(reading as children)

[reenka]

I was reading fandom_wank out of sheer masochism again, and for the first time like, ever, someone said something that made me think, and not in the 'wtfeth??!' sort of way which has so tired me.
   Basically, this is a tangent as to whether one could classify the HP books as children's books, and what that might mean. I have never really had a solid opinion on whether they are or not-- I can be convinced either way, and there's a quote that implies JKR does find them to be children's books, dark and increasingly muddled with adult elements though they are, though before I thought she said she wrote them without an audience in mind.

That isn't what's interesting, though. Then white_serpent said,
    Beginning with book 4, though, the characters are older, and we expect more of the world surrounding them. But we don't get it. It's the same world which works on some levels and is gosh-wow! magic on others. It's the "gosh-wow! magic" bits that cause the problems. Healing magic? Mind/memory magic? These are neat conveniences, but they have wider implications that one can only conclude Rowling has not pondered.

To make them work, you need to read the books as you read when you're a child-- just accept the world for what it is. Accept the characters are supposed to be likeable because the book tells you they are. The instant I start applying critical thought to any of those factors, they fall apart.
    And something just clicked in my head-- why the deconstructive (rather than just speculative) type of HP meta itself has dissatisfied me for so long, and that's just it: it messes with the ability (or desire) to read as children and thus to have the story -or- the HP world itself really -work- in one's mind to its fullest capacity. And this is regardless of whether they're children's books or not.


Possibly this does nothing but explain how -I- feel, because I myself find that yeah, the books fall apart for me if I start applying critical, deconstructive thought too much and try to find out how they work-- the ethical/magical/world-building elements just don't hold up that well under real pressure, and yet there's also a feeling like I don't -have- to be disappointed if I just-- suspend my disbelief (which not everyone can... but perhaps that, more than anything, is why some books are meant for children). It's sort of like discovering that pretty birdsong you hear is just a wind-up toy with stuck-on parts and a broken foot.

    In my case, HP demonstrated this dichotomy between ways of reading especially clearly, because before I was seduced by the H/D fandom, when I first looked at the books, I'd refused to read past the first 10 pages because it just didn't make any sense, and in a way I felt the book was insulting my intelligence. And after some time in fandom... I found I loved Harry and his world so much that nearly everything in it delighted me and amused me. What might once have seemed ham-fisted now appeared quirky and fun-- or perhaps more importantly, I was so used to the Dursleys from fanfic, say, I was able to accept them in the books as just a part of Harry's life. It's just... the way they are.

With some children's books, like Alice in Wonderland, Peter Pan or the Narnia books and most especially fairy-tales of all kinds, they can definitely be both enjoyed and analyzed, though... I just don't get that same feeling with HP. Even with my class on Narnia and the other one on Alice and The Water-Babies and The Jungle Book, I felt... I don't know, entirely too grown-up. I don't know how else to explain it.

I can't help but feel that their strongest magic resides in the sheer glee of belief. When I read them, their worlds and characters become utterly real to me, the same way rocks and trees and clouds are real, and I get completely carried away from myself, to a world where literally anything is possible. And I admit that for all my attraction, emulation, admiration and deep respect for reason and doubt, I compulsively read YA fantasy in the first place because my first love has always been my sense of wonder.
~~

Also, I'm really starting to feel... like maybe there's a connection between liking strong, brave, intelligent girls as heroines (often dismissed by fandom because they're 'too perfect' and 'unrealistic' and Mary Sue-ish), and reading 'as a child'-- that is, looking up in some way, admiring, thinking of the glorious future when you could have adventures and be everything you ever wanted to be.

I still love characters like that, of course, and I don't think I always read blindly-- I just happen to love strong, self-possessed (bitchy also helps) women characters. I always liked heroes of all sorts, and since I definitely identified with being a girl, I looked for girls to admire and identify with, and there weren't a lot. When I grew older, it took more and more to make me really admire someone, I guess, but a part of me... is still willing to be wowed by fiery girls, in real life or in stories. Even when I got older, I don't think I really stopped looking for the truth in everything too good to be true.

