Philosopher's Stone Chapter Three

[urbanman1984.livejournal.com]

Well here it is everyone - a prolonged pause in the action

PS Chapter Three

 

*Dudley has flattened Ms Figg.  I bet Harry was pleased.

 

*So Harry’s longest ever imprisonment in the cupboard took from Dud’s birthday to shortly before his own?  So about a month.  But then, given JKR’s maths, it could really be any length of time.

 

*Following on from the discussion about the previous chapter, it really is the case that Harry does not have a victim’s personality.  If he really found Dudley intimidating he wouldn’t be able to answer him back like this.

 

*Hmm the cake was stale though... bet Harry wishes Dud had killed the old squib outright.

 

*Smeltings boys wear ridiculous uniforms and have sticks of wood for attacking each other which is supposed to be good training for later life.  Sound like an all boys version of Hogwarts much?

 

*I presume Harry was just being a smart alec when he goes “I didn’t realise it had to be so wet.”  Otherwise he would seem dumber than Dudley.

 

*Harry could have read the letter quickly when he was in the hall, but no – he had to ensure that this chapter is really drawn out and the plot suspended for its duration. 

 

*It is evident that the Dursleys have received no communication from the magical world since the letter that Dumblesnore dropped off with Harry on their doorstep.  Evidently they infer from McGonagall’s letter that somebody from the magical community – they don’t know who - might now have them under surveillance and it changes their whole approach towards Harry completely.  Not only do they move him into a bedroom, but they don’t even attempt to favour Dudley anymore.  So the merest hint of magical intervention is sufficient to prevent them from keeping Harry downtrodden.  It is highly likely that Dumblesnore’s first letter gave them permission, perhaps even recommended, that they keep Harry downtrodden.  If he didn’t want them to do that it would have been very easy to check up on Harry on a regular basis in a way that Vernon and Petunia would notice.  This letter’s defining feature is that it is from someone magical besides Dumbledore.

 

*Dudley’s a right little slob :p  Nothing like Harry of course.  Oh wait... *remembers later in the series* Well Dud never reads anything, unlike Harry... *remembers all the rest of the series again* I’ll stop trying to compare Harry favourably to Dudley.

 

*Animals have a harrowing time around Dudley.  But I recall agreeing with another member of deathtocapslocks who pointed out that JKR wasted an opportunity to make Harry more likeable than Dudley by making him kind to animals. 

 

*The Smeltings stick certainly gets put to good use here.

 

*It’s just as well Vernon is referring to Hagrid *although he doesn’t know it* with his ironic remark about the delivery person’s mind working in strange ways.  Hagrid really is dumber than Vernon and bizarre to say the best of it.

 

*Dudley becomes a lot sharper in this chapter, asking Harry the question which is perplexing us all; “who on Earth wants to talk to you this badly?” Compare to chapter two, when he could not count.

 

*A minimum of intervention from the magical community also prevents Dudley from being indulged or spoiled in any way.  Vernon doesn’t even put up with his unconventional packing methods anymore.

 

*A generic seedy hotel!

 

*Hagrid’s line of thinking dictates that if Harry doesn’t receive a letter by one delivery, then the solution is to send twice as many by the following delivery.  If a character with even rudimentary intelligence had been in charge of delivering the letter then this chapter would have been very short indeed.

 

*Dud is now the one supplying the spontaneous witticisms.

 

*Dud only remembers the days of the week because of TV, but Harry can’t keep track of them at all. 

 

*So nothing has progressed in the way of plot during this chapter, but the location has shifted from Privet Drive to a hut on the rock in what seems like a different genre...

 

*Again, if Dudley were a successful bully, or if Harry had a victim’s mentality, Harry would not be prepared to wake Dud up simply to annoy him.

 

*Hagrid’s here!  Brace yourselves everyone...

Comments

[for-diddled.livejournal.com]

*delurks*

Going off on a bit of a tangent here, I've always thought it rather odd that Rowling supports the Labour Party, as her books seem fairly conservative in outlook. The wizarding government is shown as bungling and incompetent, for example, and its attempts to increase its control over Hogwarts are portrayed in an unequivocally negative light (think Umbridge in "Phoenix"), which would seem like a somewhat odd view for a socialist to have. Similarly, the main conflict in the series is an attempt by the main characters to preserve the status quo regarding muggleborns against those who would seek to change it (i.e., Voldemort), which would again seem to be a somewhat conservative position to take. Whilst I'm normally quite cautious about putting words into other people's mouths, I'd suggest that Rowling's thought processes are along the lines of "The Labour Party helps the poor. Helping the poor is good. As I am a good person, I am therefore in favour of helping the poor. Therefore, I will vote Labour," and that she hasn't bothered to think her political ideas through in greater detail than this, leading to contradictions between what she actually thinks and what she thinks she thinks.

