This is simply an amazing thread and needs to be continued here, the previous incarnation can be found here.

I think the fact that we need a second thread to continue this subject may lead to some credidance to the book perhaps being "Great Lit" however I do feel that this may be a subject to the "Eye of the Beholder" and hence our very interesting debate.

So let's continue!

Shard LL Moderator

Ex Libro Cogito posted:



Thanks for the compliment!

Yes, 15 months is enough time. Of course, the bond grows stronger over time, but if a child has learned to bond by then, chances are he'll be fine. That attachment to Lily as a baby laid the foundation for all relationships that would come after. It's also how he survived the Dursleys relatively intact.

I think you are confusing needs with wants. A small child doesn't just want to be cuddled--they need to be cuddled. (Just as an example.) They need that security and to feel safe. That is how they feel loved. (And truth be told, most adults feel the same way, don't we?) But they do not know the difference between needs and wants--something most adults don't know, either.

Do children know how to love? Absolutely. As adults, we say that love requires no obligations. Well, when we have children, we are obligated to provide them love, shelter, food, and medicine. That's what being a parent entails. But it is still unconditional. It's your child; you love them no matter what. No matter what it costs you personally, you will do it for your child, no strings attached. Why? Because the child doesn't know any better. Another part of being a parent is teaching them the difference.

And children love unconditionally as well. Many children, no matter how they are treated, still love their parents unconditionally simply because they are their parents. It's only when they are older (usually) that problems develop.

Young children are very demanding. That's the nature of the beast and goes with the territory. They may have the vocabulary, but they do not have the emotional development to control it. Also, they do not know the difference between needs and wants. In their minds, "want" and "need" are exactly the same thing. Children are by nature very self-centered because their cognitive skills haven't developed to the point where they can step outside themselves and put themselves in another's place. That takes many, many years, and some people never do get it.

I love the way you differentiated NEEDS and WANTS , Arianhrod, and I think JKR did the exact same thing throughout the series... The whole idea of CHOICES make you who you ARE, the basic meaning of HP series, can be translated into a differentiation of Needs and Wants.. Certainly, some times needs and wants overlap, but wants are things people would like to have but do not need in order to live..

Both Harry and Tom Riddle NEEDED love, in order to grow up normally, in order to develop a healthy personality and character, in order to move on.. But they both were deprived of it when they were young ; (I should give an advantage to Tom in this, because Tom could have found love in the orphanage if he had wanted to, but he didn't, whereas Harry wasn't given love no matter how hard he tried in the Dursleys)..

The path they took from then on was basically determined from their Wants (overlapping with their initial needs), and there is where the matter of CHOICES begins to show... And there is where JKR brilliance begins to show, by distinguishing the path two unfortunate and deprived of their needs orphans chose to walk.. Indeed, she makes excuses of Tom Riddle's actions; he has lost so much, you can pity him.. But then she presents Harry, having the same if not more excuses than Voldermort, and you see what a remarkable boy he is, you see the CHOICES he makes, so there is your moral.... NO MATTER HOW MANY EXCUSES YOU HAVE, YOU ARE THE ONE TO CHOOSE THE PATH YOU ARE GOING TO WALK ON...

The bond was broken Arianrod. If you're at a hospital with an eighteen month old child who has been kidnapped and abused by strangers you wouldn't reprimand the child: Your mum loved you for a year and a half--what are you crying about?


Edited:Although the perception as to whether Harry was affected by the manner his parents died or not is completely up to reader's individual judgement, the matter of the effect that any trauma, disease, violence, and seperation has on the developement of a child is more in the realms of study.

In a study, the bonding period may be fifteen months, but the emotional developement does not stop at that age unless there is a disability or some kind, or illness--or extreme change.
And I believe by putting Harry on the Dursley's doorstep, Jo does present a disruption to Harry's developement.

The trauma of separation is a factor in Harry's development from the point that he goes to live with his aunt and Uncle, as it would be in any child's development. He cries for mummy--whom does he get: Aunt Petunia or Dudley pummleting with his bottle...
Harry states quite clearly that he doesn't recall being held as by a mother, so whatever his experience with Lily, his life with Petunia shut that out. At ten " Harry was a toddler at fifteen months--and his options at this time would not be--oh my parents are dead =I must die myself. His options are his needs, food, warmth, reassurance, shelter..

The kind of bond you are speaking of has to be reinforced. What saves Harry is his intelligence and the fact that there is, though negative, interaction and positive lessons within that interaction. Harry speaks well, he has manners, he has household skills, he recalls getting a small allowance and toys. So there was, no matter how grudging and shabby, interaction with Petunia and Vernon. Petunia had to teach Harry, these things. Harry had the intelligence to adapt. Just because a person adapts, adjust, survives, can we dismiss the fact that was trauma in his life?

Harry reaction to the trauma--that is, when he is forced to remember his parents distress at an age where he can understand what happened was to pass out. We see Ron and Hermione are affected by the dementors but they do not pass out--this is a gage of how traumatic the memory is to Harry. Not of his parent's death, after they died there was silence--but of the terror they experienced before they died.

As Lupin says Harry reacts this way because the horror in his life is real. Harry experiences acute distress when he cannot help the screaming woman, fear that that she is being murdered, his tears--that's his reaction to trauma. The threstals are NOT a gage for trauma--only that a person has seen death--and understood it. Of course seeing and understanding that someone has died is traumatic for a child, Luna can attest to that. But the ability to see Threstals is not described as a traumatic experience, in spite of Deloris Umbridge's attempts to make it so. Hagrid did not pull the Threstals out to scare the young people.

A child of fifteen months would not know that his parents are dead, even if Hagrid found Harry right next to Lily trying to wake her up. What the toddler would recognize and what would cause his distress is the same thing that causes Harry's distress when he is attacked by the dementors: He senses his father's fear, his mother's terror, he feels anxiety, confusion, hopelessness, he passes out. That's a significant reaction to the trauma.

However, the perception that Snape because his parents argued suffered more than Harry belongs to fans. What Jo created was two boys: A boy neglected by his parents, who nonetheless has knowledge at nine or ten of himself, whom he is, what he can do. He's capable of kindness to another child that he finds "worthy" because of her gifts--in fact in the young Snape, you see the patience and kindness we expect from a teacher--he had the gift. Where did young Snape learn this--possibly from his mother. And we have factor into the equation, the possibility that Eileen didn't inform Tobias that she was a witch--Seamus says his mother didn't tell his father and it was a "nasty shock" for his father--until Tobias saw evidence of the gift in his son.

