Exactly. Every once in a while I hear people arguing that this is her authorial intent. That she is being deliberately existential. Or that this is all in order to get us to question our assumptions about good and evil. Which I could believe.... except. Except it doesn't really seem to be. And, if that's the case, then she's really not doing a good job for the younger readers, because all that questioning stuff is going to go right over their heads.
You know, all they are really going to get is a contempt for authority in general--teachers, government workers, etc. I guess this is good, but it's what kids get from all truly popular culture. That's just what everyone thinks kids like. So, whether it's the Bad News Bears (or whatever film is currently ripping it off), or Ratatouille, or rap songs, kids are always getting the message that grown-ups are stupid, and so are the rules they come up with.
Rarely are there stories which ask the reader to confront their own prejudices. If that was what JKR was really doing, I think she needed to have Harry actually do that. Instead of instinctively getting to the point where he got the benefit of re-evaluating his positions without having to do so. Or... maybe it's just that he never needed to re-evaluate anyone who was actually alive. He didn't have to examine the relationship between goblins and humans, he just took advantage of the goblin in front of him, and, subsequently had the WW's bad opinion of goblins reinforced when Griphook ran off with the sword. He re-evaluated Dumbledore (that was his main angst-object) and Snape--after both of them were dead. He didn't have to change his views on Narcissa, like Griphook, she presented an opportunity for him to take advantage of her concern for Draco--without them having to relate on any kind of a personal level.
I'm rambling. But I'd love to believe that JKR had this big ulterior motive. If she'd never given these interviews, I might believe it. But everything she says leads me to think that she did view her story in a very simple, straightforward way and that the wonderful, quirky, complex, infuriating moral messaging is accidental.
Re: Here from d_s (1/2)
You know, all they are really going to get is a contempt for authority in general--teachers, government workers, etc. I guess this is good, but it's what kids get from all truly popular culture. That's just what everyone thinks kids like. So, whether it's the Bad News Bears (or whatever film is currently ripping it off), or Ratatouille, or rap songs, kids are always getting the message that grown-ups are stupid, and so are the rules they come up with.
Rarely are there stories which ask the reader to confront their own prejudices. If that was what JKR was really doing, I think she needed to have Harry actually do that. Instead of instinctively getting to the point where he got the benefit of re-evaluating his positions without having to do so. Or... maybe it's just that he never needed to re-evaluate anyone who was actually alive. He didn't have to examine the relationship between goblins and humans, he just took advantage of the goblin in front of him, and, subsequently had the WW's bad opinion of goblins reinforced when Griphook ran off with the sword. He re-evaluated Dumbledore (that was his main angst-object) and Snape--after both of them were dead. He didn't have to change his views on Narcissa, like Griphook, she presented an opportunity for him to take advantage of her concern for Draco--without them having to relate on any kind of a personal level.
I'm rambling. But I'd love to believe that JKR had this big ulterior motive. If she'd never given these interviews, I might believe it. But everything she says leads me to think that she did view her story in a very simple, straightforward way and that the wonderful, quirky, complex, infuriating moral messaging is accidental.