[Alyssa Rosenberg]
Enough with the seriousness. I've been meaning for a while to complain about James Parker's piece in the July/August Atlantic about the problem of keeping the Harry Potter movies fresh as filmmakers tackle the later books and deal with their characters' development into sexually mature adults (Caveat: I really like Parker's work in general. The piece about Spongebob is delightful and insane.). And now that early reviews are calling the new movie "sexy," I've got my excuse. Parker's piece, titled "Sex and the Single Wizard," spends about only half its words talking about adolescence and relationships, and fails to mention the actual source of the problem: that J.K. Rowling, for all that she's created a compelling universe, is really awful at writing about adult sexual and romantic relationships.
I suppose I should warn that thar be spoilers ahead, if you care, so let's go after the jump:
First, in Rowling's universe, everyone ends up with their first real love, and I mean everyone. The idealized relationship is, of course, Lily and James Potter, who fall for each other at Hogwarts. Ron Weasley's parents never seem to have dated anyone else. Harry ends up with Ginny, and Ron ends up with Hermoine. Even the folks who don't get together with their first loves never end up with anyone else. Snape carries a torch for Lily that ends up governing his entire life. Post the release of Deathly Hallows, Rowling announced that she's always conceived of Dumbledore as gay, and that dark wizard Grindlewald was the love of his life, who he's never quite moved on from. Light flirtations are permissible, sure, but Harry and Cho barely get started, Ron hooks up with Lavender Brown, Hermione has her thing with Viktor Krum, which seems to fade quite comfortably into friendship. There is not a single example in the entire series of a serious relationship that does not end in marriage or life-long devotion.
Second, Rowling never gives readers a single detailed description of an adult sexual relationship. The Weasleys seem entirely preoccupied by their children--and they sure had a lot of them, but the process that produced those kids seems, um, long in the past. When Mrs. Weasley finally steps out as a hardcore, badass witch (and utters the only serious profanity in the series) in her duel against Bellatrix Lestrange, her concern is her children, not her husband. The Potters are dead, and so idealized. Harry and company stay with Bill Weasley and Fleur Delacour when they're newlyweds, but there's no description of their married life. Lupin and Tonks' marriage is almost entirely out of the picture, and Lupin seems basically disgusted by his decision to marry, a deep, almost anti-sexual revulsion. And the epilogue to Deathly Hallows, in itself a serious narrative mistake, skips the characters ahead, past their years as young couples, to show them as sedate, infinitely wise, etc. parents.
There's a lot of pseudo-sexual stuff with magic, and certainly intimations of budding sexuality along the line. But even when she goes there, Rowling seems hesitant. The kiss that Ron and Hermione share during the Battle of Hogwarts is supposed to be their first, which seems, um, surprisingly chaste for kids who have been living together and on the run. Hogwarts doesn't appear to offer a sex ed class, which I guess makes sense because no one appears to be having sex. It's a really weird false note in a series full of deeply recognized characters. I understand the urge: Rowling was writing books for children, and I'm glad my little brother was able to read and enjoy the series all the way through. But the problem with capturing adolescent sexuality in the Harry Potter movies doesn't lie with the various filmmakers who have been assigned the task. Ultimately, the problem is J.K. Rowling.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
You really nailed it, and that's the reason why, I think, the Harry Potter books will always have a limited appeal to most adults. I enjoyed the books--don't get me wrong--but I enjoyed them the way I enjoyed the Oz books when I recently reread them, as juvenile literature that I couldn't completely immerse myself in.
Mind you, Rowling is far from the only author to have this sort of problem. I'd say 90% of contemporary fiction stumbles with this sort of ideal in one way or another.
I don't think it is a problem. I didn't read the books looking for a story about adult relationships or even adolescent sexuality. I don't go to the Harry Potter movies looking for that either.
Exactly.
The real problem with Harry Potter is that there's no real conflict. Now I only read five of them, but they're all driven by three themes that seem to really key in on adolescent anxieties:
1. Harry and pals are forbidden from something by the adults in their lives, quite unfairly and arbitrarily, despite the fact that they are more competent than said adults and have teamed up and saved the world several times already.
