations.

You also overestimate the advantages Harry has. He is certainly the most famous, but we see over and over that fame brings him more trouble than happiness. He is by no means the best-liked or most popular. There is ample evidence that his two best friends, while not outcasts, are not at the top of the social pyramid, either. Ron has been done to death, so let’s talk about Hermione. The first example that springs to mind is that everybody was shocked that the Quidditch champion from the other school (in GoF, forget his name) singled her out as the object of his affections. It was not a case of people thinking “oh, I wouldn’t have guessed…” People were floored that he liked her. If she was very popular, nobody would have been surprised that he chose her.

His money doesn’t seem to help him, much, either. It doesn’t seem that the other wizard-born Hogwarts students (except the Weasleys) are poor. Besides, the books teach the important lesson that money can’t solve your problems. (okay, in the muggle world money can often solve problems, but I am not sure that that is a life-lesson that should be impressed upon kids.)

You are looking for a ruby in a pile of rocks, here. Or rather, you are looking for a rock in a pile of rubies. You are trying to find something bad in something unabashedly good.

If the Harry Potter books are in any way detrimental to kids, you haven’t demonstrated it.

p.s. I think Quidditch sounds like fun

46

KKB: (the fifth vote would have essentially been for Nader) LOL excellent!

47

I’ve recently re-read the second novel. I believe there was a mention of Hagrid sending him some treacle fudge, or something similar. In PoA, Hagrid sends him a book for his birthday, and in GoF, he sends Harry a box of sweets for Christmas. These are all fairly small gifts that a friend of the family might give a child. Note that Hagrid wasn’t a teacher until PoA–the pattern was established when Hagrid considered Harry a friend, and the child of friends.

Ron had already suggested that Dumbledore had sent it–the idea was dismissed because Dumbledore, as a teacher, wouldn’t do such a thing. Ron has a tendency to wild guesses; his guess that Lupin had sent the broomstick was met by the most obvious objection: insufficient funds.

Perhaps he doesn’t have to recognize it–doesn’t that make it all the better that he does? Harry understands the distress Ron’s poverty causes him; he understands Ron’s feeling of being overshadowed by his brothers (though he had to have his nose rubbed in it when he was angry with Ron to remind him). Harry feels that Neville deserves the others’ pity more than he does. Does this really suggest that Harry doesn’t “recognize that other people have problems, too”?

Granted, it’s unlikely–that’s why I agreed that quidditch is stupid. It’s probably not as unlikely as it seems from the games described in the book, though. Bear in mind that the record for one game is 3 months–given the number of points that could be scored in a long game, the 150 points that a Seeker can score become less overwhelming.

The book focuses on the Gryffindors, who are too overjoyed to find that one of their own is in the tournament to worry about details. Dumbledore (who presumably told any other interested professors), Snape, Moody, Maxime, and Karkaroff already have Moody’s plausible (undoubtedly correct :slight_smile: ) explanation for Harry’s selection–their concern is (quite properly) “Who did this?”

As for his professors’ concerns…I’m not sure what you’re getting at, here–a few more brief examples might help. Generally, Harry draws the attention of his professors by meddling, getting into trouble, or getting dragged into the middle of some kind of mess. He certainly isn’t the only subject of professorial gossip or attention–Hermione’s academic ability draws a lot of attention, for example. Even Neville gets talked about by his teachers–remember that Prof. Sprout discussed his herbological talent with Moody.

48

Speaking as “a reader,” the impression I was left with is that Harry was being stubborn, and when Ron started to apologize, Harry realized this. I don’t think he comes off as being magnamanous, I think he’s embarassed by his own grudging behavior. Ron looks like the swell guy for making the first gesture.

But I suppose different readers will come away with different responses.

I don’t think Rowling can be criticized for creating a main character who has many advantages from the get-go. Sure, Harry has fame, good friends, and the help and concern of his friends and many adults. The appeal of the story (for me, at least) is what happens next. Harry must cope with with both his advantages and his problems (and he does have problems). We see his advantages work both for and against him. A book does not need to be a “rags to riches” story in order to have merit.

In this way, I think Harry is similar to Will Stanton (The Dark is Rising), or the Pevensie children (Narnia), in that he starts off rather well-equiped to take on his challenges. In all three cases, the victories come as a result of the characters backing up these easily gained resources with a personal strength of conviction, and their own integrity. It is probably no small coincidence that all three stories draw on Arthurian legend – you might get Excalibur handed to you on a silver platter, but the real value only comes after you have backed it up with the strength, determination and love that come from within.