[snapes-witch.livejournal.com]

Coincidentally, I've recently read The Sisters by Mary Lovell about the Mitford 'girls'. It's amazing that into the 20th century some in the upper classes didn't believe in a higher education for their daughters. This was one of the grudges Decca (Jessica) had against her parents.

Jo's politics are a disappointment to me. At first glance she's a feminist, but she isn't really. for_diddled's analysis of JKR's political beliefs is spot on IMO.

[snapes-witch.livejournal.com]

Just to clarify the above, this is what I agree with:

Whilst I'm normally quite cautious about putting words into other people's mouths, I'd suggest that Rowling's thought processes are along the lines of "The Labour Party helps the poor. Helping the poor is good. As I am a good person, I am therefore in favour of helping the poor. Therefore, I will vote Labour," and that she hasn't bothered to think her political ideas through in greater detail than this, leading to contradictions between what she actually thinks and what she thinks she thinks.

[lissa2.livejournal.com]

"Similarly, the main conflict in the series is an attempt by the main characters to preserve the status quo regarding muggleborns against those who would seek to change it (i.e., Voldemort), which would again seem to be a somewhat conservative position to take"

So people who support the Labour party aren't supposed to rise up against an ultra racist murderous dictator? yes Voldemort wanted to change the status quo regarding muggleborn, but not for the better.

[for-diddled.livejournal.com]

I didn't mean to suggest that no member of the Labour Party can ever try to defend the status quo; I just thought it interesting that there are very few examples of characters trying to change things for the better. In fact, I think the only major example is Hermione's SPEW thing, which is portrayed so as to make Hermione look rather bossy and unwelcome -- a bit like Jessica Mitford's attempts to rescue the working class, now that I come to think about it.

(BTW, does anyone know why Hermione gets so upset about the house-elves, who seem perfectly happy with their situation, but not make any effort to challenge the fairly serious psychological torture that goes on at Azkaban?)

[lissa2.livejournal.com]

"(BTW, does anyone know why Hermione gets so upset about the house-elves, who seem perfectly happy with their situation, but not make any effort to challenge the fairly serious psychological torture that goes on at Azkaban?)"

What would be the point in that? JKR would have only used this serious moral issue to fool the world that her series is really really deep and mature. Only to have the issue resolved in the last book by someone complaining that the Azkaban prisoners don't get enough vegetables in their diet, and that should change at once!!!"

(Yes I'm angry at the cowardly and idiotic way that JKR decided to ""resolve"" the house elves issue in DH)

[baeraad.livejournal.com]

I'd suggest that Rowling's thought processes are along the lines of "The Labour Party helps the poor. Helping the poor is good. As I am a good person, I am therefore in favour of helping the poor. Therefore, I will vote Labour," and that she hasn't bothered to think her political ideas through in greater detail than this, leading to contradictions between what she actually thinks and what she thinks she thinks.

That's my theory, certainly. Rowling's basic approach seems to be doing and saying conservative things, but dressing them up in liberal clothing while she's doing it.

Which may be one of the reasons why she got so popular, since conservatism-dressed-up-as-liberalism seems to be the dominating political movement of our generation...

[pearlette.livejournal.com]

@ for_diddled:

The wizarding government is shown as bungling and incompetent, for example, and its attempts to increase its control over Hogwarts are portrayed in an unequivocally negative light (think Umbridge in "Phoenix"), which would seem like a somewhat odd view for a socialist to have.

Really? I thought it was a common enough thing with left-wing intellectuals to CRITICISE their governments.

Rowling's depiction of the Ministry of Magic as an incompetent, yet Orwellian, fascist nightmare is certainly not a very subtle one.

But I don't doubt that her heart is in the right place.

Although analysing her as a person never factors into how I critique this series.

[mmoa.livejournal.com]

*puffs out self for anecdotal stuff

Going off on a bit of a tangent here, I've always thought it rather odd that Rowling supports the Labour Party, as her books seem fairly conservative in outlook.

Not really. There's conservative and Conservative. Most rather conservative minded people would still vote Labour because of a deep distrust of the Conservatives rather than because they're genuinely liberal a la politically lefty. Furthermore, Labour today is a much more conservative type of socialism than not.

Which is essentially what you just said.

Ah, well. In short I agree with you!

[mmmarcusz.livejournal.com]

Also, she said she didn't like the Tories criticising single mothers on benefits, because she used to be one (note how with JKR, everything is personal). Never mind that she chose to quit her secure job to write a novel and draw the dole.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Certainly Rowling didn't try to hide the personal feelings and opinions that she embedded within her series. She always said she was writing something that she would want to read herself (is that the quote? Something like that). And she proudly told us how she was Hermione, how she married her Harry Potter, how she loathes traitors, so on and so forth. So I can see what you're saying here. No doubt there are essays out there completely psychoanalysing Rowling from her work and interviews.

