Log In

Home
    - Create Journal
    - Update
    - Download

LiveJournal
    - News
    - Paid Accounts
    - Contributors

Customize
    - Customize Journal
    - Create Style
    - Edit Style

Find Users
    - Random!
    - By Region
    - By Interest
    - Search

Edit ...
    - Personal Info &
      Settings
    - Your Friends
    - Old Entries
    - Your Pictures
    - Your Password

Developer Area

Need Help?
    - Lost Password?
    - Freq. Asked
      Questions
    - Support Area



quantumreality ([info]quantumreality) wrote,
@ 2009-11-07 12:05:00


Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
An Offshoot of A HMS STFU Post
This exchange, which was an outgrowth of a meta regarding Sirius Black and Dumbledore, was a segue into gift exchanges in the HP books; the original HMS STFU entry regarding the entry by terri_testing is here.

As spake by [info]terri_testing:

I think I was warped by growing up on Frances Hodgeson Burnett; "The Little Princess" was my favorite book for years. In it, a little heiress is suddenly orphaned and left destitute, and her school keeps her on as a starving drudge... until her kindness under adversity catches the eye of the neighbor's servant, and... it ends with her restored to fortune and a foster-family.

The point being that,yes, Sara Crewe delighted in being indulged again after years of deprivation. But one of her chief pleasures (especially after the first shock wore off) was being able to be generous in turn.

So I guess I expected that in Harry. A deprived little boy is suddenly made heir to a large fortune. Sure, at first we see him delighting that people (almost all of whom have less money than he) like him enough to give him gifts. But at some point we should see him waking up to the pleasures of generosity (and to the fact that having wealth, like having magical talent, is both asset and responsibility).


This passage, and some others further down, really do reveal, for me, the wish-fulfillment fantasy these fen have. They don't care that JK Rowling is just a human being and is not a robot who makes literature to exact specifications. They don't care that some stuff is implied (by reasonable extrapolation) while other stuff is stated. It's all about them and what they want(ed) to see.

It is a fascinating insight, and it is the most conclusive proof yet (to me, anyway) that the thesis the STFU has operated on regarding delusional fen is correct. This thesis is: the delusional fen want the books re-written THEIR way and nothing else will remotely suffice.

In the absence of getting their very own special JK Rowling to do this, they instead do the following:


  • Butcher the moral fiber and decency of any person not named Snape, Malfoy or Voldemort. Examples, if I may get away from the Snapefen for a second, include making Harry and Ron the most venal, idiotic, bumbling, imbecilic people to walk the face of the Earth, or making Ginny a shallow, vicious woman with Galleons in her eyes.

  • Hold up their chosen character on a pedestal so high all shortcomings and faults are dismissed, and anything their character has screwed up or gotten wrong is blamed on anybody else but that character. Hermione can't be someone who's brilliant in the academic realm but fails to be able to effectively translate that into the ability to act quickly in a fight. Snape can't be a very obviously biased jackass of a man who's still twelve years old inside. Luna can't be someone who just genuinely believes some rather odd things.

  • When they are confronted with basic, straightforward canonical evidence that JK Rowling has constructed the character(s) a certain way, they employ every trick in the book to avoid the simple reading, even to the point of justifying appallingly atrocious behavior shown in canon. Or, such as in that ridiculous prophecy discussion the Snapefen have had before, they insist that the simple reading and JK Rowling's exposition via Dumbledore are wrong, thereby transforming their character into the "Real Hero". Pstibbons's frontkick batshittery also qualifies.



I never cease to be astonished at the tortuous tl;dr crap that can get spewed all over by people who appear to just not be able to accept a simple, salient fact:

Had JK Rowling never written these books the characters would be no more real or physical than they are now.

Literature is not intended as a therapy tool or as a validation for a person's life experiences. It may accidentally do so, but personal experience is subjective and can't be used to create authoritative claims that extremely non-canonical interpretations of the literature are the only valid ones.

Credit for any concepts or ideas put forth by other STFU-ians is hereby acknowledged. If anyone wants specific credit given I shall edit this post forthwith.


(Post a new comment)


(Anonymous)
2009-11-08 03:12 am UTC (link)
Er, in the VERY FIRST BOOK, did we not see Harry buy a whole bunch of stuff from the trolly cart on the train and share it with Ron, quite enjoying the act of generosity and showing sensitivity to Ron's embarrassment over being poor?

(Reply to this)(Thread)


(Anonymous)
2009-11-08 05:11 am UTC (link)
And in the second book he secures Dobby's freedom. Pretty generous to me.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]meesha1971
2009-11-09 09:42 pm UTC (link)
And in the fourth book, he buys Ron the Omniocculars at the World Cup as well as getting him a nice Christmas present. Not to mention buying Dobby all of those magical socks - I loved the description of the ones that screamed loudly when they got dirty! LOL - as a thank you for his help with the second task.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]esclaramonde
2009-11-08 04:52 am UTC (link)
I ALSO loved ALP (and still do), and yet I actually recall Harry acting like Sara and buying presents for other people.

I just don't get why the lack of detail as to what Harry got Ron and Hermione every single Christmas = he didn't get them anything. Are we supposed to believe he only eats when it's described, or that the only times the Dursleys picked on him were the times it was specifically noted?

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]huehau
2009-11-08 05:00 am UTC (link)
Some things just aren't worth writing about. I don't need JKR to tell me Harry is taking a shit. I'm perfectly happy assuming he's not constipated.

I don't understand why the same people who are perfectly happy making stuff up and insisting it's true also want the most mundane, little details.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]quantumreality
2009-11-09 12:41 am UTC (link)
I think it's because now that they've made up their minds about the character, they can self-righteously claim that it's because the author, in their minds, didn't do a proper job of outlining the basic personality traits of the character.

Makes me want to double facepalm. 'Cause just one isn't enough.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]huehau
2009-11-09 02:23 am UTC (link)
I see. Having decided that Harry is a selfish, self-centered brat, they've decided the lack of description about the Christmas presents he gave to others is evidence of that. So if they also wanted Harry to be smelly and unhygenic, they'd point to the fact JKR rarely writes him taking a shower. They only want the mundane details to support the character they've created in their heads.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]angakkuq
2009-11-08 03:41 pm UTC (link)
Harry, as I've said before (good grief, I say that a lot), is embarrassed by his fame and even moreso by the fact that he has so much more money than the Weasleys. Ron is embarrassed by his poverty, so he shares with Harry what he can--his family.

The treatment of the Weasleys by a lot of fen suggests some kind of bigotry against people who aren't super-duper-rich.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]quantumreality
2009-11-09 12:52 am UTC (link)
What's really tasteless is when people try (like Seel'vor in that horrid fic) to claim that Molly Weasley sending Harry a Weasley jumper wasn't just a kind gesture from a mother who was told by her son that Harry's relatives didn't do right by him (I bet Ron was probably observant enough to notice Harry's clothes fit him about as well as a toga that was way too large, as well), but instead a venal attempt to cash in on Harry's fame.

I'm sure it could have looked that way to people who believe friendship is transactional (like Draco Malfoy in the books, or the real life fen who don't believe friendship between people of different economic classes is possible), but it can be reasonably deduced from JK Rowling's favorable commenntary about the Weasley family that she intended that scene involving the Weasley jumper to be nothing of the sort.

I really wish I knew why people look for the worst kinds of motives where there aren't any.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


 
   
Privacy Policy - COPPA
Legal Disclaimer - Site Map