I don’t think it’s fair to force Harry Potter into some sort of grudge match with Christopher Chant because of the popularity of Rowling’s novels. Hopefully, children who fall in love with Harry will go on to seek the many other extraordinary books that are out there. I would be very critical of a parent, teacher or librarian who didn’t help kids find Meg and Charles Wallace, Nita and Kit, or Victor and the Chicken Man. But that’s an issue that cannot be laid at the feet of Rowling. Rowling herself talks up other books she enjoys when she speaks with children.

49

I haven’t read these books, but I’m interested in the topic because I read a lot of children’s fiction when I was young. What was very important to me about much of what I read is that it was about kids who were smart, and were alienated because of it. Whatever intelligence may be good for, it doesn’t win you any friends, and often it drives people away. But it’s the smart kids who are most likely to read books, and for a long time, books were written with those kids in mind. Kids on television were nothing like me. They weren’t even capable of understanding me. But Alvin Fernald, Homer Price, Danny Dunn, Walter Galt – these were kids I could relate to.

I know a lot of people who credit Madeline l’Engle with helping them get through puberty. Personally, I credit Daniel Pinkwater. I really felt that children’s literature was a refuge for smart kids.

Then came Goosebumps. Shelf space for John Christopher dried up overnight. I began to feel that the barbarians were at the gate. Whether or not you think Goosbumps were bad for kids, I definitely think they did a lot of damage to children’s literature. Even Daniel Pinkwater has bowed to the pressure to produce kitchy series books.

Now, Harry Potter has come out, and I don’t know what to think. I would have assumed that it was written for smart children, because the whole idea behind the whisked-away-to-a-magic-school genre is that the reader can live the fantasy that there is some reward out there for being intelligent, curious. But in talking about the story with people who’ve read it, I find out that Harry is actually not very smart, nor is he alienated, and in fact he’s a popular kid. And these books have been smashingly successful, and as such are likely to affect how the publishing industry markets children’s fiction. Is the next Walter Galt going to be the most popular kid in school? If that’s the case, then the traditional core readership for children’s fiction is being snubbed.

50

Stofsky, I was saying, and have been backed up by other posts, that Mandy was simply looking for something to make destructive comments about in the books, not “analyzing” or (literarily speaking) “criticizing” them.

But you’ve identified yourself as a “critic” as well.

Hardly - if one really values a tool, one learns to use it correctly. If one wishes to make a career out of the English language, one ought to cherish the spelling and grammar.

51

Manda JO, I’ve been thinking about this, and it seems to me that Potter is more like Willard Phule of Robert Aspirin’s Phule series than he is like many other chidren’s lit. characters, and that the message is the same: wealth and fame make it easier to do the right thing, but a person has to have the appropriate character in the first place to use those gifts well. Rather than giving us a “stock” fairy-tale rags-to-riches hero, Rowling has given us an already-rich hero, who has to figure out how to use his gifts in the right way.

It seems to me that, rather than being an object lesson in materialism, the Potter books are just the opposite: Potter already has the material things, and is successful despite them. In most children’s fantasy, the outcast hero strives to achieve fame or fortune, which I think sends more strongly the message that those are valuable goals. By contrast, Rowling has given us a hero for whom those things are a given; now he must develop the character to use them.

As I said, I like the message.

And FWIW, I like Quidditch, too. :slight_smile:

52

Hear, hear! [hijack] I can’t say how often I am appalled by the lack of concern for spelling, grammar and punctuation by many posters, most of whom are otherwise making good points. I find that the message is marginally stronger if the medium does not have to be examined for form as well as function. [/hijack]

Right, as you were.

53

Well I would agree that HP has affected the publishing market hugely. It’s kinda hard to tell what the fallout is going to be for children’s writers. IMO anything that gets kids reading is a Good Thing and we can only hope it increases sales for the rest of us.

But I really disagree that 2% of the school population constitutes the traditional core readership for children’s books. OTOH that could explain some royalty cheques I have seen.

In a lot of ways Harry Potter can be seen as a role model for gifted kids. He’s burdened with unasked for gifts and doesn’t fit easily into society. I’m sure your average alienated highly gifted kid could find enough in the books to identify with.

Try reading them - they are pretty cool

54

Ack! Sorry for the dog’s breakfast up above!

preview is my friend, preview is my friend…

55

I am going to address some broad points here, and then move into specifics. This is rather a lot to respond to, so if I miss any good points by anybody, please give me the benefit of the doubt and point them out.