2. Harry is distrusted/ostracized/blamed for the villain's handiwork/treated like an outsider despite the fact that he has saved the world several times already.
3. Harry and his friends or the adults in his life have a falling out and refuse to speak to each other for several hundred pages at a time, despite the fact that they are truly best of friends and their problems come solely from miscommunications that could be fixed with a thirty second conversation. Which will only take place in the last third of the book, possibly accidentally through a third party. Despite the fact that they have risked their lives for each other and saved the world several times already.
I'm not suprised she never treats her characters as adults, they never act like them in the first place
Oh, that is beautifully put! I read the first four books all in one summer, and found them unbelievably frustrating and formulaic. Harry learns something troubling--Harry acts on his knowledge--Harry's actions have dire consequences from which he is saved at the last minute--Harry fesses up to Dumbledore, who says, "Next time, come talk to me,"....and then the whole thing happens exactly the same way in the next book. Not a single iota of character growth in any of the four.
There was no way I was going to put myself through a fifth!
And yet everyone I know, no matter how discerning a reader, loves the damn things. I can't stand them.
And, as a medievalist, I really HATE her fake Latin incantations.
Super concentrated sugar-free win.
I think aside from the ideals of love and sexuality, there are two other issues to consider when talking about how these things are addressed in the book. One, who is the real audience for Harry Potter? Harry spends most of his life in the books as a young adult, but the books have arguably been marketed more towards pre-teens and younger. Not many teenagers were interested in the books, that is to say it's not Twilight or something of that genre. I think that may be why we don't see more hormonal action out of the kids as the books go along.
Second, if we compare the Harry Potter series to other comparable long series like say Chronicles of Narnia and Lord of the Rings (yes I know perhaps not the best analogies, but I think Harry Potter can sort of be added to these good vs. evil epic timless series)the sheer complexities of the plots and the middling details sort of contribute to some aspects of human (or wizard in this case) life being broadly brushed past. It just happens. In this case Rowlying lightly touches on romantic details, only on the surface, but seems rather unconcerned with rooting them in absolute reality.
I enjoyed the books thoroughly, and yes the fact that everyone seemed to end up with their high school loves did bother me a bit. That rarely happens in real life but it seems in the Harry Potter universe it's the norm. I do think that's more of a function of the audience (whether this was the intended audience or not the age group eventually became THE main audience) rather than an attempt to paint an idealized version of love and sexuality.
I dunno, considering how much the last act of Deathly Hallows owes to Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe, I'd say Narnia will always be fair game for an HP analogy. Or the Matrix, for that matter.
More seriously, I don't think it's the complexity of the Good/Evil struggle that makes HP comparable in tone to Narnia and LOTR; there are plenty of complex good/evil fantasy worlds which are a bit more rooted in flesh and blood. There are even one or two that deal with the lives of young wizards at school.
No, I think what we're seeing is a deliberate authorial choice on the part of Rowling. Lewis and Tolkien both have aims other than the Good/Evil struggle for their brushing over of detail. Narnia, of course, is also a children's story, but it's also a Christian allegory celebrating the superiority of the divine and the immortal over the flawed and the mortal. LOTR, on the other hand, is in the style of epic history. The books have been described as travelogues, and they celebrate the details of the world far more than the people in it. (As a critic once said, who is it who washes the dishes and serves the food at these massive feasts Tolkien's characters are always going to?).
Rowling undoubtedly has different motives in mind, of course, (and she certainly isn't a member of the Inklings' generation) but I think she deserves full credit for the stylistic choice. It's a deliberate narrowing of focus. Given how often the books deal with restricted information and narrowed viewpoints, it seems to fit. Harry is a guy who has blinders on most of the time, somehow or other.
I agree about it being a fair analogy, that was just a preemptive apology for all of the insane Narnia and LOTR fans out there that never want anyone to ever dare compare anything to their beloved series. (Essentially all of my more bougie LOTR and Narnia fans).
I grew up reading the Narnia series and Lord of the Rings and only came to Harry in adulthood , so my view on the series is skewed because of that. Reading Narnia and LOTR as a child I never cared enough for the "greater" details, reading Harry as an adult I never thought that they should necessarily be included. Not sure if that makes sense but it's all to say that I agree that it may have been a stylistic decision on her part. When you write a book that is several hundreds of pages, things are bound to be left out, though I think she did a fantastic job of continuing the mythology from Year 1 on, but yes some more "realistic" aspect about human nature or young adult nature in this instance were casualties.