She's a typical middleclass borish person who absolutely hates the upperclass (see the Malfoys --

But she let the Malfoys go! If you accept her interview words.

Vernon might have owned a gun, but the Dursleys were smack bang middle class, I would have thought; only with *pretensions* to being upper class. They're the sort who would join a gun club, golf club, etc, just to try and wrangle their way into upper society.

hence her love for the Weasleys, who are 'poor' - but have a ginormous house with own quidditch-field

That's like the comment for the last chapter, where Harry is plonked into the 'victim' slot but shows absolutely no personality traits of being such. Here the Weasleys are ostensibly poor but, as you say, really don't lack for much.

[snapes-witch.livejournal.com]

But she let the Malfoys go! If you accept her interview words.

And killed the working class bloke (Snape)!

[pearlette.livejournal.com]

She let them go after totally stripping them of their money, position and their power. After totally humiliating them and grinding them beneath Harry's heel. After having to be *grateful* and bow their heads to Harry, she let them go.

LOL.

Yeah, that Harry! He should have THANKED Lucius for nearly handing him over to Voldemort for torture and execution, eh? The little bastard!

Yes, DH shows the Malfoys living in lifelong, miserable servitude to Harry ever after.

Except not.

Thanks for the laugh, Marion. ;)

[lissa2.livejournal.com]

Did you come here from the hms stfu like chalts?

[night-train-fm.livejournal.com]

LOLwut?

If the Malfoys were ground beneath anyone's heel, it was Voldemort's, and they wouldn't have been in that position if Lucius and Narcissa had known better than to throw their lot in with him in the first place.

Lucius was a Death Eater during the first war and wormed his way out of paying for his crimes. During the fifteen-year-interim he assaulted Muggles at least once and tried to turn an eleven-year-old-girl into a murder weapon just so he could discredit Dumbledore and Arthur. He may have rejoined Voldemort out of fear, but he never hesitated to hand Harry and his friends over to him.

You could possibly make a case for Narcissa and Draco but Lucius, at least, is not a victim or a woobie. Nevermind whatever money he lost, he was spectacularly lucky to avoid Azkaban.

[lissa2.livejournal.com]

I agree, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" isn't always true. Sometimes the enemy of your enemy is your enemy too. Now after DH I've come to dislike (or even hate) some of the "good guys" in HP- Harry, Hermione, Dumbledore, Minerva, Molly etc. But does that mean that because of that I'm supposed to start liking Harry's scum-of-earth enemies like the Malfoys? sorry, but no.

[oryx_leucoryx]

Strictly speaking we only have Albus and Dobby as sources for Lucius' intent regarding the diary. We know Albus lies whenever it suits him and Dobby is the elf who thought cursing a bludger to target Harry repeatedly was a good way of protecting him. Lucius certainly wanted to get rid of the diary before it was caught in his possession and discredit Arthur. But we don't know he knew the properties of the diary or how it would work. He certainly didn't know it contained his master's soul-bit. One reason to doubt Albus and Dobby conveyed his intent accurately is that he did not pull Draco out of school, even let him stay for Christmas. For all I know the whole thing was Dobby's plot to discredit Lucius. For all I know all Lucius intended was to arrange for Ginny to get caught with a cursed Muggle artifact if he felt he needed leverage with Arthur. This doesn't make him a nice or good person but does cast doubt on his level of monstrosity.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I think it was Elkins (*misses Elkins*) who compared the basic class outlook to Agatha Christie. The Dursleys really don't have pretentions to upper class if upper class is the Malfoys. The Malfoys are aristocrats and so probably getting up to god knows what. Basically the middle is the most acceptable, and you can move to either side of that for a bit, but at the extremes you get the crazy Gaunts and the crazy Blacks. Petunia wants to be in with the most fashionable ladies in her neighborhood, no doubt, but I don't think she needs to get much higher.

[mmmarcusz.livejournal.com]

Vernon might have owned a gun, but the Dursleys were smack bang middle class, I would have thought; only with *pretensions* to being upper class. They're the sort who would join a gun club, golf club, etc, just to try and wrangle their way into upper society.

I can't see Vernon hunting, somehow. I think she gave him a gun in the hut scene without thinking about how he owned one in the first place.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Quite possibly. This *is* Rowling, after all.

[seductivedark.livejournal.com]

I think she gave him a gun in the hut scene without thinking about how he owned one in the first place.

That's very likely. To some people, "gun owner" = "bad." If this had been written a century earlier he might have had a mustache he could twirl along with a black hat and a career as a ruthless mortgage banker.