  1. My motives. Some posters have made remarks about my motives–from the rather benign “graduate student syndrome” to the more acerbic just “looking for something to be destructive” out of low self esteem or something. My first instinct was to make a long post about what I like and don’t like, and try to establish that there isn’t any pattern based on relative popularity, or that I need to crucify every author out there to “make myself feel their equal”. But there are two good reasons not to do that–A) I can’t prove anything to y’all–we are all just words on a screen and B) it isn’t even relevant. Even if I were working from the most petty motives available, my points are still supported by the text, and need to be refuted from the text.

For whatever it is worth, I think that popping in to post something questioning someone’s motives without bothering to address their points is rather petty.

  1. Potter’s wealth, fame, and popularity. One response to this has been that “But he handles these things so well–he never wanted all these things”. To me, this is just one more advantage Potter has–he doesn’t have any real personality flaws to overcome, either. That would have been one way Rowling could have balanced out all of Potter’s advantages–if he were really jealous of Ron’s family, or if he wanted social approval badly enough to do stupid things, or if he we impetuous with no sense of personal danger.

Another response has been that the time at the Dursley’s counterbalances everything else. I still hold that there is no sense of proportion here–the Durslys are this surreal incident tacked on to the beginning of each book, and after the first few chapters they disappear. Ninety percent of the time we are with Potter, the Dursleys are never thought of, and that time we spend with Potter is all there is-there is no way to speculate on how things might be effecting him but don’t get mentioned in the story. As I said above, we might as well wonder if he is circumcised. I do not think that it can be demonstrated that the Dursleys have had any real effect on Potter’s personality–he doesn’t have trouble making friends, he isn’t incapable of trust, he doesn’t have nightmares.

The third response has been that Potter’s wealth, fame, personality, popularity, breeding, and natural athletic ability have actually worked against Potter. While it is true that wealth, fame, and popularity bring their own problems, they still smack of too little, too late, to me. It is like Beverly Hills 90210. I just don’t find the trials and tribulations of people that are above all the trials and tribulations that the rest of us face to be very interesting, or flattering to the person thus afflicted.

Now, to specifics:

Green Bean:

I have never made he claim that they are detrimental to kids–I have instead made the claim that they have some serious flaws as books, and that they are not great achievements of children’s literature, that they are in many ways facile and contrived, and that this makes them boring. When you say that they are “unabashedly good,” that is a much bigger claim.

Genie:

Dahl sprang to mind in the first few pages of the first book, I must agree. The problem with he Dursleys is not that they are over the top–I am all for over the top–but that such exaggerated characters can’t be mixed in with more realistic characters. Dahl style writing is all or nothing. That is part of the reason why I don’t think one can classify the Dursly experience as being oh-so-traumatic. Rowling treats it like surreal comic relief. The reader is left with the impression that it isn’t real.

[hijack]Do you know that I have never met another DWJ fan in real life? It is nice to know that there are others out there.[/hijack]

Balance:

No, the most obvious objection would be that Lupin, a teacher, too, wouldn’t do such a thing. None of the children find the idea that Lupin would to be outrageous.

But he doesn’t–he recognizes that other people have problems, yes, but he will never learn that other people have problems that are worse than his own, because in Rowling’s universe, no one else does. I still hold that learning that other people are worse off than you is a critical step into adulthood, and one that Potter cannot make (at least as the world stands now). Furthermore, although Potter is willing to entertain the idea that Neville’s fate may be as bad as his own, the fact remains that the dementors–who are set up as objective determiners of this sort of thing–have declared Potter to be the worst off, something that Potter, the rest of the school, and we the readers all know.

Delphica:

Except that Potter doesn’t do anything to acknowledge that Ron is being the swell guy. He don’t apologize himself, he doesn’t admit that he, too, was being an ass. Maybe he deep in his heart he learns these things, but it comes across looking like Potter forgives Ron for being wrong and accepts him back into the fold. Remember, he keeps his voice cold until just before Ron is ready to apologize, and then he gets all gracious–but only after all three of them recognize that Potter has won the game of “most stubborn”.

Cantrip:

Except that he has “the character” from the very beginning–from the get-go Potter is as nice a fella as you could hope to meet.

I hope that I got everybody there–feel free to draw my attention to any good ponts I may have missed in my desire to summarize. I feel like debating wiht 5 different people at once has led to my arguement getting fragmented, and I wanted to consolidate.