But Jo also shows all the young people, except when they are decieved, as having a clear choice.



Well--I've worked in institutions, and although Tom might have found an attendant who cared, the turnover in these places is very high. Children are adopted--so they're coming and going, and there is always some sort of competition. Harry had the advantage because he was with family, but the advantage also contributed towards his confusion and later rebellion (running away ranks pretty high when people are examining behavior disorders, or abuse in children...)--because Petunia and Vernon were family, as Harry grew older he knew they should treat him better than they did.

However, Ioli, I would agree that Jo gives both Tom and Harry choices. But Tom and Harry are extreme. I think Jo shows' Harry amazing ability to put things in perspective when she has Harry witness Neville with his living parents. She keeps it simple, Harry sees Neville stuff the bubble gum wrapper in his pocket. This is one of those lovely, spare, poetic moments in the book. The thing is Jo sometimes hammers in her point --Lily breaking off her friendship with Snape. Jo seems to try to hard to make her audience understand that the minute Snape says "Mudblood" he makes a lie of his statement that Lily's being Muggle-born makes no difference to him. He does think of her as a Mudblood, or he would have called her something different. The break off could have been a simple:"You said it didn't matter; you lied..."

But she has Lily preach--The good girl becomes the shrew...

But would such an edit merely change our perceptions of the characters or would it strenghten the the story?

The trauma Harry feels with the approach of the Dementors is actually Voldemort's. Harry, as we know from Bathilda's Secret, did not see anything happen and was unaware that anything was amiss until Voldemort was about to kill him.

What Harry recalls when the Dementors approach is the memories of both child and killer. The trauma is from an adult perspective: both Harry's unconscious knowledge of what had happened and his more mature interpretation of the memories.

The great danger is in positing an ideal for childhood. There is no such thing. What we have is a world of individuals, each one living a story. And these various narratives interact. And cruelty and indifference to a child will harm them, but how much they will be harmed is unknown, because each person is unique, each narrative is different.

Physical harm is fairly easy to define. (Although spanking is still a subject for debate in North America.) But mental cruelty and indifference are subjective by nature and as difficult to define as obscenity. Is Neville's gran cruel? Has Neville been abused? How do the two narratives of Neville and his gran intersect?

One thing about the Potterverse that makes it richer than the average children's novel is that we see each person as a narrative interacting with others. Even the comically two-dimensional Dursleys must interact and tell a story. Indeed, the Dursleys two-dimensionality is largely due to a fear that it takes all kinds to make a world. Petunia has sought out her Vernon because of his dogmatic normalness born from jealousy of her sister's gift and fear of how very dangerous that unknown and abnormal world could be.

I'm sorry so many were disappointed in Snape's final encounter, but Snape's entire charisma was due to the enigma of his narrative. He himself has relished the idea that he was the bad boy gone good, or was he. He enjoyed the role of double-agent. It suited him in that it played to his character's strengths, a love of the dark arts and an insatiable curiosity, and his weaknesses, social awkwardness and acute insecurity. However, once exposed as the double-agent who truly lived in a No Man's Land, Snape loses his charisma and becomes a sad minor figure who played his part and no more.

Voldemort, the great villain, who is close to being the absurd super-villain of so many James Bond-like stories, was humanized in HBP and literally made mortal by Harry in DH. Voldemort's character never really develops beyond the isolated and resentful child Dumbledore met at the orphanage. Indeed, it is Voldemort who tries to become an ideal wizard and seeks to become a perfect abstraction by creating his Horcruxes. For Tom Riddle, only he exists, and everyone else is merely a shadow cast on the wall of his Platonic cave.

You mean the person who caused Harry's parents terror was Voldemort--because Harry expresses his fears quite clearly: Page 179 POA

The fear he expresses is not of Voldemort--not if he is thinking that he should help her. He doesn't want to hide or run away from Voldemort. His fear is for his mother.

His tears in Lupin's classroom are not because Voldemort wants to hurt him--but for his father, whom he now understand stayed to fight, to give him and his mother a chance.

Harry is not an adult at thirteen, --although some cultures might argue. His experiences, although horrible are still those of a thirteen year old child who does not have, as does his teacher Lupin, or Dumbledore, the adult experience to understand these things as emphazied in his question to Lupin: "Why? Why do they affect like that? Am I just--?" Page 187 POA

Like the question, does Death hurt, this is the question, the fears of a child. No one else reacts as he does--he must be weak. So he needs an adult to help him understand what he feels. I consider this, from a literary point of view, one of Jo's strengths: Harry is not obnoxiously precocious--he is not dazzlingly intelligent. He's observant--but most children are--that's how they learn.
So yes, he reaction to the dementors in DH is different from his reaction in POA--years have passed, his experiences have extended four years beyond that of the thirteen year old boy.

I actually thought Snape's death scene was well written, filled with irony. He dies in the Shrieking Shack--the place where Harry's father saved his life--a life in which he used to support James, and Lily's greatest enemy. And it is James' enemy who destroys him and uber spy or not--he really didn't know why he was dying until Voldemort told. Killing Dumbledore all the things that Snape did to insure his cover were for naught. Voldemort believed Snape was loyal--he killed him anyway.

And the question of "Great Literature" would seem to me an attempt to try and seperate what we do and don't like of the novel from how Jo attacked the material.

Perhaps we can compare parts of the book that we find--as literature-- powerful or innovative--to sections of the book that seem to flounder in style and coherence?

I'm sorry, Maime, left out the apostrophe Ess. What Harry feels is the trauma Voldemort exerpienced along with his own more mature understanding. Not a fear of Voldemort. Harry retains the memories of Voldemort from that night and relives them with the onset of the Dementors.
I'm confused. Was Ari reprimanding someone? And Harry was not kidnapped and abused by strangers; he was taken in by his aunt and cared for, even if only in a minimal fashion.
Well, this is what he does at thirteen years, not at fifteen months.
Well, this is truly subjective. And you can't exactly dismiss what fans say --you yourself are a fan.Ah, so does Harry suffer from this "behaviour disorder" or is it the Dursleys who do?
Hmmmm. So, Harry has a behaviour disorder and Lily's a shrew? I'm not sure I like this diagnosis.

