Yes, yes! And good point about Ginny - I hadn't thought about her experiences in quite that context...
See, I wouldn't mind if Rowling stuck to one portrayal or the other: cutsey fairy story or semi-realistic commentary on crappy childhoods. Either is great, but comparing the two just strikes me as mildly insulting.
I initially found it refreshing, when I first read these books, that she had this irreverant, humorous approach to things which can be soul crushing in real life (like Harry's upbringing). It's cartooney and funny, and the only consequence is Harry ends up a little self deprecating and insecure (And...cue for Drunken Hagrid comic relief!)
BUT THEN! She changes tone as the series and goes on to add a little realism, and THEN has Harry reflecting upon on himself, Snape and Voldomort as the "three lost sons of Hogwarts". Whaat?? Voldomort comes straight out of super-villian land crossed with Psychology Today, Snape was apparently raised by Meth heads, and Harry got a cutesy Cinderella upbringing. How does one get a moral story about the power of choice from that?
Abused children can't help being unpleasant but they still deserved to be loved.
So True. And I actually thought the author was heading in that direction for a while with the House divisions being a metaphor for our inability to really relate to people unlike ourselves - and "don't judge til you've walked a mile in their shoes" stuff. How you're raised could make the difference between an "humourous" Fred and George and a "sinister" Half Blood Prince. But no, it's messed up kids will be bad adults, so should be quarantined into Slytherin, and good riddance.
I do often wonder what message kids take away from reading these books.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
HP anonymous unite!
Date: 2007-07-24 06:38 am (UTC)See, I wouldn't mind if Rowling stuck to one portrayal or the other: cutsey fairy story or semi-realistic commentary on crappy childhoods. Either is great, but comparing the two just strikes me as mildly insulting.
I initially found it refreshing, when I first read these books, that she had this irreverant, humorous approach to things which can be soul crushing in real life (like Harry's upbringing). It's cartooney and funny, and the only consequence is Harry ends up a little self deprecating and insecure (And...cue for Drunken Hagrid comic relief!)
BUT THEN! She changes tone as the series and goes on to add a little realism, and THEN has Harry reflecting upon on himself, Snape and Voldomort as the "three lost sons of Hogwarts". Whaat?? Voldomort comes straight out of super-villian land crossed with Psychology Today, Snape was apparently raised by Meth heads, and Harry got a cutesy Cinderella upbringing. How does one get a moral story about the power of choice from that?
Abused children can't help being unpleasant but they still deserved to be loved.
So True. And I actually thought the author was heading in that direction for a while with the House divisions being a metaphor for our inability to really relate to people unlike ourselves - and "don't judge til you've walked a mile in their shoes" stuff. How you're raised could make the difference between an "humourous" Fred and George and a "sinister" Half Blood Prince. But no, it's messed up kids will be bad adults, so should be quarantined into Slytherin, and good riddance.
I do often wonder what message kids take away from reading these books.
-Cindy (anon #1)