I agree with dragonflyingash's disagreemeent (if that makes sense :) . The problem here is one of genre. Rowling is writing children's literature. If she were to capture adolescent sexuality (and I have no reason to believe that she's incapable of it as a writer), she'd no longer be writing children's literature but young adult. The difference between the two is based not just on the reading level of the book but what occurs in the story.
Look at the young adult fantasy fiction of Tamora Pierce. Her first set of books (the Alanna series) was written at about the same reading level as Harry Potter. But Tamora Pierce included sexual development and sexuality in her books, so she gets put in the YA category.
Exactly. Harry and his friends are roughly the same ages as any number of major characters in several young adult series. I won't go embarrassingly on here about those that I read growing up (seriously I won't), but the glaring differene is that in those books, even at 12 and 13, the girls and boys were dealing with hormones and complex feelings about sex, love and relationships. It was even reflected back towards difficulties they had with their parents and THEIR relationships. Young adult books for the most part speak to young adult angst.
Though Harry, Hermione and Ron are teens for most of the series, they never go THERE. These relationships for the most part stay at simplistic "fairy tale" levels. You ever wander how people fall in love so fast in Disney movies and fairy tales and stay together forever? I remember wondering when I saw Aladdin as a child, how they had only spent a night together and knew they wanted to get married (yes this perplexed me even then). But all's fair in the world of fairy tales and while Harry Potter does have some serious and complex things to say, the depth on relationships stays pretty heavily in fairy tale territory.
Pierce is clearly writing for teens, while Rowling is writing for pre-teens and young teens. I wouldn't recommend Pierce for pre-teens specifically because of the sexual elements.
But again, this comes down to a choice of genre, not reading level. Really, including sexual development or sexual activity puts an author out of Kids Lit and into the Young Adult category no matter how easy the book is to read. For Kids Lit, you just can't go there.
Look at Tamora Pierce's first two books (Alanna: The First Adventure and In the Hand of the Goddess). Scholastic's website for teachers gives them a reading level (i.e. "grade-level equivalent") of 5.9 and an interest level of grades 6-8.
Oddly enough, according to Scholastic's website Harry Potter books 2-5 also have the exact same reading level of 5.9. But the Harry Potter books have an interest level of grades 4-8. Would a 4th or 5th grader not be interested in the story of a girl who pretends to be her brother in order to undergo knighthood training so she can be the first female knight in 200 years? As she befriends a thief, becomes the prince's squire, gets trained in magic and fighting, defeats a bully, fights in battle, and fights against a man who plots to kill the royal family? It sounds great!
Of course, during the course of those first two Tamora Pierce books, Alanna also goes from 10 to 18 years old, her body develops, she falls in love, and she has sex. What happened to Harry Potter?
Oh please, don't try to bring Twilight into this. For starters, of course that series is going to bring up sexuality, it's a kitschy romance series aimed at teen girls. But more importantly, just because Stephanie Meyer writes about relationships and sexuality doesn't mean she's good at it: The sexual dynamics in the series are completely fucked up when they aren't "traditional" in the Mormon context (let's face it: She writes from a Mormon perspective), and clearly there are hints that she can't fucking write from a broad perspective. She writes kitschy pop lit, don't try to compare that to Rowling's overwrought pop lit.
Ummm trust me I wasn't suggesting she was good at anything. I never used Twilight as a shimmering example, just as an example of a book clearly written to appeal to young adults.
I'm NOT a fan of Twilight, never read it and judging by my friends' varying reactions to it, will probably never want to. My sister made it throught the first book and couldn't even finish the second because she was so pissed off. Your critiques are no different than what Stephen King said about Meyer a few months ago (he completely dissed her series in general). But don't misread my use of that book as an example as a glowing endorsement of the series, quite the contrary.
Yes, but what would the series be like if, in the last two books, we got descriptions of the hankey pankey that we know would have been going on among the young wizards in battle and on the run? I'm not sure how she could have maintained the series' character while exploring the sexuality of the boys and girls as they grew into men and women. But then I loved the whole series from beginning to end. I think there was some flaws in the last several books that students of literature might consider serious, but as a reader and a lover of fairytales, it totally worked for me.
I'm glad they'll be exploring the sexuality in the film though. Hopefully it's done mostly with body language and smoldering looks, just the physical bodies of the real-life 17 year olds will add a layer absent from the text.
The role of sex in Harry Potter strikes me as being very like that of Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell, which unlike HP is aimed more at the mature reader. I think it may be a deliberate imitation of the unwritten rules or tone of an earlier era of British literature (often to quite comical effect).
I agree with this only up to a point. In JS&MN (a wonderful book), the relationship between Strange and Arabella has some emotional, if not sexually-graphic, complexity. (It's been several years since I last read it, so I can't go into any particular detail, I'm sorry to say.)
I would say that not going into any particular detail is the particular detail. Sexuality in is notable JS&MN by it's conspicuous absence.
To echo what others have alluded to, the Harry Potter series is for kids. That's not to say adults can't enjoy the books, but I don't think it's fair to apply the same critical standard here. In essence, isn't Harry Potter an allegory for transitioning into adulthood and going through adolescence? Isn't Rowling just providing a rosy, albeit very compelling, way of explaining adolescence to kids?
I dunno, when your characters start off at age 11 living in a fantasy world, it's really hard to have them grow up in any kind of realistic way. And as a reader, I'm not even sure I want them to. The books get darker over the years, but they never really lose the feeling of the world through a small child's eyes, and I think that's OK.
No matter how many times Baum took Dorothy back to Oz, I really have no desire to see her in a realistic adult relationship (Gregory Maguire notwithstanding). In fact, it's kind of creepy to think about (IIRC, Baum has her stop aging at one point to avoid the issue).
Rowling had the very difficult task of maintaining a children's genre atmosphere even though the characters were becoming young adults, and she pulls it off fairly well. It's not realistic in that aspect, but it's a book about wizards after all.
Plus, the Potter books spread through crowds of school children faster than the common cold.
The portrayal of teens and adults had to be written to work for seven and eight-year-olds, because starting at that age, kids are going to read the books just as soon as they are able--and push their reading skills to the max to get the stories.
My nieces and nephews are closing in on that age. I'm expecting to hear tales of their parents trying to keep them away from "Goblet of Fire" and the later books because of the mayhem involved. I'm also expecting the kids to win in a matter of months, either by arguing or by obtaining contraband editions from their friends.
As a result, I'm very glad that Rowling, if she thought about tackling more "mature" themes, decided not to go there.
Harry spends most of his life in the books as a young adult, but the books have arguably been marketed more towards pre-teens and younger. Not many teenagers were interested in the books, that is to say it's not Twilight or something of that genre. I think that may be why we don't see more hormonal action out of the kids as the books go along.
I think this is right on the money.
Harry does otherwise develop as a persuasive adolescent. (One of the nicest things about the books is how the 12-year-old Harry does seem 12, and the 15-year-old Harry 15.) But because the audience skews much younger than the actual Harry, Rowling isn't explicit about sex; she's sticking with her audience's developmental level. Some things are passed over in silence (at some point the girls must have developed breasts, but the boys have apparently not noticed) and some is just slowed down: Harry's big sexual activity is kissing, both when he's fourteen and when he's sixteen.
As for Alyssa's main point ... well, it's a book about an orphan, who's fixated on reconstituting his family, which is what that final chapter is about, so idealized parents loom large. And as for everybody ending up with their first love, these are school stories, where the basic premise is that the choices you make as a schoolboy or schoolgirl heavily influence your later life. If you're going to be Minister of Magic one day, the signs will be there to see before you graduate. Even Nigel, the overlooked ugly duckling turns into a swan before leaving school. There's plenty of room in the books for unpromising 11-year-olds turning into promising 16-year-olds, but no room at all for unpromising under-18s going on to later success. The basic premise of the books is that you are who you make yourself into by the time you graduate boarding school.