I don't see this version of the "mudblood" incident at all. Snape's feelings are conflicted. He both believes the abstraction that Mudbloods are lesser creatures and the concrete anomaly of his love for Lily. That he cannot reconcile the two is his problem. It's not until he decides to appeal to Dumbledore to protect her that he makes his choice between the two and gives up his belief in the abstraction.

I'm sorry, but the edit proposed would be absurd. Snape is not lying. And he calls Lily "mudblood" to cover up his shame and humiliation. Recall that it is Snape whom Harry feels for when he emerges from the pensieve, not his mother or father. And Lily accuses James of being "as bad as he is". These are conceited 15 year old boys role-playing at being famous Quidditch players or powerful Death Eaters. Her cutting comments to Snape are similar to those she launched at James. And they're neither preachy nor shrewish, but accurate assessments of the two boys. James does become less conceited sometime in the next year or so, while Snape, being withdrawn and insecure, cannot choose a different course so easily.

I'm not dismissing what fans think, but trying to say--poorly expressed it seems -- there is a difference in a discussion as to whether or not fans believed Harry suffered trauma and a discussion as to whether or not Jo presented Harry's dilemma in a artistic way that can be interpreted as great literature.

We the readers, declaring that we like the story, although absolutely valid and worthy, is not the stuff of critical regard unfortunately.

I don't think he passed out when he was fifteen months, we don't know really. However, the Dementor attack is not like the Pensieve memory where Harry inserts his feelings on what he witnesses for the first. The only emotions and memories the Dementors can pull out of thirteen year old Harry are those which were stored and repressed in his mind at fifteen months old. At fifteen months old, it is doubtful Harry had the language to express the feelings, but that doesn't mean he didn't feel then exactly what he felt when he "remembered" what happened. He couldn't have remembered this helplessness had he not felt it...

And the trauma, is the seperation. Harry is taken from one enviornment, one set of care-givers and given to another. Ever see a fifteen month old go to the baby-sitters for the first time?
Even if it is Grandma, after a couple of hours there is anxiety.

No, it is clear that unlike Harry and Snape, that Voldemort's disorder was present when he was a baby. The matron describes Tom as having unusual behavior from early childhood.
However, when a child runs away, the authorities will look to see if it is indicative of a disorder in the child--or dsyfuntion in the child's envirornment, like abuse or neglect. But Harry's reactions are very typical of an abused child, not a child with a behavior disorder--but a behavior disorder is exactly what Rita and Umbridge accuse him of--which is very typical of an abusive adult. Look at Vernon and Petunia-- We're not neglecting him, Harry is disturbed.. Jo did her homework on this bit.


In your opinion Snape calls Lily a mudblood to cover his shame and himiliation. There are other readers who think Snape called Lily a "mudblood" because he could see she like James and he was angry with her. But Bottom line--Snape called Lily a Mudblood, not a stupid girl, or a Gryffindor, but a Mudblood. He's not just spitting out any kind of put down. That is why Lily returns with Snivillus. He doesn't call James a Mudblood, or Sirius--he calls Lily, a Muggleborn girl he has known since they were nine, a Mudblood and this is something he couldn't do and make it hurt unless there is an implication of how he thought of her. Does the phrase hurt James or Lily?

But the edit was not about content, but presentation. With food, presentation makes the difference between how much we're willing to pay for a plate of catfish, redbeans and rice, and I think literature is the same.

The point I was trying to make with the edit was just that--a major criticism of Jo's work is the editing process. Not changing the material, but some economy. Stephen King loves Jo's work but things she could spare us some adverbs.

Maime, I didn't say that at all. No normal person would ever say that to a child. He carried her love around with him--literally, in his blood. That is a bond to last for all time. The bond was broken, yes, but every time we lose someone we love a bond is broken. It is a part of life, but that doesn't mean we love them any less. What is that film-Sirius says, "The dead don't ever truly leave us, as long as we remember them in here [heart]."

At 18 months, the memory span is about 2 days, if that. That's why it's so easy to wean kids when they are under 2--they fret for a couple of days, then they forget about it. He will miss his parents, but he doesn't really remember them.


Young children are marvelously resilient, Maime. They adjust rather quickly to most changes. The younger they are when faced with a traumatic event, the better, to be honest. They do not understand what's happened, and ignorance is bliss. They are able to adapt remarkably well in most cases.

And how did Petunia feel? I don't think she would be able to stand by and not give a baby at least some attention. It's entirely possibly that she wasn't rotten to him until a little later, when he started showing signs of magic. She was in shock, too, and if Harry was impacted by the change then Dudley must have been as well.


Intelligence at a young age has nothing to do with how well he adapted, IMO. What enabled him to survive was the strong bond he shared with both of his parents, Lily especially, and probably Sirius as well.


He is sensing other people's feelings, not his own. That's where we differ. He wasn't even aware that he had those memories until POA.


And yet Harry does not turn out behaviorally impaired or attachment disabled in any way. He forms a bond with Ron almost immediately on meeting him. He goes on to form another with Hermione. He's not suspicious, he's not afraid. He becomes friends with them without hesitation. That is not someone who has been overly traumatized as a baby.

Did Harry rebel? If so, then he's no different than any other teenager.


IMO, indifference is worse than outright neglect. But I agree that there is no way (at this point in the social sciences) to know what children will be harmed the most.


I'd say none of the characters with the exception of Snape was truly physically harmed--that we know of. Harry was emotionally deprived, and Voldemort we're not sure about. But Voldemort had one thing that Harry and Snape didn't have: the ability to fight back. He made everyone else afraid of him rather than fearing anyone.


I think this is hitting the nail on the head, davidenglish.


Yes. The hierarchy of needs. Regardless of his emotional well-being, they still gave him the basic necessities of life, which is more than some children ever get. And I wonder if it's not so much that Harry was abused but that Dudley was so spoiled, if that makes any sense.

And yet in the end, Petunia almost comes around. Dudley proves himself a man in a way we couldn't have hoped for--the courage to admit that maybe he was wrong.

I think Petunia is greatly exaggerated as a character. If someone put my sister's son on my doorstep, there's no way I could neglect him no matter how I felt about her.

Sorry, I went over the number of quotes..


I disagree, Maime. Usually they fret for a few minutes at first, then as soon as you leave and they can't see you, they are perfectly fine. They forget all about you.