56

Primaflora wrote:

Geez, I don’t know if I was thinking that intelligent. But having been the only kid I knew who read books, I was perhaps inclined to hastily assume it was because I was smart, and my own preferences probably caused a bias in what I came to think children’s literature was about. But since you have a wider view, I’ll take it for granted that I’m wrong. But I’m curious; what are the rest of the kids reading?

`Precious’ is practically my middle name.

Again, my sampling may be biased, but it seems to me that it’s barely ever about kids who aren’t smart. The only dumb kid I can remember from my reading was Alice from Alice in Wonderland. I couldn’t stand to read the book when I was a kid because Alice didn’t like books without pictures, she didn’t know what lattitude and longitude were. I had no sympathy for her at all.

But outside of that, I can’t recall any dumb protagonists. Usually, the kids had flaws which triggered the conflict. But even Harvey, the Beer Can King was a pretty sharp number.

I’m working on it. I have no doubt at all that they are very entertaining books, and that even as a kid I would have enjoyed them highly. But while the possibility that the enthusiasm over Harry Potter will cascade onto other children’s writers is exciting. But I’m afraid a `blockbuster effect’ will likely result instead.

57

Sorry, MJ, I couldn’t let this slide.

You said:

I was making the distinction. Artists tend to lump criticism and analysis together; academics tend to separate them. One is “gee, what a nice novel.” The other is “what the novel means/intends/implies/etc. is…” And, yes, I am a critic, in the academic sense. I’ve been attending school to be trained and educated as such for most of the last 10 years. I’m proud of it, despite what those who disagree with us will say.

As to the typo, for proof it was merely a typo, see the following direct quote:

Notice the second spelling is correct. And if one cherishes the language, one should know that an em-dash is two hyphens, not one

58

I never said that you present a straw man. I said that the essay was “straw dummy-esque” the “esque” indicating that it had characteristics of a straw dummy essay, not that it necessarily was one. And, no it wasn’t. In fact, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, as it seems that you did not even bother to posit even a simplified version of your opponent’s argument. The position that I am taking issue with is your supposition that Harry Potter, the character, is not a good role model. The opposite position, the argument you would present in a non straw dummy-esque essay, is that yes, indeed, Harry Potter can be seen as a good role model and why. As you write about how he is granted any number of advantages by Rowling, the argument that he can still be seen as a good role model is noticably absent. Now I granted you the benefit of a doubt, because your paper was a relatively short one (about five pages, yes?) and that it can be difficult to fully address an opposing viewpoint in a paper of this limited length, especially when discussing a topic you feel strongly about. That being said, however, even a simplified opposing argument is better than none at all.

As a fellow English major, I’m going to take your words at face value - that “Potter is not a good role-model” is a stronger phrasing of, and is therefore meant to be more or less equivalent argument to “Potter has faults.” In other words, it appears that you’re arguing that Potter is not a good role model because he has faults, which stands in stark opposition to your primary point that Potter has been unduly blessed with perfection. This is amusing, but presumably a “brain fart” so, again, I’ll let you slide.

Definition of ‘substitute’: “a person or thing that takes the place or function of another.” My point was that when he lost his friendship with Ron, and at another time when he and Hermione were having a tiff (I have a headache, please forgive me if I’m making this up), he still desired his friendship as his fame and fortune did not, indeed, replace it. He did not, for instance, go out and seek solace with his fans and admirers, for this was not indeed a substitute for friendship.

Yes, he has stuff, and I never said that he didn’t. With the exception of his broomsticks always being the best (a stupid inclusion of Rowling’s) for quidditch, he does not - and this was my point all along, however poorly it was phrased - use his advantages as a crutch. He does not buy assistance with the puzzles in GoF, nor does he use his fame to get him better grades, even though the second defense against the dark arts teacher (whose name obviously eludes me) would have been more than glad to let him do so. Yes, Harry does have certain material and social advantages, but these are not the factors that allow him to succeed in the things he does. His main strengths, IMHO, are what athletes refer to as the “intangibles,” things such as a good heart, loyalty, and things of that sort.

It seems almost as if you are arguing that Potter’s advantages - wealth, fame, athletic ability - are what makes him a bad role model. If that is the case, what qualities constitute a good role model? Poverty? Unpopularity? Physical and mental weakness? No, a proper role model, a person whose behavior we wish ourselves and our children to emulate, is not based upon what advantages one has, or even one’s disadvantages, but the way one carries himself and interacts with others. So, yes, Harry may have been egocentric (in the literal sense) in his dealings with Ron during their fight, but still treats him with underlying feelings of friendship and loyalty. He also does not use his fame and wealth to “buy” him the victories he gains throughout the books, nor does he sacrifice others to further his position (as shown repeatedly throughout the GoF challenges) despite repeated opportunities to do so. Overall, he treats his fellow students, and his professors, and freaky annoying-ass house elves with the dignity and respect they deserve, basically exmplifying the golden rule as he does so. Based on this and other “intangibles” he seems like a perfectly good role model to me.