It's actually not that everyone stays with their first love, as Alyssa's counter-examples show. It's that most characters find their life partner before leaving school. And no, that's not how it works in life, but the Potter books are about school as a crucial formative experience.
was i the only one who saw some severe gay-vague undertones in the remus lupin - sirius black relationship in the earlier books (as well as a proto-queer character in tonks, when she first appeared)?
it almost seemed like she specifically backed down from it later on ... and then threw us homos a bone with a gay but sexually frigid dumbledore, who didn't even get the decency of coming out in the books themselves.
Not at all:) Here's where I reveal my dorkiness--the Sirius/Lupin pairing is a major theme in Harry Potter slash fanfic. And in the fanfic to end all fanfic, the major fan-created novel After the End (http://www.sugarquill.net/read.php?chapno=1&storyid=619), Sirius and Remus are living as a happy couple. I really wish they could have ended up together, although having Tonks' Patronus change for Lupin sets up beautifully the reveal about Snape's, which made me cry.
I was just about to point out that the main relationship in fanfiction (as far as I know, I'm not personally involved in online Harry Potter fandom) is Harry/Draco, with many, many fan-penned stories exploring that relationship in deep and (so I understand) very plausible fashion.
But then I think that teen (and adult) readers very often go for relationship-centric stories, rather than purely plot-based tales, which is what Harry Potter to a great degree is. I found it telling that I never got an idea of who Ginny was, except that Harry liked her - any one of his friends was better fleshed out. (INHO of course.)
Yes, I never understood how/why Lupin married Tonks. She was such a punk-rock dyke when she was introduced that I just found it totally unbelievable. Perhaps it was just so they could have a son to survive them.
And Teddy's just a device, not a person, used to increase the emotional impact of Tonks and Lupin's deaths, because Rowling didn't have the stones to kill someone really central to the plot in Deathly Hallows.
Now I'm wanting to write fic that details Tonk's queer past, and her hooking up with Lupin as a beard.
A lot of us in HP fandom, including those who didn't necessarily buy that Remus/Sirius was canon, felt like the Tonks thing was an attempt by JKR to "het up" Lupin. I was totally taken aback by Tonks' moping in HBP, because absolutely nothing in OotP had indicated that she had a thing for Remus.
With all due respect, the Harry Potter books are about fighting Death-Eaters.
The point is for the teen characters to protect what's decent in their world from very bad, very powerful people. All the work of organizing their understanding, emotions, knowledge, and relationships is in the service of becoming better protectors.
It would be cool if J.K. Rowling had also been able to plumb special depths of psychology, but she didn't. She merely provided a new and profound way to prepare our children for the core political and moral challenge they will face in the decades ahead: self-proclaimed "pure-bloods" ready to harm anyone they spot as different and discount as inferiors.
Our planet has plenty of Death-Eaters on the march. A series that children read happily, over and over, is a mighty accomplishment. A series that invites every child on the planet to aspire to the Order of the Phoenix one of the the literary triumphs of our century.
For a look at sexuality and magic, you might enjoy the work of Tannith Lee.
The Silver Metal Lover is a good one to start with.
I too loved the Harry Potter series from start to finish but think some people very much miss the mark expecting adult relationships. As so many others have noted before these are books targeted at young adults and older children, about middle school age here in the US. This is a very uncertain time full of anxiety as the once simplistic world of childhood is replaced by the confusing and subtle world of adulthood. Everything about this world only makes sense if viewed through the eyes of pre-adolescents. Teachers are mean because they really don't like you, not because they sincerely care about your future and think you should learn something even if it is against your will. And speaking of learning, there are no provisional, nuanced truths of the historian or scientist, but rote memorization of established and unchallenged facts for seven years and problems are solved with the flick of a wrist and a memorized spell. There are no lessons in logic, or reasoning, or research. No colleges, no universities. You chose a career at Hogwarts, or have one chosen for you, and you live with it for life. This difficult decision is taken out of your hands by strong teachers and a battery of tests. Evil can easily be discerned by a tattoo on the arm and good people are bad, not because good and evil are so difficult define in the adult world and often depends on perspective, but because they are under the imperious curse. No messy democracies in the Wizarding World or inconvenient civil rights, but appointed leaders who either solve problems because they are wise dictators or they don't because they are *gasp* politicians and trials with quickly reached verdicts with miscarriages of justice only when plotted as such by evil and needed by the plot.