I'm not certain what you're saying here, althugh I agree that some children are marvelous at survival.

Your assessment is that Harry had enough bonding with his parents to shield him from Vernon's and Petunia's abuse and neglect for the next ten years. Whether it took Harry a week or a year to adjust to sleeping in a cupboard, doesn't change the fact that a child should not have to adjust to sleeping in a cupboard under the stairs. And when we meet him, Harry tells us how he has dreamed of rescue but has lost hope. No one is coming for him. This of course is the Cinderella fairy tale, but stripped of the Good Fairy, there's nothing very funny about a child who is disinherited and forced into servitude in her own house by someone she has to call Mother. That part is reality--the escape is the fantasy.

So-- is Harry shielded from the affect of the Dursley's abuse by his first fifteen years with his parents? Is there evidence that Harry didn't mind how the Dursley's treated him, or are we told that Harry learned certain defense mechanisms? " Page 26 SS/PS

The child, no matter how strong, is not responsible for how he is cared for. The adult care givers are, and the reason I hesitate dimissing the fact that Harry 'survived" the neglect and abuse with the assertion that children are resiliant, because with the wrong interpretion, one might think it fair to shift the responsiblity for a child's mental and emotional well being in a case where there is neglect and abuse, to the child. Harry at fifteen months old was not able to provide for himself, and part of the lessons a child learns in those first fifteen months is trust of those big people. That mummy and Daddy person takes care of his needs as well as his wants.

It is to Harry's credit that he survives, but it was not his responsibilty at fifteen months to care for himself. One gets the idea that at nine, Snape was as independent as any latch key kid was when my children were coming up--even more so, because Snape didn't want to go home. And we know that child who shows up at your door step at dawn and leaves after dusk. Sometimes it's neglect, sometimes it's abuse, sometimes the child is just lonely, --sometimes the parents are working too long hours.

Snape shouldn't have the choice of having to flee his parent's house because they are so enamoured of fighting with each other he has to care for himself. What I do not see --remembering how this debate began--is where Harry's sitiuation at the Dursley's is seen as an advantage over Snape's homelife. They were both miserable at home. At least Snape had Lily, before he had Hogwarts--and he always had the hope that he was going to Hogwarts--Harry has no idea there is escape until his letter arrives.

Harry does survive. He does adapt--but he shouldn't have had to. And I think Jo makes this clear--that Harry has little choice but to endure, but to ask a child to bare so great a burden is unfair-especially when the adults in his life could make other choices.

Oh I've seen children cry for hours if not the entire time. The crying stops when the child recognizeds a pattern--and their little internal clocks tell them at this time Mum or Dad will be back--let Mum or dad be an hour late.... There is anxiety around nap time, food time. Ever see those nanny cams? They are necessary because parents note some behavior changes in their children than concern them. But even in a loving child care setting any child under four has limits as to how long he or she wnats to be without Mum or Dad. In fact when they get around two, they have no problem letting you know, it's time for Mum to come and get them.

And Harry wasn't placed in an friendly enviornment. And what choice did he have, no matter how much he cried for his mummy, Petunia didn't have the means to bring Lily to him. I'd love to know what she did at night, did she hold him until he went to sleep, was she too grief stricken and too --well I can't think of any polite words for Petunia--but did she just cut herself off from the noise until it stopped.

But what interest me--is Dudley, not Petunia hears Harry crying about Cedric. Dudley remembers Harry's Birthday, Dudley wonders who cares so much about Harry the keep sending letters, Dudley is the one who worries what will happen to Harry while they hide out. Did Dudley abuse Harry at first, or was he encouraged to?

Once again getting away from the subject of the thread--and I'm just as guilty as veering away--but the discussion is fascinating. Perhaps we start a thread entitled Child Development According to Harry Potter?

I'm sorry, but the most learned criticism I've read of Harry Potter that dismissed it as great literature were also riddled with the most fundamental errors that even a minor fan could spot.

I'm confused by this statement. I'm unaware of people questioning whether Harry had an unpleasant time at 4 Privet Dr. And your original statement claimed fans thought Snape was more hard done by. I don't believe anyone thinks Harry was traumatised in his childhood. Even Dumbledore, who describes Harry's treatment at the Dursleys as cruel and neglectful, feels he escape any real damage.

I'm not sure what pensieve memory you are referring to, but I will repeat my contention that Voldemort's memories that were stored in his mind when the fragment of soul latched onto him. Harry's memories, which are comingled with these, are too perfect and too intense to be that of a fifteen month old child. They are, as I showed by quoting the passage in Bathilda's Secret, very much the shock, terror and trauma felt by the broken Dark Lord.

And yet what Mrs Cole describes is not so different from the behaviour of Harry. Indeed, the magic Harry performs unwittingly is, though not cruel and hurtful, similarly odd and inexplicable. Petunia saw her sister's magic as freakish and was herself hurt by Snape whose feelings brought a tree branch down upon her.

Ah, and so jealousy doesn't mix with shame and humiliation? How odd! I would have thought that having a potential rival expose your underpants to your best female friend and having yourself defended from these macho bullies by a girl would elicit a most powerful and spiteful slur. He cannot call James or Sirius mudbloods as they are both purebloods. That would be absurd.

And what would Lily have done had Snape dropped his Slytherin crowd? It's the House he lives in. It's his peer group. He'd be breaking with them to be with Lily and he'd be called a blood-traitor. I'm sorry, but a child as lonely as Snape is going to have a hard time accepting even greater isolation because of love. Indeed, that's why Snape can't bring himself to do it until he's twenty. Then he can face being by himself.

I'm sorry, but there are no adverbs in that shameful memory in The Prince's Tale and only a half dozen in Snape's Worst Memory. And I don't actually believe that was the point you were trying to make. But that's just my opinion, right?

Exactly--then that means one of two things, either I was lax in my presentation--or we're talking about two entirely different things. Sorry--You seem to be defending Snape's choice to call Lily a mudblood. We don't agree as to why he did it, but that doesn't matter--at least in this thread where we are discussing Jo's artistic abilities. Canon: He said it and Lily cut him off.

