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

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

But then, given JKR’s maths, it could really be any length of time.

Heh.

Smeltings boys wear ridiculous uniforms and have sticks of wood for attacking each other which is supposed to be good training for later life.

Does this 'whacking stick' have any basis in real life schools? Is there a British person here who can tell us? They're a weird mob, those Poms! :-)

Whacking sticks

[urbanman1984.livejournal.com]

They don't. Even masters have not been allowed to use whacking sticks for decades. And single gender education has been declining for some time.

It might possibly be a reflection on what was the case in schools when corporal punishment was still practised. Prefects could get physical with younger boys back then.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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...

[wolf-willow31.livejournal.com]

JKR *is* Petunia.

I think you've just explained everything in 3 words. Awesome!

[snapes-witch.livejournal.com]

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

And killed the working class bloke (Snape)!

[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)

[for-diddled.livejournal.com]

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

Did she even try to resolve it? I seem to recall that the subject was simply dropped after Hermione unaccountably lost interest, never to be mentioned again.

[lissa2.livejournal.com]

Well according to some sycophants, Ron saying that the house elves shouldn't be ordered to fight the wizard's wars (in the Ron/Hermione kissing scene at the end of DH) was a brilliant and satisfactory conclusion to the house elves issue.
The problem with that is:
1)Ron is only one member of the wizarding world.
2)That wasn't even what STFU was about. So Ron thinks that house elves shouldn't be ordered to march into the battlefield- fine, good for him. But how are the wizard supposed to treat the house elves in peace times? was Hermione right or wrong in the end? we didn't get an answer to that, and not even an attempt of an answer.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

*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?

Oh, yes. Brilliant. And I am inclined to agree that the political/social ideas being promoted in the series (stay in your place; ambition is bad; corporal punishment is good; women ought to marry young and have babies; you will meet the love of your life in high school, if not before-) are reactionary. Not conservative, really - reactionary. Unfortunately, some of these (corporal punishment, homeschooling, "family values" as exemplified by the Weasleys) have convinced members of Christian boards that Rowling really is writing Christian books. Not!

But I don't think you can judge much about Rowling's beliefs, political or otherwise, from these books, because what she's really done is to take lots of tropes from 19th and 20th century literature and plunk them into her story. See the essay on my blog, "Harry Potter and the Mores of the 19th Century", if you'd like more on this theory.

But - Rowling is Petunia? Brilliant. Except I think perhaps she's Lily, actually.

[seductivedark.livejournal.com]

Helps to give a link to the post. (http://mary-j-59.livejournal.com/28732.html)

Yeah, Rowling is Petunia and Lily and maybe wants to be Molly and, in the end, I think she was Ginny, just evidenced by her comment that she'd married Harry Potter. All I know is, I wouldn't want to live next door to her and have children near the ages of her children - her good little Gryffindors would always win out against my pathetic little Slytherins (so I guess that makes her Dumbledore, too, in my opinion.)

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Thank you. I'm not very good with the html. And I think you're right about the kids; she certainly does seem to celebrate Gryffindor kids beating up on Slytherins.

[seductivedark.livejournal.com]

I may be mistaken but, the way she talks about, and writes about, her favorites in the series, I imagine she would be like those mothers who, despite all evidence to the contrary, insist their child would never do anything wrong so it must've been your kid who did it.

[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.

[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?

[pearlette.livejournal.com]

But I don't think you can judge much about Rowling's beliefs, political or otherwise, from these books, because what she's really done is to take lots of tropes from 19th and 20th century literature and plunk them into her story.

Got it in one, Mary. When I first read PS/SS, I thought Rowling's writing was somewhat like Roald Dahl's: the larger-than-life characters, the Dickensian morality.

As the series progressed and darkened, I enjoyed it for what it was: Enid Blyton with magic and hormones, basically. (Except that Blyton really WAS the reactionary real deal.)

See the essay on my blog, "Harry Potter and the Mores of the 19th Century", if you'd like more on this theory.

I read your essay and found it very interesting, both on 19th century literature (yes, they were definitely men and women of their time, weren't they?) and on JKR.

But - Rowling is Petunia? Brilliant. Except I think perhaps she's Lily, actually.

Rowling is Petunia???? In what sense? Longing secretly to be a wizard? Resenting her magical sister? Hating and mistreating a baby that was left on her doorstep ...??

Personally, I think Rowling is Aunt Marge. And Minerva McGonagall. And Pansy Parksinson. And Luna Lovegood's dead mother. And Mrs Norris. All rolled into one.

Since this is a sporking comm, I offer my comment in that spirit. ;)

[pearlette.livejournal.com]

No. :) I have lurked here on and off because I know Sister Magpie of old from Tolkien fandom. I have often chuckled at her sporkings of the HP books. I particularly like the Jabootu scores. ;)

But when someone makes a daft comment about the series in the threads, do you not challenge it? :)

Because if this is a sporking-the-text comm, as I understand it to be, then sporking Really Bad literary analysis would also seem fair game.

IMO.

[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!

[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.