My comment about the kids' souls wasn't so much a condemnation of their actions as a sort of motherly surge of anxiety. It just seemed to me that they were having to face a ton of more disturbing things, and they seemed so young. Part of it was their more mature clothes. You know the thing parents always say, "They grow up too soon!" I don't know where that is coming from in my case, but I just want to protect them. Not that that would do them any good. So it was a strictly emotional comment, not a moralistic one.
To respond to the moralistic critiques, though, I would say that Harry's breaking of the rules is not necessarily laudable but certainly understandable. I think realistic characters are good. I don't know what kind of fiction these conservative fathers read. Probably none.
About the ineffectiveness of the adults, I think that's true to a certain extent. There are seemingly a lot of bumbling adults. But I think a lot of it only results from the kids' refusal to be helped. Dumbledore is just what Harry needs - a powerful person he can trust - but Harry avoids him. He's always afraid to tell him the truth. It is the classic stiff-necked Israelite scenario.
Sirius is an example of an adult with some serious flaws and insecurities. Lupin has some problems, but I think his power is understated. So is Dumbledore's. Understatement is one of the things I most admire about the books. J.K. Rowling is able to let misunderstandings remain for a long time before she corrects them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment