New question

[foxmoth at qnet.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 5452

--- In HPforGrownups at egroups.com, Amanda Lewanski <editor at t...> wrote:
> I have a "what's your take" question for everyone, that I'm not
sure I'll word correctly, but here goes. Do these books glorify
rule-breaking?<<

This issue  has been raised by those who are critical of  the 
books, feeling that they encourage children to defy authority. 
	I think the series presents both pros and cons, and encourages the 
reader to consider them.  
	The peril of trusting one's own judgment  is made clear: imagine 
what would have happened in SS if Hermione had set Snape on fire, but 
hadn't knocked into Quirrel. A much shorter series!
	 Harry & co. muddle through despite their mistakes in judgment, 
but Sirius  suffers, er, dire consequences. He makes two reckless 
attempts to break into Gryffindor tower, which gain him nothing and 
prejudice his case. (Why the heck didn't he just send Dumbledore an
owl explaining the whole mess and warning him about Pettigrew?) 

>>>By that I
 mean the attitude that rules are fine unless you need to ignore
them, and you get to decide when that is, and the end justifies the
means? <<<

	Using any means to achieve your ends is a Slytherin trait, 
according to the Hat. Dumbledore says that "a certain disregard for 
rules" is a prized quality in Slytherin. The implication is that this 
path to greatness  may lead you into the Dark. I wonder if this is
what happened to Snape, and one reason he comes down so hard on Harry 
for rule breaking.

	My two knuts,
Pippin