Comments

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Okay, this is a pet peeve of mine, but I hate the whole "are they children's books?" thing, because the only reason anybody's asking it is because adults happened to like them--that is, the kind of adults who know nothing about children's books and so have to pretend if it's good it's not for children. Of course it is.

And in terms of magic I've always thought obviously they worked on a childlike level: a Pensieve works the way a child would think about memories: what if you could just take the memory and show it to someone else? You don't think through the physics of it, like how far one could wander and whether it's objective. It's just instinctual.

When it comes to subversive readings and deconstruction, and thinking about which people are good or bad, then children do those things as much as adults do. Why wouldn't a child respond to these characters using their own thoughts? They're not so passive as that. In fact, I think some of the discussions the "grown-ups" have in HP are childish--like when people seem to think it's analysis to talk about whether or not they're going to "forgive" Snape for what he did or how dreadful whatever character is so that they deserve what they got, or how whatever another character did is justified. Like anybody cares whether you personally want to be friends with a character or not!

But questioning where characters are coming from...I think that's something children do with HP just as adults do. Certain types of analysis and deconstruction are more adult, but questioning what they're learning from the story seems exactly the type of thing many kids enjoy doing. They might not always have the same perspective as an adult, but they might bring their own. And sometimes those adult perspectives are, imo, there in the text even if kids don't see them or can't quite understand them yet.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I wouldn't personally question the books' classification, though the question had been raised to JKR and she'd be slightly coy, I guess-- but in the end that's neither here nor there. I agree totally that it's instinctual to accept how magic objects work on a practical level-- I think the person I quoted was referring more to the meta 'what is the larger implication' level... on the mechanical one, that's just how magical devices work. I didn't want to generalize with any of this or anything-- dunno if I succeeded.... I was specifically thinking of how the books' characterizations of say, Gryffindors only work if you accept certain traits as inherently 'good', like, say, mischievousness, and otherwise they don't work as heroes. Though I don't know too much about this personally & sort of gather this from discussion.

At least, I wasn't thinking of how children respond to books-- well, I mean, I have only myself to go by. There's definitely no lack of opinion & individual reaction, but it's just more likely to be the simpler reaction that accepts more 'as is', and thus follows the story's indended path or goes against it but on the story's terms, still. I'm not sure-- I agree that adults' reactions can often be childish, but that's not the same as child-like, which makes me think less of tantrums and projection & more of being swept away...?

I can only say (about myself) that questioning can be of different sorts-- it can be simply wondering and picking up clues (sort of detective-style or just intuitively), which I definitely did as a child-- thought about what things meant-- and it can be deconstructive, where one looks at the book from a distance of sorts, examining it dispassionately and without much intuitive ability or desire to grasp of why this bit goes there and that bit here, I guess. I'm just thinking about my immediate dismissal of the Dursleys as cardboard-cutout and predictable and stupid (offensive, even), and my later ability to...kinda see how they fit? So my -opinion- is still mine, and I don't exactly love the Dursleys, see, but my approach is different, accepting them as part of the that world....

I'm not sure, this is all so half-baked on my part~:) I was just feeling like there are different types of questioning, but unsure how to quantify it, really ^^;

[shaggirl.livejournal.com]

This is why I tend not to comment on critical essays and theories, though I often read them. There's simply no way that JKR could think of every question that her universe raises in advance, and expecting everything to fit seamlessly together is unrealistic. I read the books with the eyes of a child, and fanfic with those of an adult.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Y'know, I did think that HBP fit seamlessly together~:) And I tend not to see holes unless they're characterization holes, but then I'm just not too gifted in the plot-logic dept....

