Well, Snape didn't seem the least bit surprised that getting kicked out of Harry's mind resulted in Harry ending up in his own, and I doubt he would have let Harry see that particular memory if he could stop it. If he expected Harry My-brain-is-Voldemort's-playground Potter to end up in his head, it make sense Snape would insure there was nothing in there that would blow his cover. If he had an ounce of self preservation anyway, which is debatable ;)
I'm trying to find a way to phrase this, so let me know if I'm not making sense:
The thing that moves Harry Potter out of the children's book category for me is that I feel the world of Harry Potter (as opposed to the POV) has a adult understanding. The understand of our POV ages with Harry, but the consequences and shades of grey were always there. The world was just a complete in book 1 as book 7.
Contrast this to OZ for example. In one of the later books, as spell is cast to preminantly freeze everyone in the kingdom at the age they were right then. No one has a problem with this despite at the myriad babies now trapped as infants for the rest of their eternal lives.
Or think of Narnia. In Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, four children are put in charge of a country. If that weren't enough, these same people, after somehow managing to pull off a successful reign for a number of decades, are removed from that world, reduced to their prepubescent bodies, and return to the status of children again. There is major trauma there that the books never acknowledge.
I supose the difference I'm trying to describe is that of limiting the scope of world to the understanding of children, as opposed to limiting the scope the POV to what children would see.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2008-09-02 11:23 pm (UTC)I'm trying to find a way to phrase this, so let me know if I'm not making sense:
The thing that moves Harry Potter out of the children's book category for me is that I feel the world of Harry Potter (as opposed to the POV) has a adult understanding. The understand of our POV ages with Harry, but the consequences and shades of grey were always there. The world was just a complete in book 1 as book 7.
Contrast this to OZ for example. In one of the later books, as spell is cast to preminantly freeze everyone in the kingdom at the age they were right then. No one has a problem with this despite at the myriad babies now trapped as infants for the rest of their eternal lives.
Or think of Narnia. In Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, four children are put in charge of a country. If that weren't enough, these same people, after somehow managing to pull off a successful reign for a number of decades, are removed from that world, reduced to their prepubescent bodies, and return to the status of children again. There is major trauma there that the books never acknowledge.
I supose the difference I'm trying to describe is that of limiting the scope of world to the understanding of children, as opposed to limiting the scope the POV to what children would see.