For the target age group sexuality is a dark mystery with more questions than answers. Wrestling with surging hormones, social expectations, peer pressure, and the pretty girl next to you in English can make a young boy physically ill. (I can only speak for the boy's perspective, sorry) To go through everything it takes for a person in the target age group to go through in order to work up the gumption to approach a young classmate for a measly dance only for a relationship that will last two months? Are you effing kidding me???? The trials and tribulations at this age are such that only prince or princess charming are worth it or appears worth it when you are 12.
That Rowling knows what it's like to be the age of this age group and wrote to it so effectively is a feature not a bug, and it has made her fantastically successful and wealthy and gotten kids to read. Good for her. That adults expected more from her explains why so many were dissappointed by the final book, but that's on them not Rowling.
Fantasy writing, even great fantasy writing, for one reason or another, has rarely been concerned with an accurate depiction of sexuality. For a long time this was presupposed to be a flaw of the men who wrote them. However, since the 1960s, there have been many excellent fantasy novel authors who are women. I haven't paid all that much attention for about twenty years, but names such as Ursula Le Guin, Patricia McKillip, Robin McKinley, Dianna Wynne Jones, and Joy Chant come to mind. And none of these very fine authors, save Le Guin, take on adult relationships in a realistic manner.
While sexuality may be raised (as people point out with the werewolf character) metaphorically through various types of enchanters-enchantresses and monsters, fantasy does not deal in realism. A few things characterize great fantasy: first and foremost, a sense of magic, enchantment; secondly, the world in which the tale is told has a compelling unity to it.
Although there are always target age groups, the great fantasies, like the Potter books, seem to have huge followings among all age groups. Like any genre fiction, fantasy has certain flaws built into it; The Lord of the Rings is generally considered the heavyweight champ, but it is riddled with thin characterizations, and the women in it rarely strike a realistic chord. But to put fantasy down for its core flaws is like critiquing Portuguese fado for its lack of hard dance beats. People generally do not read fantasy for a hard look at erotic relationships (except perhaps metaphorically with vampires and the like), but to be transported, and for that Rowling brought it. She had the unique power of getting people to turn hundreds of pages without much of anything going on. The finale was really about a camping trip that ran into bad weather, but managed to be a satisfying close to an opus thousands of pages long. Sheer wizardry if you think about it.
A post on sexual tension, fantasy literature and young adults, and no one brings up my beloved Piers Anthony and the Xanth series? Blasphemy!!
my dad got me a 'books on tape' version of 'The Magic of Xanth' and 'Lord of the Flies' when I was around 10 or so. I was too young; I remember listening to parts of them only - and both of them sort of scared the crap out of me. Maybe I should check out Piers Anthony now.
Also - other than 'The Silver Metal Lover' (thanks Citizen E), any Tanith Lee fantasy/horror suggestions, or something similar? One of her stories had quite an effect on me when I was young. (It was in the "Xanadu" anthology, but I don't remember its title.)
There are a lot of sci-fi/fantasy universes out there which are really compelling, where authors have taken care to craft something that really holds together in an interesting way and then hosts a whole series. We should have some topics here some time specifically about these universes. (I wouldn't be able to contribute all that much since I haven't read that deeply in sci-fi/fantasy, but I'd love to read what people have to say.)
I love Gardner Dozois' annual "Year's Best Science Fiction" collection. I happen to have 2003's edition here with me, and two examples of worlds I'd like to read more about (and in which I know that plenty more stories have been written) are Michael Swanwick's universe in the "King Dragon" story and David C. Wright's terrifying vision in "Awake in the Night".
So much reading...
The central theme of the Harry Potter series was that being a parent is the most important and valuable thing a person--especially a woman--can do. Harry's saved by his mother's sacrifice. Tom Riddle turns to evil in part because he's raised without a mother's love. Molly Weasley is the Ubermom, showing her true power when her children are threatened. Even Narcissa Malfoy, stuck-up racist that she is, loves her son enough to defy Voldemort for his sake.
In that context, the ending of Deathly Hallows makes perfect sense. JKR doesn't give details about what the characters are doing except to assure us that they have lots and lots of children. Nothing else is really that important.