I'm totally with you on the reading fanfic much more critically (adultly??) thing-- even though it often seems to fit JKR's world a lot less (than JKR's own writing), my ability to just accept it flew away (far, far away) way back ago in the days of the dinosaurs, when IP roamed the earth...

[shaggirl.livejournal.com]

I think the novels themselves are pretty seamless, and HBP in particular was. I'm thinking more of people who pick things apart to the smallest detail, like how a memory can be in a pensieve and the owner of it still know what's inside, or the ethical question of love potions for sale. The story JKR is telling is so mammoth I'm not surprised that she hasn't thought of every ramification of every little detail she includes, and it's unfair to have expected her to.

I just recced a bunch of classic fics to a friend who's just getting into H/D and her assessment of IP was that it was "a bit purple" with metaphors, "like walking into a lovely home and being accosted by the cloying scent of air fresheners in every room." Heh. She liked it though. It's still a classic.

[notrafficlights.livejournal.com]

And something just clicked in my head-- why the deconstructive (rather than just speculative) type of HP meta itself has dissatisfied me for so long, and that's just it: it messes with the ability (or desire) to read as children and thus to have the story -or- the HP world itself really -work- in one's mind to its fullest capacity. And this is regardless of whether they're children's books or not.

Nah it doesn't. You just need to be l33t enough to seperate the two. :D

Also, I'm really starting to feel... like maybe there's a connection between liking strong, brave, intelligent girls as heroines (often dismissed by fandom because they're 'too perfect' and 'unrealistic' and Mary Sue-ish), and reading 'as a child'-- that is, looking up in some way, admiring, thinking of the glorious future when you could have adventures and be everything you ever wanted to be.

Please tell me you're not gonna put Ginny in this category. Or else I will have to hunt you down and set fire to your house. It's not the fact she's strong or brave or intelligent that makes her a Sue, it's all those Sue characteristics that means her characterisation transcends the logical boundaries of interaction (eg- getting away with things other characters would be punished/admonished/given detention for) that make her a Sue. That point where logical character flaws that in other characters are worked out properly (eg - Hermione's stubborness when it comes to Ron) become just loved "quirks".

Take Peter Pan for instance. Yeah, he's Mr Perfect in a way, but his imperfection is still there - his brashness, hot headedness and inability to grow up and be part of the "real world". All these things are sorted out in the story logically, without the sacrifice of other proper characterisation and interaction. If he was a Stu, this wouldn't happen properly, and these flaws would interfere with a lot of important parts of the story. Y'know?

Basically, I'm trying to say there's Pepper from Good Omens, and then there's Ginny. One's a good character who's intelligent and brave and tomboyish and bitchy (as much as an 11 year old can be), another's a Sue. There's wonder and then there's lies. There's a point where make-believe becomes non-believe because the believeable parts of the game/story/world stop working because they're raped overbalanced by the unbelievable parts. A good author (fantasy, YA, kids, "literature", whatever) knows how to balance the two.

Kay I'll shut-up now.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Y'mean separate the enjoyment & the deconstruction? It's HARD :(( I think I do it better at second read... but I almost never reread except when I'm editing for someone :>

There's wonder and then there's lies.
I'm totally with you there! I am obsessive with not-lying in fiction, especially fantasy fiction (to the point of obsessiveness where I jump at shadows and get really... uh... overly upset at fanon!Draco too-good-to-be-true characterizations sometimes). Yeah, so I dig you. Possibly I just take fanfic in a more adult/serious/real fashion than HP canon, and that's what it all revolves around, I dunno. I remember hating HP canon 'cause none of it felt 'real', characterization-wise, and then I fell in love with the characters through fanfic & just... looked at the bright side of life, and automatically patched up the holes in the narrative, sometimes without even realizing I was doing it.

I do think I do the patching thing with Ginny a lot 'cause I liked her from my own stories..... Can't help but be attached to her & want to understand her after writing her so much, really...

There's a point where make-believe becomes non-believe because the believeable parts of the game/story/world stop working because they're raped overbalanced by the unbelievable parts.

