A Question about Harry Potter.

[troldtog]

Suffice it to say I think this piece at The Awl by Maria Bustillos is almost completely rubbish, and that -- after several readings -- I have come to suspect her main complaint isn't so much with the material (Rowling didn't title the last book Harry Potter and the Proletarian Class Struggle) as it is something buried in the volley of personal

Comments

[hungrytiger11]

Despite Gellert Grindelwald, I've always found there to be (what I thought of as intentional) parallels between Voldemort and Hitler, and like with the Nazis, taking out a leader leaves a crumbling foundations (admittedly with respect to WWII, the Battle of Berlin and an advancing army on both fronts probably contributed more but still...) And the oppressive regeime of the seventh book felt more like Facism or life behind the Iron Curtain. That people may have not liked the political leaders, their agenda of the life they forced upon the people, but were powerless to change in things, because of fear of retribution. So, killing Voldemort definitely solves some problems. The other side is lacking a leader, and you also have a very rousing moral win and with his death both Hogwarts and the Ministry are out of the Deatheaters' grasp. I think there would probably still be a lot of clean up and people's issues/ideas about blood might still exist. After all, in Rowling's book that's exactly what happened the first time Voldemort disappeared

[troldtog]

“But, narratively, I'm not sure it was neccasary to Harry's story, to his Hero's Journey, that we need books about them.”

On this I definitely agree. I don't think the story is incomplete, and on re-reading this I may have endorsed the two points more than I meant to. I could see, if you wanted to read the Harry Potter sequence first and foremost as a sermon or parable about tolerance, and then as a story about an orphaned boy with magical powers second, how (1) & (2) would be a problem for you (whereas, even if I did read Harry Potter as sermon, the rest of Bustillos' piece makes just zero sense to me). I think what Bustillos and I have in common is a strong interest in how exactly that clean up around people's ideas about blood would work exactly and a wish the book had covered it. For her because without it the books are morally inadequate, for me because -- well, the messy clean up sounds interesting (though of course I can't expect J. K. Rowling or any other author to cater to exactly what I find interesting, and, yes, that is

[hungrytiger11]

Lol, I bet it would help if I read this woman's thoughts on HP before commenting on your thoughts on her thoughts... seeing HP as a parable or sermon about tolerance seems...strange. As if there is religious overtones to it. (which may or may not be her point.) And HP is definitely not very religious, even if there is an afterlife in it. I mean, what do they think of religion? (although, I'm glad this wasn't covered and its totally a whole other topic than this post

[reasonandmusic]

Hey, there.

I decided to check out your journal after your really quite thoughtful comment on my rant, and this is absolutely great! May I friend you?

These are well thought out points you make here, and I don't think you're on the wrong track at all. You've highlighted issues that deserved to be explored -- as you're right, they weren't -- and I'd love to read anything you write on this, fanfic wise. If I weren't really tired, I'd give you my thoughts on the issue but I'll be very tired and rambly now if I try, so I'll save it for when I'm more coherent. :)

[troldtog]

Of course you're welcome to friend me! Although I don't promise this'll be a very active place; I haven't posted an entry visible to anyone but me since May. If I do get anything done fic-wise, I'll definitely post it here.

I'd love to hear your thoughts, whenever you feel like writing about them.