[ SECRET POST #4422 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4422 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[Jimmy Carr]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Gerard Butler and Craig Ferguson]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Harry Potter]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Doctor Who]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Stargate Atlantis]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Harry Potter]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Image Source]











Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 27 secrets from Secret Submission Post #633.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

In my opinion, the thing about the Harry Potter books, especially the early ones, is that JK Rowling tended to write the adult characters in a way that resonates with child readers, and makes sense to child readers.

Children may feel that they've had a teacher who just didn't like them, or even a teacher who had it in for them. Was it actually that extreme? Probably (hopefully) not. But the child reads about how Snape treats Harry (and most of the Gryffindors) and relates to it very strongly.

Likewise, I think where bullying is concerned, a lot of kids tend to have an innate sort of feeling that they're on their own. Their peers can stand with them, giving them a stronger social stance and making the bullying hurt less. But the adults are out of it. The adults don't know, and wouldn't properly understand it if they did know, and can't be trusted to react as desired even if you told them. A lot of the professors (and perhaps especially McGonagall) reflect that childhood perception of adults. They're like living with elephants: power-having beings who sometimes come to your aid, sometimes are entirely oblivious, and sometimes crush you (while insisting they're crushing you for your own good).

Similarly, I think from a childhood perspective, the adult who low-key conspires to involve you in stuff that other adults shut you out of "for your own good," is a super cool adult who understands you and is probably, like, really wise. And you especially love them if it seems as though they favor you above many of your peers - the cool adult likes you the best, you must be special.

It's only as adults that we gain much real understanding of the nature of adult-child interaction; what responsibilities adults have towards children, and how being an adult rightfully shapes the goods and bads, rights and wrongs of interacting with children.

As adult readers, we recognize that the adults of Harry Potter often do not interact with children as an adult should: Snape is emotionally abusive. McGonagall is often negligent (when it suits the plot) or overly harsh (also when it suits the plot). And Dumbledore allows children to be involved in incredibly dangerous situations, yet doesn't give them enough information to be able to understand what danger they're really in. And he shows pretty blatant favoritism. And I'm sure similar arguments can be made for most of the other adult figures.

But the inappropriate behavior of the adults in Harry Potter has never really bothered me that much, because in my opinion, from a child perspective it feels true and relatable. Perhaps if I hadn't read the books until I was an adult, it would bother me more. But I read the first four books as a 12-year-old, and none of it gave me pause then.

[philstar22]

This is true. But I would add that the later books are trying to be more adult. They have more adult events and plot points. And yet the writing style remains the same. So it gets a little disjointed and weird in time because it seems like Rowling is trying to have it both ways.

[(Anonymous)]

i think the tone in the later books was intentional because it was meant to give the perception of being very alone and isolated in the worst of times. Harry, despite his friends and allies, was alone when he faced Voldemort in the end. it was probably a narrative choice taken to enhance the reveal that Harry had his spirit family with him the whole time and "was never alone all along".

[(Anonymous)]

Fair enough. The last time I read books 5, 6, and 7 are when they came out, so my memory for them isn't great. I agree with you, in that I don't remember the characterizations changing a ton in the later books. But I do remember getting a sense, in the later books, of the fallibility of the adult characters. Dumbledore isn't a Perfect Benevolent Sage Mentor. Snape isn't Villain McEvilpants so much as a miserable, stunted fuck-up. I can't remember if McGonagall's character becomes more complex as the books wear on though.

Also, personally, I find that the behavior of the profs which was so inappropriate when the kids were eleven doesn't seem as batshit when they're 16/17. Snape's abuse, Dumbledore and Mcgonagall's respective brands of negligence - none of it's good, but it normalizes with reality to some extent, as the kids come closer to being adults themselves.

[(Anonymous)]

this is such a great comment and i just might nab it for future reference. they were definitely great children's books and while "growing up" alongside the protagonist was great, it also meant they developed a massive tonal dissonance.

the first books are whimsical, fantastical and i think they do that incredibly well. sending a child into an abusive home is horrifying! but maybe it was more about the feeling that no one cared and no one understood and that it was boringly normal, in contrast to the amazing revelation that actually you're a wizard and rich and famous and your *real* parents were perfect cool people

[(Anonymous)]

sending a child into an abusive home is horrifying! but maybe it was more about the feeling that no one cared and no one understood and that it was boringly normal

I definitely agree with this. As adults we understand things like trauma and abuse and the long-term consequences of experiencing those things, in ways that most kids just don't. So for an adult, if taken seriously, Harry's home-life is staggeringly grim.

But I think what most kids get from it is a profound sense of injustice. Harry is relatable because his life (pre-Hogwarts) is bitterly humbling. He cannot please anyone; he cannot distinguish himself; the best thing he can be is invisible. To most kids, it merely seems like a more extreme case of they feel (i.e. If the cool kids don't notice you they won't brand you a loser. You're not going to win any performance awards in school but as long as you do alright in your classes your parents won't be Very Disappointed In You.) But unlike reality, in which most of us can't distinguish ourselves because there's just nothing overwhelmingly ~special~ about us and we haven't yet learned how to distinguish ourselves in any normal ways, in Harry's case, he is - gratifyingly - special but he can't distinguish himself because no one around him will let him. Harry is cruelly underappreciated! Harry is oppressed! Our overdeveloped childhood sense of injustice flares - as JK Rowling intended it to.