(no subject)

[hpraremod]

Discussion Question #4
Here is a tough one for you. If you could change one thing in the Harry Potter books, what would it be and why?

Comments

[alley-skywalker.livejournal.com]

Better, more rounded, more realistic antagonists. Yea, I know, that's not really a single thing, but it's what bugs me the most. JKR gave us cardboard, flat, unrealistic antagonists...basically fairytale villains, which is a big reason why I still see HP as a series more targeted at an audience of children and young teens rather than an older, more mature audience. The black-and-white approach JRK has in this whole thing really bugs me.

Re:

[magic-knickers.livejournal.com]

I agree so much. She started to add some depth to Voldemort in HBP and went about fifty steps backwards during DH. Shades of grey would have been nice.

[alley-skywalker.livejournal.com]

I mean, I can see Voldemort as going crazy or as the psychopath. I mean, Hitler was. But there's a difference between "there's this one crazy person who gets power" and "everyone who follows X leader is a crazy psychopath." The world doesn't work that way. The Malfoy's got at least some depth to them, thankfully, but honestly, the thing is that this isn't the case of just a mad genius or even a small, tight clique of bullies. We've got basically a civil war going on. The first war, sounds like, WAS a flat out civil war. I feel like a lot of those who came back in the second war probably didn't have a choice or the choice was something like "come back or we'll kill your family." Seriously, how many people would risk their children even if they've realized their leader is psycho? But JKR leaves no room for this, no room for real motives or situations. Part of it is that she didn't have that much time to do it unless the series was going to be twice as long, but I don't think that she even CONSIDERS that her interpretation is way too B&W.

[magic-knickers.livejournal.com]

You're totally and completely right. No Death Eater (save Snape and the Malfoys, sort of) is properly fleshed out. I can jump to the conclusion for Bellatrix--a bit of inbreeding here, a bit of power-lust there--but the others are just blindly there, with no apparent reason other than that they're racists. I feel like Rowling forced all of it into that last book with a serious lack of explanation for a lot of things--including but not limited to to the Death Eaters and the progression of the War--and nobody told her otherwise.

[alley-skywalker.livejournal.com]

The thing is, we don't even have to agree with their ideology for them to be sympathetic or at least well rounded and human. Even if their world views are highly bigoted, it doesn't mean that they are suddenly not human. We don't have to like them, per se, we don't have to agree with their ideology, but like...
Ok, I mean, even look at the American Civil War. The confederacy leaders and many of those who fought for it -- especially the white landowners -- were racist. This doesn't mean ALL of those people are inherently evil. Look at Gone With The Wind. Ashley Wilkes, but most people's standards is a good and noble person, however, he is a plantation owner. Most of the other characters in that book exhibit racist attitudes. They're wrong to do so, but that doesn't deprive them of other good qualities. The thing is that you have to take into consideration the society that these people grew up in. The Purebloods were raised and raised their children in, what it seems like, a pretty closed social circle for the most part and therefore their worldviews are prejudiced from childhood. This doesn't make them automatically bad friends, bad family members, any less convinced that the world they are fighting for is the right one. From the outside, we see just how awful and dangerous these views are, but it's always easier to see something objectively from an outside perspective.

[magic-knickers.livejournal.com]

I'm going to use Draco Malfoy as an example in relation to your Pureblood-with-child explanation. Draco is a racist, no doubt about it, but as HBP and even DH play out, he's not cut out to be a mass-murdering psycopath. It seems that evey other Death Eater is, though.
I think that this is why Harry Potter is considered a children's book series, and Gone With the Wind (what a fabulous book that is) is classic "grown-up" literature. HP has very basic, flat concepts on morality. Good an evil, right and wrong, Harry and Voldemort.

[alley-skywalker.livejournal.com]

Gosh I really loved Gone With the Wind. I never cared much for Scarlet of Rhett, always was more of an Ashley girl, but that's beside the point. It's actually kinda funny, in light of your comment, that I read GWtW and the first HP book in the same year or so. But, yea, this is why I laugh when people say Harry Potter should be studied in school as serious literature. Honestly, God forbid.

I feel it's worth mentioning that the First War comes off more as the Civil War than it's meant prototype -- WW II and Nazi Germany. Firstly, because it is a civil war started around prejudices. But also, given how many Purebloods there were on either side and that half bloods were/are not uncommon among the DEs, I think there were other undercurrent there such as power struggles. Again, same as in the Civil War. Call it a struggle between liberals and conservatives if you will. Also, while Germany did not have a long history of prejudice again Jews, the South did have a long history of predjudice against African-Americans just as the Pureblood society had a long history of prejudice against muggles and muggle-borns. I honestly think the situation was more of a hybrid with the crazy leader and the strong fear-mongering propaganda reminiscent of the nazi regime and the socialized prejudices and societal/power struggle between elites elements ala the Civil War.

[magic-knickers.livejournal.com]

I have yet to meet a single person who honestly likes Scarlet. She's just an unlikeable gal.

I can definitely see the parallel between the Wizarding War and the Civil War, especially due to the heavily racist undertones. Like the Civil War, families were torn apart for the cause--especially the Blacks--and both sides honestly thought that they were doing the "moral" and just thing. I actually live deep in the South now, and I will, on occasion, come across a person who refers to the Civil War as the Great War of Northern Agression. Those beliefs run very deep.

[alley-skywalker.livejournal.com]

Haha my grandma thinks Scarlet is just the best *rolls eyes* IDEK.

Yea, I had a PoliSci prof who used to teach in the South and he said that his students wouldn't let him call it the Civil War and would refer to it as "The Southern War for Independence." I think this proves just how deep those social frictions and fractions can run and if we look at the situation in the WW as similar than the Second War makes perfect sense, actually.

Re:

[chameleon-irony.livejournal.com]

I agree very much with this. It's my main complaint about HP.