I'm questioning was there a more lyrical fashion or creative way for Jo to write what both Lily and Snape felt when Lily found it necessary to break off the relationship. One thing that bothered me about that scene was that there was nothing to suggest Lily felt any particular sorrow in having to break off the relationship--she seemed relieved, well rid of him--she was tired of having to defend him to her friends. She was well within her rights to break off the friendship, because of what Snape has chosen, in fact it was the only healthy choice a young person could make, if Snape refused to see the truth about his friends and Voldemort and the darkness in himself, but one does wonder if seeing this darkness in her childhood playmate "hurt" Lily. In th escene she comes off as a trifle shrewish and self-righteous. If she loved Snape--tough love was necessary because of the seriousness of Snape's descent into the Death Eaters. But the nagging, shrewish image remains. We know how Snape felt about losing Lily, but we wonder how Lily felt about losing Snape. Did it matter to her that he didn't heed her warnings? Did she ever find out he was a Death Eater, did she mourn the lost of her friend?

No... the original arugment David was whether or not Snape has less opportunity--to make friends to escape the draw of the Dark Arts than Harry had the same age. It was birthed after someone said that Snape as a child was miserable and without hope, but the Prince's tale seems to show a Snape who does have hope and ambition and choices. He doens't have a happy home life, but he has great expectations--pun intended--of Hogwarts and the Wizard World.

If readers think Harry was unaffected or not damaged then the question whether Jo's writings skills are up to par seems more than revelant. According to Jo:

Empahsis mine.

http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/0...-johnstone.html

Emphasis mine.

So if Jo feels she has created in Harry a character who is damaged and has suffered, but endured and fans don't see this, is this due to a lack of writing ability? Why isn't Harry's suffering and damage clear to most readers, as most, as you say, feel that Harry is not truly affected by the horrible things that happen to him.

It means that kids are tougher than we give them credit for. Everyone needs stress to some degree; we can't shield children from it forever, nor should we. In Harry's case, it made him stronger, although he probably didn't view it as stress as a child. What I'm getting at is that things happen in life that we can't control. I'm of the opinion that the sooner kids learn that life isn't fair, the better off they'll be. Now, that doesn't include having your parents killed, but Harry was so young when it happened that he doesn't even remember them.

I'd like to go back to my thestral question from the last thread. Why couldn't Harry see the thestrals? He should have been able to. It wasn't until after Cedric's death in GOF that he could see them. Neville, too, could see them. Why? Was what Neville witnessed in some way worse than what happened to Harry all those years ago?

It's not until after Cedric's death--at the beginning of OOTP--that Harry begins to show signs of stress. It is Cedric's death that affects him in ways his parents' never did. Why? Not only did he see it happen, but he is old enough to understand what that means.


Of course he is. But that quote refers to why Draco can do Occulmency and Harry can't. Harry can't push his emotions to the side the way Draco can. I don't think it's so much that he's damaged as that he cannot hide how he feels.

How many truly damaged kids never discuss their problems? Quite a bit. They're loners. They don't trust people and they don't--can't--confide in anyone. This is not Harry. Even if he is "damaged", he does quite well for himself.

If we have Tom and Harry on opposite sides of the bonding issue, then Snape is somewhere in the middle. Obviously he has contact with his mother, but his father is abusive. Considering the bad rap fathers get in the HP novels, Snape's not doing too badly, either. The importance of this is, I think, to show the influence of a father on a child as well as a mother. Snape's poor relationship was mitigated by the presence of his mother.

They have to be. But that does not mean they are less entitled to their pain, especially when it it comes at the hands or mouths of adults who know better. There is a fine line between allowing an abused child justice and and leaving him victimized. That the child is tough and can take is no excuse for us as adults to allow other adults to dish it out.





That particular quote was made in the year 2000--HBP had not debuted yet, so Jo is not speaking of Occlumency, but of the hero's journey. It comes after POA and before GOF debuted. What Jo says here, that part of the Hero's journey must be adversity--he must know pain, and suffering. He has to have reason to quit--but because he is the hero he cannot quit, he must find ways to endure the pain, master it, own it, as we see Harry do in DH. He does not run from the pain--it is his as much as joy is his. But he does master or own the pain when he is fifteen months old, or fifteen years old for that matter.

The second quote was after HBP in 2005.



This is what I meant by, I'm not certain what you are saying. I'm 100% certain that you are not you saying that ther are benfifits to an adult abusing a child. But if being placed in a cupboard at fifteen months made Harry stronger, then certainly having to put up with bickering parents should have made Snape stronger? There is little evidence that Snape was abused by his parents as a toddler--he's still breathing, he's intelligent, there is no sign of any deformity that would have been caused by damage in infancy.... The neglect would be recent. The mortality rate of children abused as infants is appalling...

That Harry doesn't remember his parents, doesn't mean he doesn't feel the pain or suffer because of the loss of his parents. The entire second chapter of SS/PS outlines what the loss of his own parents has meant to Harry's life. Harry's parents were killed. He was taken from his home at the vulnerable age of fifteen months. He couldnt exactly pack up and leave when he was a toddler or owl Dumbledore for help--and anyway--Dumblewho? As he notes: Harry had dreamed and dreamed of some unknown relatin coming to take him away but it had never happpened; the Dursleys wer his only family. Page 30 and Later Snape had Lily at school and at home...

And what does a fifteen month old child know about learning that life isn't fair? Because the child doesn't call it stress, doesn't mean that it not. He's pale, he's undernourished, he has lost hope of fair and loving treatment and rescue, he's manipulating his care givers for a day out, he's longing for a friend or confidant or answers.

I would argue that passing out whenever a Dementor approached, when the other children stayed conscious is a sure sign of stress--so we will have to agree to disagree on that one. The Thestrals do not represent stress. They do not bring death into one's life. It just means you've seen it--it doesn't mean the sight of death is stressful. The dementors represent depression, stress. Certainly tears are sign of stress and we see him hiding tears in POA. We see him feeling helpless and desperate to help his mother--he loses tract of where he was and could have been killed. We see Harry ready to kill, telling the man he thinks killed his parents about the horror of hearing his mother plead for his life....

At what point does the care giver recognize that their lessons on how tough life is are abusive: when the child, as Harry does risks his life by running away?

That we know now that Sirius wouldn't have harmed a hair on Harry's head does not change the fact that Harry solution to maltreatment was to put himself in potential danger. And certainly, with his money Harry has more resources than most children his age who run away from impossible situations in their homes. But he still endangered himself.

