i'm having flash-backs to philosophy 101 and cartesian thinking. O_o
free will: i don't think that because the past is definite that means no one has free will. since there is travel to the past at all, that means one has to make the choice to travel back into the past -- so either you have the free will to hop around in time, or you have no free will at all (because your past You creates your present You and then your present you MUST become your past You, etc).
subjectivity: that's the inherent problem with third person limited. ^_^ you only see what goes on with that one character. i actually have a hard time reading large chunks of the books because i get very angry with JKR -- she leaves out SO MUCH CULTURE that must exist in the wizarding world! example; if they have ONE pop/rock band (the weird sisters), then shouldn't there be this entire subculture of punk witches? there must be! but harry is, disturbingly enough, not a curious child. he's not interested in the wizarding world like hermione is. he likes the cool tricks, he's thankful to be out of the dursleys' house, and he's horrified that he's wrapped up in this whole Rise of Voldemort deal, and that's about it. child has not curiousity whatsoever. this strikes me as 1) psychologically unhealthy (symptom of being raised in a closet?) and 2) an indication that harry will probably not remain in the wizarding world when the second battle is over. he just doesn't care about it enough.
also, since we're presented the story from harry's point of view, its kind of ridiculous to say that he's the only one in the universe with free will. if you want to get really technical, there is no reality outside of MY head, right now. its rehashing decartes' argument about whether any of the outside world exists or not. i admit that i don't understand the way JKR thinks, so harry's being the center of the universe may or may not come up in other books -- in fact, if one uses symbolism, she's already written about brains in vats (that seemingly pointless scene in the end of #5 in which ron gets attacked by brains) so maybe this symbolizes the "maybe we're all just brains in vats" argument. point being that i don't think that the choice of third person limited to write the story means that harry is the only one with free will -- i think it was JKR's way of introducing kids to the wizarding world, legitimizing it when characters ask each other ridiculous questions ("what's that?" "a wand, stupid"), and giving herself leeway to introduce new concepts throughout the series without just plopping them in all of a sudden (someone has to ask what it is, and then it is explained, so one more piece of the world makes sense).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-03-27 03:09 pm (UTC)free will: i don't think that because the past is definite that means no one has free will. since there is travel to the past at all, that means one has to make the choice to travel back into the past -- so either you have the free will to hop around in time, or you have no free will at all (because your past You creates your present You and then your present you MUST become your past You, etc).
subjectivity: that's the inherent problem with third person limited. ^_^ you only see what goes on with that one character. i actually have a hard time reading large chunks of the books because i get very angry with JKR -- she leaves out SO MUCH CULTURE that must exist in the wizarding world! example; if they have ONE pop/rock band (the weird sisters), then shouldn't there be this entire subculture of punk witches? there must be! but harry is, disturbingly enough, not a curious child. he's not interested in the wizarding world like hermione is. he likes the cool tricks, he's thankful to be out of the dursleys' house, and he's horrified that he's wrapped up in this whole Rise of Voldemort deal, and that's about it. child has not curiousity whatsoever. this strikes me as 1) psychologically unhealthy (symptom of being raised in a closet?) and 2) an indication that harry will probably not remain in the wizarding world when the second battle is over. he just doesn't care about it enough.
also, since we're presented the story from harry's point of view, its kind of ridiculous to say that he's the only one in the universe with free will. if you want to get really technical, there is no reality outside of MY head, right now. its rehashing decartes' argument about whether any of the outside world exists or not. i admit that i don't understand the way JKR thinks, so harry's being the center of the universe may or may not come up in other books -- in fact, if one uses symbolism, she's already written about brains in vats (that seemingly pointless scene in the end of #5 in which ron gets attacked by brains) so maybe this symbolizes the "maybe we're all just brains in vats" argument. point being that i don't think that the choice of third person limited to write the story means that harry is the only one with free will -- i think it was JKR's way of introducing kids to the wizarding world, legitimizing it when characters ask each other ridiculous questions ("what's that?" "a wand, stupid"), and giving herself leeway to introduce new concepts throughout the series without just plopping them in all of a sudden (someone has to ask what it is, and then it is explained, so one more piece of the world makes sense).