|
|
antosha (![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} antosha) wrote,@ 2009-09-06 16:04:00 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
On Dursleys and Dumbles (mini-meta)
Posting this just because....
I hadn't wandered around here much recently, but came across one ofanggaquk's fascinating explorations of HP canon and fandom butt-hurt over at hms_stfu, this one on the abusiveness of the Dursleys.
I commented:
Honestly?
I think that the problem with Dumbledore (and the Dursleys and—to a much lesser extent—Snape) is that JKR started the series in one literary style and finished it in another. In PS/SS, we get a Dickensian comic adventure, with badder-than-bad villains, saintly good guys, and much buffoonery (there's a reason that Hagrid slowly disappears over the course of the series). By DH, we were firmly in the realm of modern psychological (if not metaphysical) realism, where all actions are motivated by complex factors, morality is far from black-and-white (in spite of where Platonists like the Harmonians and Snapefen thought/hoped JKR was leading us) and the comedy is provided by deep ironies—the laughter comes from wise fools like Luna and moments like Harry telling Snape, "There's no need to call me 'Sir,' Professor," or Ron trying to downplay his heroism in pulling Harry from the pond, saying it sounds much cooler in the retelling, and Harry snorting, "I've been trying to tell you that for years!"
I've always loved the gradual narrative shift in the seven books, reflecting as it does the slow maturation of the point-of-view character. If I ever get the chance to ask JKR a question, it will be whether that shift was intentional or the product of her maturation as a writer. But one of the unfortunate side-effects it had is that actions that were patently funny in the comic-Victorian world of the first few books (the Dursleys' out-sized neglect—with it's necessary narrative corollary, Dumbledore's absence from Privet Drive—Snape's endless abuse, or Draco's frankly tedious sneering) become either pathetic or deeply questionable as the narrative perspective deepens.
I think that JKR did as best she could to meld the two worldviews—Dumbledore's confrontation with the Dursleys was a gratifying example of that. But I think too that part of the reason that the Dursleys took on less and less significance as the series went on is that there was no way to explore their neglect of Harry in the same more complex vein that the books take on in the last few books without spending a lot of time dealing with them as having morally and legally abused Harry. (Missing Harry with a frying pan is still assault with a deadly weapon, for example.) JKR gives us the confrontation at the beginning of HBP, a brief farewell at the beginning of DH.... and then adios, Dursleys.
I still want to know what a year spent hiding with a Dedalus Diggle and Hestia Jones did to the Dursleys, though!
Posting this just because....
I hadn't wandered around here much recently, but came across one of
anggaquk's fascinating explorations of HP canon and fandom butt-hurt over at hms_stfu, this one on the abusiveness of the Dursleys.I commented:
Honestly?
I think that the problem with Dumbledore (and the Dursleys and—to a much lesser extent—Snape) is that JKR started the series in one literary style and finished it in another. In PS/SS, we get a Dickensian comic adventure, with badder-than-bad villains, saintly good guys, and much buffoonery (there's a reason that Hagrid slowly disappears over the course of the series). By DH, we were firmly in the realm of modern psychological (if not metaphysical) realism, where all actions are motivated by complex factors, morality is far from black-and-white (in spite of where Platonists like the Harmonians and Snapefen thought/hoped JKR was leading us) and the comedy is provided by deep ironies—the laughter comes from wise fools like Luna and moments like Harry telling Snape, "There's no need to call me 'Sir,' Professor," or Ron trying to downplay his heroism in pulling Harry from the pond, saying it sounds much cooler in the retelling, and Harry snorting, "I've been trying to tell you that for years!"
I've always loved the gradual narrative shift in the seven books, reflecting as it does the slow maturation of the point-of-view character. If I ever get the chance to ask JKR a question, it will be whether that shift was intentional or the product of her maturation as a writer. But one of the unfortunate side-effects it had is that actions that were patently funny in the comic-Victorian world of the first few books (the Dursleys' out-sized neglect—with it's necessary narrative corollary, Dumbledore's absence from Privet Drive—Snape's endless abuse, or Draco's frankly tedious sneering) become either pathetic or deeply questionable as the narrative perspective deepens.
I think that JKR did as best she could to meld the two worldviews—Dumbledore's confrontation with the Dursleys was a gratifying example of that. But I think too that part of the reason that the Dursleys took on less and less significance as the series went on is that there was no way to explore their neglect of Harry in the same more complex vein that the books take on in the last few books without spending a lot of time dealing with them as having morally and legally abused Harry. (Missing Harry with a frying pan is still assault with a deadly weapon, for example.) JKR gives us the confrontation at the beginning of HBP, a brief farewell at the beginning of DH.... and then adios, Dursleys.
I still want to know what a year spent hiding with a Dedalus Diggle and Hestia Jones did to the Dursleys, though!
Post a comment in response:
