POA: Chapter Three

[kaskait.livejournal.com]

The Knight Bus

*Harry is at large on the streets of Magnolia Crescent and there is anger burning in his heart. But don't worry the love is there too. Its mixing with the anger to create something really good and is sure to save the world.

*Oh no, Harry's stranded in a muggle world. As if the wizarding world is any safer.

*Damn, Harry is now a fugitive and expelled from Hogwarts! He violated the underage magic rule.

*There is a lack of notices from the MOM. I'm thinking this was still during the years that Fudge was still Dumpeydore's water boy.

*Well, now that he is a magical JD, an underage runaway BUT with a vault of gold, why not just use MORE magic? To hell with it all, right Harry? I'm sure the MOM can't pin down you're whereabouts at all. Too bad you aren't as smart as Riddle. I'm sure HE knew all the places he could practice magic without getting expelled. In fact, I'm sure most of Hogwarts (who aren't friends with the trio) know where they can practice magic without being expelled.

*You know, I'm thinking that this restriction is really just to handicap powerful muggle kids.

*Harry feels as if he is being watched. He turns to see a large dog and promptly falls down in surprise.

*The knight bus arrives just in time to prolong the mystery. Damn you Shunpike.

*Shunpike jumps out of the bus to deliver his speech. He is dressed in a purple outfit and his ears are really large and his skin is pimply. I suppose that was why he didn't get a job at the MOM. He was too ugly. We can't have ugly people running around the Ministry. Nope.

*Of course Shunpike has a thick, low class accent. Which is why he is working for a bus company. Don't you just love these books? We always know who is the upper crust from the low because Harry and pals have an RP dialect. Even Ron who should really be speaking with a lower class accent. But then again, his family were most assuredly former Kings of England fallen on low times. Nothing really, really bad can happen to the heroes. The Weaselys may be poor but their blood is the PUREST OF ALL!

*Harry tells Shunpike that he is Neville Longbottom. This is the only time Harry ever thinks of Longbottom away from school. Neville can always be good for an alibi.

*Harry asks Shunpike why muggles can't see the bus. Isn't it great that Harry buys into the prejudice of this world? It is a wonderful example of how loving and giving he really is.

*Shunpike is here only to give information about Black. He is a veritable scholar on Black crimes. He also very generously gives us information on Azkaban.

*Fudge is waiting at the Leaky Cauldron for Harry. Poor Shunpike he fawns all over Fudge. I guess he is still hoping for a better job. Clear up that acne, shrink your ears and learn better pronunciation Shunpike.

*A Harry Potter series bon mot: People who don't speak well deserve the low class jobs they get.

*Another bon mot: If you aren't connected by blood or friendship to someone better, you deserve the low class job you have.

*Fudge laughs off Harry's magical mistake. He states that Aunt Marge has been obliviated and the Dursleys will take him back.

*I shudder to think of what the aurors did to the Dursleys to convince them to take back Harry.

*Harry asks Fudge if he could give him permission to go to Hogsmeade.

*I love how Harry completely forgets all the trouble he has caused and immediately just thinks about his own silly problems. Harry needs to go to Hogsmeade, dammit!

*Fudge refuses to give permission. Damn Fudge, the aurors couldn't get a signed permission note from the Dursleys while they were messing with the Dursleys memories? This is HARRY POTTER you know. He just can't be treated like any old normal person.

*Harry is shown to his room and Hedwig is waiting for him.

*I guess staying with the Weaselys was too much for even Hedwig to handle. She would have rather taken shelter with the homeless Harry. Darn, that is saying quite a bit about the Weaselys.

*Harry then sleeps the sleep of the pure and blameless at the Leaky Cauldron inn.