I'm interested in the original question of this thread: "Is Harry Potter considered 'Great Literature'?" There was some good discussion in the previous version about language, construction, the development of concepts, etc. Now, it seems that this thread has become just another "great Snape debate". May I suggest that there are plenty of other threads for that?

Jo has created a magical universe, peopled with interesting characters who confront complex moral dilemmas. Her plots are tightly constructed; she's brilliant at laying the "land mine" in such a deceptively simple way that we never expect the explosion that happens later. She has a detailed understanding of a wide variety of ancient lore and weaves it all into a compelling whole.

At the very least, this series is a great read. But is it great literature? Language is a key issue in that question. Jo's language works successfully to advance her story. It's sometimes clever, often funny and too infrequently evocative. In the end her mastery of language doesn't match her mastery of plotting and imagination.

I would submit that in a great work of literature, language is an integral part of the greatness: language that is memorable, language that rolls off your tongue and around your brain, language that pulls you into the story, language that keeps you there even when the story lags.

It doesn't have to be fancy; it doesn't have to be dense or difficult to understand, but it has to add its own innate beauty to the whole. (In my opinion, a great modern example is "The Lovely Bones", by Alice Sebold.) As much as I have loved Harry Potter, I think it misses being great literature because it lacks great language.

No, I'm not defending Snape. I'm accurately describing why he insulted her, which is something Harry is capable of understanding and he says as much. It's interesting that Harry and Snape shared a great deal before coming to Hogwarts: the baggy clothes, the bad hair, the lack of friends, the hostile home life, the Cinderella fantasy.
I'm not sure where you saw relief in Lily's parting argument. There was anger, frustration and concern, I don't see that she felt relief. The memory just prior to the "Mudblood" incident happens very close to the sitting of their OWLs and it too shows deep concern and indignation.

I'm afraid I must raise my eyebrows at the idea that Lily was "shrewish and self-righteous". That is plain silly. It makes me wonder if there isn't a bias against strong female characters leading to this conclusion. There is a debate between the two over what constitutes improper behaviour. Are the Marauders less culpable than Death Eater wannabes? At fifteen or sixteen, it's not so easy to tell. Lily doesn't believe the Marauders engage in dark magic, but three illegal animagi and a werewolf wandering free might also give her the creeps if she knew.

But the break has to do with the beginning of one's career choice. That's what happens when they sit OWLs, and Lily clearly cannot continue with someone who is choosing an opposing path. How this makes her shrewish is beyond me! (Although I'd be interested in what negative associations are held against Molly and Hermione.)
and later


I find these questions bizarre. I think that you're confusing an American usage of the word damage with UK usage. It's not nearly so scarring in Britain. Maybe it's due to the proliferation of personal injury lawyers in America.

I think there's also subjectivity in what constitutes abuse. And this "fine line" has often been used to tear families apart based on such things as cultural bias. Indeed, I'll link to JKR herself discussing the official perception of families in distress here.

It seems to me that one is setting up a series of strawmen in order to knock them down. I'm not sure what the point of minimizing Snape's suffering is supposed to do. Make him more culpable? Make sure he's sent to Hades after he dies? What? It seems to me that wanting to rank Harry's suffering as greater so one can dismiss Snape's is rather coldhearted. It's as if we were to be rationing compassion here and, oops, sorry, Severus, there's not enough for you. It's comparing apples and oranges.
But I would say that most of those unconscious memories belong to Voldemort. The extreme shock and terror come from him, and Harry's fear grows with his understanding of what he's reliving. It is a great, haunting moment when Harry --living through Voldemort's memories-- murders his own parents and tries to kill himself.

Dear me! And what does Sirius have to do with Harry's running away? Harry has no idea that Sirius is supposedly out to get him. And Harry runs away, not because he's abused, but because he's certain that the social workers at the Ministry of Magic will expel him for breaking the Decree for the Restriction of Underage Wizardry. He'd been threatened with "consequences" unjustly at the beginning of CoS and later he was actually framed by that uber-social worker, Dolores Umbridge, in OotP. And, indeed, Fudge feels awkward when Harry asks why he's not being punished for blowing up his aunt, because, of course, it's clearly the inconsistent application of policy.

That's not what I meant, Maime. What I am saying is that in the context of huge life changes, kids are more adaptable than adults, probably because they don't fully understand what's going on. As I said, ignorance is bliss. Now, change after change after change in rapid succession isn't good, but putting Harry with Petunia at such a young age might not have been all that traumatic. That's what I'm getting at.


Yes, and the reasoning is the same. Harry is not traumatized to the point where he cannot function normally, but he can't hold his emotions in. And he's got a temper that he's struggled for 7 books to control. That probably has something to do with it, too.


Of course I'm not saying that! We don't know that he was in the cupboard at 15 months, so your comment is speculation at best. What I am saying is that while some things may be hard for children to understand (and again, at 15 months Harry most certainly didn't understand what was going on), it's not necessarily traumatic to the point that it impedes development. Even Dumbledore says that Harry has escaped the appalling damage inflicted on Dudley. That speaks volumes, and probably has something to do with Harry's ability to love.



Bold mine. Of course he doesn't know that life isn't fair at 15 months, but I'm confused. You're making it sound like Harry is a depraved future reprobate or juvenile delinquent if he is manipulating people. I don't see that at all.


He is now 13 years old and is in a position to understand what happened. He isn't reliving that moment--we don't feel his fear from that moment. We feel his fear from the present moment, the fact that he feels helpless to help Lily. And I think any of us would feel the same way.


But that's not why he runs away. He runs because he's afraid he's going to be expelled for underage magic.


I agree, MinervaHT. Her writing is very conversational, and while most people love it, it may not stand the test of time.


I can understand why Lily was angry, but my nagging question is this: Why did she break off the friendship only after he called her a Mudblood? If she'd witnessed him calling other people Mudblood, she should have been just as angry and willing to break it off then. Of course, we don't know if he did or didn't do that, but I have a problem with everyone thinking St. Lily is perfect. I guess that's one of my gripes, that Lily is portrayed as sickeningly sweet perfect. She's the Virgin Mary of the Potterverse who apparently doesn't have a single flaw.