One thing that seems to be overlooked in this discussion is the literary role of Draco Malfoy. In most every way - minus a bit of fame - he is the anti-Potter. He is rich, charismatic (though not as popular as Harry), and a pureblood. Where Harry is embarassed by his wealth, Draco lords it over others (let’s not forget the Nimbus 2000s). Where Harry ignores his purebloodedness, Draco lords it over anybody who will listen. Granted, much of Draco’s “power” is vested in his father, but it is still at his disposal, and he still has it to use, which he does. It seems to me that he is used to illustrate what harm can come from all the advantages you bestow upon Harry, while Harry is used to show that these factors (wealth, social standing) truly mean nothing in the larger scheme of things.

Just a thought…

59

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Johnny Angel *
Again, my sampling may be biased, but it seems to me that it’s barely ever about kids who aren’t smart. The only dumb kid I can remember from my reading was Alice from Alice in Wonderland. I couldn’t stand to read the book when I was a kid because Alice didn’t like books without pictures, she didn’t know what lattitude and longitude were. I had no sympathy for her at all.

But outside of that, I can’t recall any dumb protagonists.

QUOTE]

I would hardly say that Harry is dumb. He’s actually quite smart, but not that book smart.

This model isn’t so unusual in children’s literature. There are many books that show the reader a group of friends, each of whom has different talents. One might be athletic, the other book smart, another street smart … I’m trying to think of an example … in the McGurk mysteries, McGurk, the central character is street smart, and his friend Joey is book smart. The same holds true for Harry and Hermione.

In terms of popular, lots of characters from kidlit have popularity, like the Melendys, the Swallows and Amazons, and Betsy Ray. (Warning: huge generalization ahead) I do think that the theme of the unpopular kid has been used with greater frequency in the books from the 1970s on up, most likely as a reaction to the overwhelmingly sunny outlook of characters in the popular children’s literature of the 1950s and 1960s. I think there is room for both approaches, and in both cases, I think the quality writing is what lasts. I don’t know many kids who would like to read the Bobbsey Twins now, but then again, many of the “problem novels” of the 1970s have also faded into obscurity because they were simply not well written.
I hope you do decide to read the Harry Potter books. I love Pinkwater too, and I find a lot of similarities in the humor of both writers. Harry and his friend Ron remind me a lot of Victor. God, my dream was to go to that Lizard island.

60

delphica wrote:

I’ve started on one of them. It’s got that very charming Limey narrative style. I don’t know how else to describe it, except that only the British seem to be able to do it.

But I don’t see any comparison so far to Lizard Music. So far, Harry is a kid that things seem to happen to, whereas Victor is a willful agent of his own journey into the unseen world of strangeness, driven by his own idiosyncratic obsessions.

Mind you, a kid doesn’t have to be weird to be likeable. And there are hints that Harry may be a bit quirky anyway. But Victor is a wierdo in the normal world, and really kind of a straight man in the unseen world. But I get the impression that Potter stands this convention on its head – instead of being immersed in the ordinary world and getting peeks into the unseen world, we are immersed in the unseen world and getting peeks into the ordinary world.

I don’t really mean books in which issues' were the heart of the story. I never cared for the afterschool special’ genre. I just mean that many of the things that lead one to be alienated are interesting qualities. But Victor’s obsession with Walter Cronkite and his catalog of daily activities make him interesting in himself. So far, Harry is not nearly as interesting as his predicament. In fact, most of the personality is invested in the narrator, who appears to dislike the Dursleys even more than Harry does, and is presumably liable to say much harsher things about them than Harry would.

These are beyond my ken. Who are they?

The pattern I saw most often was like this: The main character was a smart kid whose main talent was getting into trouble. The secondary character was his friend whose main talent was putting up the trouble the main character puts him through. The tertiary character’s main talent was being a girl.

The Snarkout Boys and the Avacado of Death goes shins and knees with this convention, because the main character is actually the patient friend, Winston Bongo is the instigator, and yet Rat, or rather her family, is the real source of trouble.

By God, there’s a paper in this somewhere.