Comments

Part II

[(Anonymous)]

I’m not a member of this community (lol!); I found it by accident and found it amusing and then found it was supposed to be carrying out serious(ish) discussion. But is anything actually discussed here? Isn’t it rather that a shared viewpoint is repeatedly affirmed? The shared viewpoint seems to be that through a combination of bias, carelessness and stupidity the author of HP has introduced inconsistencies into her story and some of these seriously undermine the meanings she intends the story to have, to the extent that it pretty much means the opposite of what she intends. Having decided this, the community takes turns to post instances that reveal this failure by the author and then everyone agrees that they are, in fact, instances that reveal the author’s failure! This is fine if it’s just for fun. *Harry is at large on the streets of Magnolia Crescent and there is anger burning in his heart. But don't worry the love is there too. Its mixing with the anger to create something really good and is sure to save the world. I loved that! (Though I’m not sure where the idea that Harry – or his love - is going to save the world came from! ;D) Don’t you think, though, that if you claim you're doing more than having a laugh the problem with this affirmatory approach is that you only find what you’ve already decided is there? This would be a pretty futile activity, and also sad if it meant you missed things in the books that could make reading them more rewarding and add to the sum of your pleasure! (On the other hand, it’s probably a good way of keeping disputatious oafs like me at a distance.) (woman ironing)

Re: Part II

[sarahtales.livejournal.com]

Also, the fact you keep saying things like 'this community is proposing' and saying that we're 'engaging in a pretty futile activity' is, I presume, what got you banned in the first place. Seeing that there are inconsistencies in the HP books (and there just are, there are in most books) is something that the community does, but it's certainly not all we do and we don't all share the same viewpoint all the time.

However, when we don't agree, we don't call the other person's behaviour 'sad' or suggest their reading experience is less rewarding than our own.

I wouldn't like to think you're just trolling us, but the way you're addressing people in this community really suggests it.

Re: Part II

[(Anonymous)]

Honestly, I feel you've interpreted what I've written rather harshly. Perhaps if I rephrase it a little it might read better:

('You' here refers to the community not to any individual.)
Don’t you think, though, that if you claim you're doing more than having a laugh the problem with this affirmatory approach is that you only find what you’ve already decided is there? Wouldn't this be a pretty futile activity, and also sad if it meant you missed things in the books that could make reading them more rewarding and add to the sum of your pleasure?

Is this worth thinking about at all?


I don't know what trolling is, perhaps it is what I'm doing. I thought what I was doing was asking questions. I came to this community and was attacked, you know. Is it not permitted to question here? (wi)

Re: Part II

[(Anonymous)]

I don't really get what you're saying here...

Discussion is fab. What I am asking is whether, when a group of people share the same view there isn't a tendency for them not to discuss but to agree, and if so, with it a danger that they are not able to be objective?

(It is so easy to misunderstand and be misunderstood in a written conversation, isn't it?! I'm trying to ask for more rigorous discssion, and yet I've given you the impression I'm asking the opposite!)


Is this worth thinking about at all?

I meant, "Is it worth thinking about the question I am asking?"


There is a lot of pleasure to be had in deconstructing and analyzing.

I agree, and I think in a group that is based in a shared viewpoint it's essential not to forget to analyze and deconstruct this shared viewpoint - just to keep your feet on the ground!


You also seem to assume that we're losing something if our response to a story is not positive (correct me if I'm wrong).

Okay:) No, I believe that one loses something if one's response to a story is limited by a narrow reading.


The banning only happened when you got personal.

Not that it's important, but that's not actually the case. (wi)

Re: Part II

[merrymelody.livejournal.com]

What's worth thinking about here appears to be why you seem so concerned with the way these community members have chosen to spend their time.
So by your perspective, they're sad and their activity is futile.
Great, now they (or rather, we) know. Is your mission accomplished now?

I'm not sure how you feel you've been attacked, since you've wandered in here, insulted the entire community and the way they chose to spend their time, accused us of prejudice and disregarded being banned - I'd say everyone has been tolerant far beyond what can be reasonably expected of them.

It's perfectly permitted to 'question' recappers and commenters' - there's no hive mind with a list of proscribed opinions.
It however, is not permitted to come into a community, the purpose of which has already been explained to you multiple times and patronisingly explain to them how they're missing and how there's much more to find - coincidentally what you have already decided is or isn't there.

(I'm also a little confused as to how you seem so convinced of your own originality when you don't seem to have committed to an intellectual opinion beyond 'I really really like Rowling and have created vast, intricate, contrasting explanations to explain why everything in the books rocks and is exactly as it's presented!' You do realise that that like, 90% of HP communities are patterned after your basic approach? Isn't it a pretty futile activity to remain here among the classist bullies?