I think the Marauders are just as culpable as the DE Wannabes. If Snape is guilty of cursing James, then James is twice as guilty for starting it, and on a whim, too. He's even worse than Snape--he is a bully, and Sirius is borderline sociopathic. (IMO)


I was wondering about that. Could you explain a little more? Not the personal injury lawyers, of course. Just why the term "damaged" doesn't mean quite the same thing in Britain as it does in America.



I just have one teeny disagreement with this. JKR says that Snape is culpable, because he has been loved and he knows what it is to love. But I agree that I'm not convinced that Harry has suffered any more or any worse than any other character. IMO, Neville's had the worst deal of the bunch next to Voldemort.

This thread has lost the plot. To get to the point: Stephen Fry explicitly states this is NOT great literature and he is sure Jo "does not claim" it is. See link below (French dubbing) Fry's voice below that of the voiceover:
http://www.dailymotion.com/related/1140895...y-potter-et-moi
BBC OMNIBUS and A&E coproduction 2002; French broadcast edit only.

Why argue with the consummate audio interpreter of Jo Rowling and, presumably, Jo herself? Anyone who loves and truly grasps the English language appreciates that the Potter prose is lumbering, prosaic, lacking in sparkle, imagination, or poetry. But, that's what makes the books so accessible, and, one could easily argue, is one of the many secrets of the series' success.
The other components include exceptional narrative drive, plotting, structure, character development; accurate observation, outstanding understanding of human, especially child-adolescent, nature; occasionally pitch-perfect ear for dialogue; outstanding research into folklore, classics, alchemy, mythology etc.; consistently funny; and a comfortable grasp of the thriller, adventure, romantic comedy, and child literature genres but to name a few.

Fry and Jo Rowling are correct, however, it does not claim to be, nor is it, great English literature.

I thought that is exactly why Dumbledore calls it "remarkable", and Griphook calls it "strange", about Harry. If Harry falls in the average statistics, he won be the hero here.

From Maime:

"What I do not see --remembering how this debate began--is where Harry's sitiuation at the Dursley's is seen as an advantage over Snape's homelife."

A Correction -

This chain started with my idea that Harry received affection, especially loving, physical interactions, for his first fifteen months, a crucial period of child development, and I thought that JKR showed that Snape did not receive that high level of interaction from his parents. Thus, Harry had a basic advantage over Snape, as they made later choices.

Incidentally, continuing the theory that VD represents at the subconscious level a deep internal rage -
The increasing communication of VD's feelings is consistent with Harry breaking down the mental barriers to feeling his own rage and eventually, destroying-integrating it into his mind. If that theory is true, then we might be able to tease out whether JKR intended any subconscious symbolism of the Horcruxes and the Hallows and the sequence that they are destroyed or used ...

From Davidenglish - "I'm sorry, but I tend to find pop psych theories as villainous as an edict from Dolores Umbridge."

This may be psychology but I am not sure why you call it 'pop'. You might have negative perceptions of psychology and the related practitioners or how people generally can be quite cruel and demeaning when discussing psychology ... However, you would need to explain in more detail your intellectual criticism, even though I can understand your visceral reaction. Anyway, we are discussing possible subconscious symbolism and conflict that the reader senses emotionally and how that is harmoniously worked into the other parts of this series. Whether this is a reasonable criterion to judge literature might be what you are complaining about? Arianrhod said that she thought it was an interesting question: "I've been thinking about this for several days."

For rotfang08 - Whether JKR indicates through her reader, Fry, that this is or is not great literature might contribute to the discussion but that information is not a deciding factor. The question of greatness is a decision for her readers as time passes. As a humorous aside: In response to my question about self-judgments, a great professor once told me that graduate students' opinions of the importance of their own research is, if related at all, at best inversely proportional to its value.

Terrence, if neither the author nor anybody around her considers her work great literature that pretty much seals the deal for any rational and intelligent person.
Better still, if a reader of the English language can't differentiate between the brilliance of Shakespeare, Austen, Chaucer, and the pop scribblings of Dickens and Rowling then they aren't capable of judging anything. Even my youngest nieces and nephews can tell Rowling is not much more than great fun and a brilliant storyteller.
As for the psychological analysis in the thread, after 30 years studying the subject one thing I'm certain of: psychology it aint.
Let me know when you graduate.

To Rotfang08

Well, no one can accuse you of not speaking your mind. It is interesting that you have thirty years studying psychology, not my field, and you don't agree with the books containing any. For what it is worth, you are the first person to say that I am not intelligent - maybe some others have only thought it! Anyway, whether this series is great literature or not is not a "sealed deal" that can be decided only by your reporting that Fry and associates don't think so. I still maintain that the harmonious integrity of the work on different levels of meaning might be the deal breaker for me. Congratulations! that your youngest nieces and nephews are so erudite, too.

FWIW, I'm in the camp of "Not Great Literature" but not because some actor/writer/comedian says it's so--or, rather, that it isn't so. And because the author herself says it's not so again is no reason for the rest of us to pack our bags and go home. This isn't a question that the actor and the author get to decide. We readers and the critics and the professors and other writers will pass judgment together, over time. And even then, naturally, opinions will vary.

Look, I'm just a hourly civil-servant grunt who (barely) graduated from a State university and most times I have to run to keep up here, but it seems to me that this discussion (and most of the discussions here at OB) are peopled by beings both rational and intelligent (and humorous and civil, BTW).

Of course, your mileage may vary. As I see it does.

Ah, my mother's bestfriend's father was the head of the psychology department at a major Canadian university. It was a standing joke in her bestfriend's household that, for all her father's great learning in human psychology, he was clueless as to what motivated his family, his friends, the students and faculty members.

Personally, I think novelists, playwrights, poets and storytellers have always been better at divining the heart, mind and soul of people than psychologists. (And the only difference between pop psych and prof pscyh is one has tenure.)

Shakespeare has his brilliant moments, but he can also spout poetic nonsense that's racist, sexist, bigoted and politically expedient. Austen is a wonderful author, and I highly recommend the passage in Northanger Abbey where she defends the novel, but even she was not recognized by academe as "great literature" until quite late in the game. (And there is a certain psychological irony to the term Janeites, used to describe fans, both lay and academic. --Personally, it abhor the term.) Chaucer? Well, I suppose, though few actually read him as written and I suspect there not really that much difference between him and Rowling in storytelling or style. And Dickens is just a pop scribbler, eh? Well, well, best run over to the English Dept and give them the heads up, eh, what?