JKR's issues: she showed us them.
One last ps for anyone still tripping onto this thread: Octavia Butler's final novel, albeit not her best, Fledgling, which uses the vampire motif to explore some of these issues.
Well the fact remains (and whether you find this a problem or not, is beside the point I think) that the books from the first page were only ever from Harry's perspective. We only ever see things from his POV/opinion, nothing happens in the book without Harry being present. I mean aside from the conversation between Dumbledore and Mcgonagall in Chapter 1 (and Harry was there, just not a participant) we never see so much as a conversation occur between 2 characters without Harry being present to hear it.
We are forced as readers to take the information that Harry alone gives us (we learn our lesson after book 1, I think, not to place so much trust in him again). Classic example: Harry Hates Snape, so through 6 and a half books all we see is evidence or opinion that Snape can't be trusted. Another one is Ginny remains strictly a background character until Harry starts to notice her for more than that. This can be said for many characters we meet briefly throughout, just like we will never truly know the number of students at Hogwarts, simply because Harry doesn't know them or he never introduces them.
To the topic at hand:
We don't see the finer details of 'Adult' relationships in the books then, because Harry isn't in the room to view this. And frankly he's like any teenager where adults are purely viewed as asexual and he would rather not see it as anything else (I can recall the reaction he had in the 'Mollywobbles' scene of HBP). So it's not like he's gonna sit with Mrs Weasley over a cuppa and talk about herself and Mr. Weasley. Same can be said for Lupin and Tonks, as well as Fleur and Bill (besides in the case of the latter two couples, they are under unusual circumstances, that are probably making good work of killing that particular mood newlywed or not).
Harry and Co. are not adults, even though they are thrust into situations that are beyond their experience and maturity. They are still teenagers in the most basic of senses: they think a lot about the opposite sex, having fun, skipping class, homework etc. But they have no where near the maturity (despite what they might otherwise think) to carry on of all things, an Adult relationship, or all that it entails. At 17, frankly all they should be getting into is their first kiss. Rosenburg complains that Ron and Hermione's first kiss, was tame at best, what did she expect then? that they should have dropped to the floor and went at it? Give me a break!
On a final note, Rosenberg was also of the opinion was that the Epilogue was poorly written and skipped way too far in the future. Her words suggested that we never see them as young couples (ie having sex, yes, there is a theme here, and no your not imagining it lol) just as wise, all knowing parents, but never how they got to that point (see what I mean lol).
I think she missed the boat here. The purpose of the epilogue (and I'm sure there are quotes from JKR that can back me up here) was to show that what everyone fought for, ultimately, was family
(both present and future). And that Harry got his most deepest desire - a family of his own - in the end. Tell me otherwise, but in a fantasy novel I can't see anything wrong with that picture.
If you've gotten this far thank you! This was something I had written earlier in a separate discussion about this article, hence the 'Rosenburg' references.
I find this entry ridiculous for a number of reasons. First of all, HP & friends are, for the most part 17 and under (Ginny is just 16 in the last book). And there are a lot of healthy, socially normal, seventeen year olds who haven't had sex. yes even in this day in age and yes, even outside of the bible belt. JK captures the awkwardness of adolescent 'romance', first kisses, crushes, jealousies, etc. quite well. Second, the point about the Weasley's marriage is just stupid - the Weasleys are a middle aged couple with seven teenage & adult children, they show affection very realistically for such a couple. Third, to attempt to explain Bill & Fleur's "marital life" would be a total departure from the plot - both are fairly peripheral characters - and their makeout sessions and pda in front of the weasleys are more than enough to get that they're quite into eachother. Would you have preferred harry walking in on them in bed? As far as every character ending up with their 'first love' - given specter of war that looms in the last two books, its not that hard to imagine - how many WWII generation marriages were born out of first love? a lot. Molly Weasley makes this point when she complains about bill & fleur's wedding and how everyone is running off to get married because they are afraid for their lives. And lastly, part of the charm of JKR's writing in general is her ability to paint a picture while still leaving plenty to the imagination - and I, for one, don't feel the need to know the details of what goes on behind Molly & arthur weasley's bedroom door...
Well said Kmb!