Neither have you particularly convinced me of the pseudo-liberal cred you seem desperate to flash when you've replied to kaskait's RL experience of prejudice by accusing her of hypocrisy and getting concerned that she's not respecting a fictional character; as if it's much easier to get aerated and defend amusing fictional, stereotypical minorities than it is actually converse with real live ones.)

No-one here has a habit of trolling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll) general HP discussion communities and telling them how they may think the books are actually well-written and enjoyable but are in actual fact incorrect and if we just explained to them that they've misread and although they don't know it, are actually miserable with their inferior readings.
Please don't do the equivalent to us.
I'm asking you, politely, as the mod, to leave and cease replying here.

Re: Part II

[(Anonymous)]

I'm sorry that I've offended you. Do you think it's possible that you might have misunderstood me? This thing has escalated ridiculously. (wi)

Re: Part II

[merrymelody.livejournal.com]

Possibly. However, my concern isn't understanding you, it's moderating this community.
I don't know what you hope to achieve from your comments here, but it seems unlikely you'll get it.
No one objects to your basic opinions or you holding a different viewpoint to ours, although this isn't really the place for endless JKR defenses or for you to 'save' us somehow from not enjoying the text (I can see how you find it uniform and dull, but I'm sure you can appreciate how the vast majority of mainstream HP fandom and your arguments come across similiarly to us; and how this is a 'safe haven' of sorts that we're protective of.) especially when this is a place we enjoy and get a lot from.
They object to the way you've put them across.
This debate seems to be going nowhere, and valued members here have been offended, so from now on, I'll be deleting any further comments of yours that I see.
I'd really rather I didn't have to do that, and you'd respect this place enough not to stay where you aren't wanted, but whatever.

Re: Part II

[(Anonymous)]

I've tried to go back to my question to Kaskait to apologise but can't find it. I just want to say I didn't intend to accuse her of hypocrisy or to accuse her of anything. It was stupid and insensitive of me to ask the question, and I apologise wholeheartedly. (wi)

Re: Part II

[sarahtales.livejournal.com]

You're assuming that we've already decided what's in there.

I don't know why you are assuming this.

We haven't.

'Trolling' is making personal comments in order to offend people. I believe you if you say that's not what you're doing, but that is what it looks like. Nobody has attacked you, and nobody has made any personal comments about you, but you have made personal comments about others. Again, I believe you if you say it's not your intention to offend, and since I came into this discussion quite late I hope you'll believe me when I say it really does look like you're attacking the others.

It's absolutely okay to question anything here, it's just not okay to do that.

Re: Part I

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

A reader's response to a book comes from what they see in the text and what they bring to the text themselves. I get the impression that in this community the latter predominates.

If two people disagree on what's in the text, each's way--to that person--is going to seem more from the text, because we're not aware of our own biases as much. There's always somebody in fandom explaining to you how you must "worked" for your honest reaction, because otherwise you would have had their honest reaction instead!

I get the impression that in this community the latter predominates. In relation to Stan Shunpike is there really any suggestion in the text that Stan's job is less than anyone else's - than the Minister for Magic's, for example, or any of the passengers on his bus?

Not "less than" if by that you mean Stan is considered less human by the text. Less than in the way it is in our world and the WW. It's nice to say that a job as a bus driver is the same as being the PM, but there are actually differences between the two jobs, and they often reflect different backgrounds and classes (and the person of one class has more choice between the jobs). This seems just as given in the WW as it is in our world. That's why NEWTS are important and Stan brags about being the PM.

Nobody's saying Stan's accent makes him unworthy of Hogwarts but the opposite.It seems a little affected to pretend one's occupation doesn't affect one's life, and that one's background and education isn't usually tied in with one's occupation (which is a different issue than personal happiness). Apparently this is so in the WW, despite the quill.

Is this really what’s being done? The books make fun of the Dursleys continually but I thought this was an example of the Dursleys’ different treatment of Dudley and Harry.

It's the way it read to me. I thought Dudley's uniform and the Smeltings tradition was obviously being held up to ridicule, along with the Dursleys' pretention and their dressing him up in that silly outfit. I don't think requires projecting onto the text, even if not everyone sees it. Hogwarts isn't perfect, but I don't think the text seems conflicted about its being the best. I don't see how it's different than noting the Harry's burning hatred and power of love thing.