Of course, dismissing Dickens, who was dismissed as a pop scribbler by his literary comtemporaries --most of whom are now forgotten-- but who has been raised to the status of Classic by several generations of critics and academics, just reveals the tricky nature of judging JK Rowling. Anyone who can't see the literary merits of Dickens isn't capable of judging anything!

First of all, one cannot compare apples and oranges. JK Rowling is writing for children. She must therefore be judged alongside the likes of Lewis Carroll, JM Barrie, Arthur Ransome, Rosemary Sutcliff, CS Lewis, JRR Tolkien, Lucy Boston, Edith Nesbit, Philippa Pearce, Roald Dahl, Susan Cooper, TH White, Madeleine L'Engle, Ursula Leguin, Elizabeth Goudge and others. In the company of these great authors, JK Rowling fits very nicely and I suspect will remain a key player for the next hundred years. It is irrelevant to compare her to Dante or Homer or Joyce.

Of course, children's literature is very young. It was only 200 years ago that the folktales told by mothers and grandmothers were copied down and published. And even now, so-called experts on childhood seem rather clueless as to what children really think or feel. That JK Rowling can recall vividly what it means to see the world through the eyes of an eleven year old is what makes her great.

Great merit isn't great literature. Yes, Rowling fits nicely into the secondary category of merit you list. Yes, most academics can't feel their way out of a brown paper bag. No, great merit aint great literature. And, yep in our imperfect world most, if not all, of the true greats are afflicted with prejudice from Shakespeare, to Marlowe, to Wagner etc. But in the end only children and adult fantasists think you can make a silk purse from a sow's ear.

"Secondary category"? Good heavens! Why, that's like the NYTimes being forced to create a "secondary" bestseller list for children's lit just to get Harry Potter out of the top spots of its "primary" list.

And if "great literature" isn't being ranked by paperbag professors like bloviator Bloom (Harold), then who are these true great judges? I'm sorry, but I'll have to go with a Darwinian theory of great literature and say that Time alone is the true great judge.

BTW, shouldn't Shakespeare be classed in the secondary category of Drama? His "great" lit was considered mere "play" in his own lifetime. In the end, only playgoers and adult thespians (and some boy actors) thought you could make a silk purse out of that sow's ear.

Of course, I'm sure there are some who prefer Nahum Tate's King Lear.

If Time is the judge Shakespeare wins hands down he revolutionised both spoken and written English. The King James Bible might make it onto a great literature list, as might Isaiah, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes in their better translations.
But Oh dear, the NYT best seller list as a measure for great literature, now that is scraping the barrel. Shall we include the Da Vinci Code? And, no, Shakespeare's writings were never considered mere "play" in his lifetime, or after, the publication of his complete works within 7 years of his death and Ben Johnson's claim that he was the "Soul of the age" and that "He was not of an age, but for all time", are a tiny measure of the esteem in which he was held during his lifetime.
There isn't a single great writer in England who would contemplate for a nano second putting Rowling in the category of great English Literature. It would be an abuse of language, demean all sense, and make a mockery of Rowling's own intelligence. She has said her work is "good storytelling", in fact it is great storytelling, but let's get real, great lit it aint.
I'm a fan of her work which is why I would never insult either her, or anyone else's, intelligence by describing it as great literature. Rowling's work has so much to recommend it on its own merits, why make a mockery of it by describing it as something it so clearly is not?
No one I know describes Rowling's prose as anything but leaden, clumsy, mundane, clunky and in need of severe editing, but what saves her books are all the innumerable qualities that I have listed endlessly elsewhere. She is a great storyteller, a great human being, and a great soul and we are lucky to have her around. But, most of all, she is honest. She herself, and all those around her, deny she produces great literature, that should be enough for anyone of integrity. It is enough that she has produced a "classic" of children's literature in her own lifetime, that she is adored and admired for it, as well as all the other amazing good deeds she has accomplished and continues to perform.

Well, way to be nasty, rotfang07. Excuse us for being rank amateurs--and for all that, we seem to know a hell of a lot more about human nature--of fictional characters or otherwise--than you do.


I agree. Even today there are those who argue about the merits of Shakespeare. Now, HP will never be in that league, IMO, but in 50 or 100 years, who knows? It will almost certainly be a "cult" classic (which most critics hate), though.


Yes, well, the KJV is a corrupt translation of other sources, so I seriously hope you are not counting on it for accuracy. If accuracy is a criteria for "great literature", then I'm afraid you're going to have to look elsewhere.


Time will tell. See you in 50 years, then we can have this argument again.

I am one of those that does not feel a book has to have lines of Prose and Peotry to be considerd Great Lit. Obscurus has several threads where the message of Rowlings books are being analysed from it's Religous symbology to the roles of Gender and even the concepts of the moral ambiguety of Violence. Just because Jo doesn 't wish to preach about these topics doesn't mean they cannot be anaylsed or inspire.

I have read what can be called "Fast Food" books which didn't inspire me or seem to have any message at all. Rowling's books seem far more intelligent then those.

While I don't feel HP will ever be a "cult Classic" (which shouldn't immedatly be labled as "bad reading") 50 years time will be a far better judge as Ari has pointed out.

I'm with you Shard. There's no hard and fast rule to define "great literature" and never has been. Literary criticism has as many fads as literature itself, and the "rules" change with every generation of critics.

It can't come down to language alone - language changes (and so does what is considered "high" language - when many of those books were written the language wasn't high, it was common!); it can't be a single plot point or inclusion ("happy" vs "sad" ending etc) because great work cannot be done to a formula. Does the story grip the reader? Are the characters engaging (given the amount of Snapeness out there I think this one's pretty clear)? Does the author write with a consistent and unique voice? Well, then it's good lit! But in the end what has always happened is that the work survives or it doesn't - it's honestly that simple. If people are still reading it generations later then the author was doing something right.

Keeping with the subject, here is a list of the Time's idea of the 100 best novels

http://www.time.com/time/2005/100books/the...plete_list.html

Read some of the original reviews. It's very interesting.

Did you read the one for Lord of the Rings?

"The hobbit habit seems to be almost as catching as LSD. On many U.S. campuses, buttons declaring FRODO LIVES and GO GO GANDALF—frequently written in Elvish script—are almost as common as football letters. Tolkien fans customarily greet each other with a hobbity kind of greeting ("May the hair on your toes grow ever longer"), toss frag