Yes! Totally agree... aaand, I know exactly what you mean about the delicate balance, the fantasy elements grounded in reality, definitely! Um...

With HP perhaps it's really a case of wanting to believe a lot. Hmmm...

[notrafficlights.livejournal.com]

Y'mean separate the enjoyment & the deconstruction? It's HARD

Never has been for me, but I'm weird like that.

Y'know, I had a dream last night I was reading HBP and really enjoying it and Harry's characterisation because they were so spot-on and I totally believed. Then I woke up. Funny that.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Y'know, funny thing is, I really didn't dig Harry's characterization for awhile (it -is- a big shift and Sirius was sort of excused away and wtf is he so thoughtful and reasonable all of a sudden??! oh wait, he needs to be for the plot). But then it's -Harry-, and I think I physically am unable to dislike him~:)) Eventually he had his badass moments with the Minister and started stalking Draco & snarked at Snape and I was like, 'oh, all right'. Never let it be said that I'm not easy. -.-

[cellia.livejournal.com]

To make them work, you need to read the books as you read when you're a child-- just accept the world for what it is. Accept the characters are supposed to be likeable because the book tells you they are. The instant I start applying critical thought to any of those factors, they fall apart.

Wow, this explains perfectly why the 1st 2 books still remain my favorites (except for the later Luna bits. Luna trumps all.) JKR's reach isn't extending her grasp earlier on, so blind acceptance was easier.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

except for the later Luna bits. Luna trumps all.

I can't help but feel unfairly personally pleased at this. :))
*is dork*

OTP (I couldn't help it)

[cellia.livejournal.com]

:D Luna and Harry are sooo~oo getting together in book 7. I mean, look at her name. What else am I to think of a character named *Lovegood* from a woman who names a werewolf Remus? Yup. /delusion

Re: OTP (I couldn't help it)

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Haha I'll eat my hat if it happens, but it wouldn't be a woeful hat-eating. Although I have to say, when I saw the chapter named after her ('Lovegood'), I shuddered, thinking OMG PLEASE DON'T LET THAT MEAN WE'RE ABOUT TO FIND THE NEW LOVE INTEREST, PLEASE NO :(( I liked Luna (in OoTP) more the more obvious it became she's just a wacky friend ^^;; I mean, it's not like I mind the pairing, but omg-the-last-name. I do wonder about it, though, like if it'll matter. *ponders*

Re: OTP (I couldn't help it)

[cellia.livejournal.com]

Well, perhaps she will defeat Voldemort then. He is, after all, weak to the power of Love(good). Well, ok, no chance, but her name seems a bit too meaningful for her not to have some kind of moment. Or that might just be my foolish hope speaking.

I, sadly, could actually come up with scenes and theories as to why Harry/Luna is sooo~oo happening, but I don't think anything stands up to the cold, black, inexorable monolith of Harry/Ginny. (Though I can't help but hope, as me=stupid ^^;;)

Re: OTP (I couldn't help it)

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

I hope she'll at least distract Wormtail with a shiny horntailed snorckack... one can't help but dream :> Maybe she'll uh, be instrumental in the uh, theory of love but not the practice-- like figuring something out about the room of Love at the Ministry :-?

...though I sort of like H/G-the-black-monolith-of-DOOM. The Borg of pairings, 'cause all your H/L ARE BELONG TO US, etcetc ^^;;

Re: OTP (I couldn't help it)

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I can't laugh at this idea. I've found myself interested Draco/Luna since HBP and must admit I love that she's got GOOD in her name and he's got BAD in his.

Re: OTP (I couldn't help it)

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

...You know, as wtf as I always thought D/L was... (for various probably projected reasons), if it ended up being canon, I'll be almost as happy as H/S being canon in the end :D It might almost be better, even >:D

...And now I have these visions of Luna finding Draco among the crumple-horned snorckacks in Siberia....