But what do we know about the Hogwarts students, and does what we know really enable us to pronounce on their social class?

I would assume people are basing it on the students whose background we know about and other textual signs like that (it's not just readers seeing a contrast with Stan). I'd be more worried the person not making these connections was missing something.

There is, however, evidence against a middle-class bias at Hogwarts in the books: the names of all wizarding children are put down for entry to Hogwarts at birth...Has the community considered these points?

I don't know if "the community" has considered anything, but some people in it have obviously noticed how JKR uses accents in her characterization, which is a much stronger part of the text. They're looking at the story more than Hogwarts as an institution.

I mentioned the way that the other person's reading always seems more labored, and this is how this seems to me. I'd have to do more work to "correct" this impression when it seems like the author's peopled her world the way she wants to just fine without my trying to fit it into a PC ideal just because somebody challenged something. When I think of the students I think of all the students I know, and when I think of WW bus drivers I think of Stan, I think more due to the author's choices than any bias from my own life.

Re: Part I

[sarahtales.livejournal.com]

You're going to do all my talking from now on. I do hope that's OK with you, I always get into a tizzy and start spitting nails, and really, I think it's for the best.

I also agree with you that this kind of community increases my enjoyment of the text: I mean, without it frankly I would never have noticed Stan Shunpike much, because he didn't interest me particularly and so I felt callous indifference about his job and accent. But hearing what strikes other people is always both exciting and challenging.

Re: Part I

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

You're going to do all my talking from now on. I do hope that's OK with you,

Not on your life, missy!!

Re: Part II

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

This would be a pretty futile activity, and also sad if it meant you missed things in the books that could make reading them more rewarding and add to the sum of your pleasure!

I can't speak for anyone else's experience but this type of community has actually greatly increased my enjoyment (and sometimes opinion) of the books so it must be doing something right. I like pulling apart how the books work, even if there's something that doesn't. I know there's a strain of thought in fandom that this ruins the enjoyment of canon, but that's just as bizarre to me as this type of thing is to them.

On the other hand, it’s probably a good way of keeping disputatious oafs like me at a distance

How disputatious are you being? Because while I certainly think it's possible to argue against something that somebody else here thinks is a flaw or doesn't work, the "negative" reading might be negative but it still seems coherent. The "positive" one seems to jump around and contradict itself, or deny things that seem kind of dishonest or pointless to deny. The first reading seems more like the books I know, even if I disagree with points of it. The other threatens to become non-offensive mush.

Re: Part II

[(Anonymous)]

this type of community has actually greatly increased my enjoyment (and sometimes opinion) of the books

Same here.

HP is the only fandom I know anything about, and pretty much only the LJ bit of it. The “negative” approach seems to prevail on LJ – perhaps it is a reaction to the prevalence of a squee! approach elsewhwere? You’re absolutely right, the “positive”, squee! approach would make the books become non-offensive mush!

My problem with with what I’ve experienced of the “negative” approach is that it comes over as rather monotone. It seems to demand a, well, deathly uniformity from the story. I read some comments and then try to imagine the story if it conformed to their requirements, and my mind boggles and all vital signs fade! An overly negative approach is in as much danger of descending into absurdity or tedium as an overly positive one. It'd unremarkable but fair to say that it’s a good idea to start with a critical approach as opposed to an uncritical one, objective as opposed to either positive or negative. (wi)

Re: Part II

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I think you may be incorrectly assuming that anyone wants the books to conform to that approach. What I think people are doing is just noting the patterns they *do* follow, not saying that they would necessarily be better if they didn't follow those patterns. I think one reason one can do that so easily with these books is that they are sort of brashly opinionated in their tone or use bold strokes to get to where they want to go. Describing the way they work--even when something seems ridiculous the more you think about it--shows how the books are constructed (to me, anyway).

So like with this original question, Stan's accent isn't exactly central to the way things work, but using accents in certain ways is part of the style of the books. We're not necessarily holding the books to an ideal that they lose points from if they don't conform to it. Noting that Fleur's accent is a part of her characterization, and that's she's a very recognizable snooty French girl, doesn't have to mean the book shouldn't have that characterization, it just means that the books do have it. IMO, anyway.