HP morally questionable? Discuss...

[Horst or Rebecca J. Bohner]

No: HPFGUIDX 16905

Just read the first issue of Emmaus Bible College's magazine JOURNEY and
there's an HP article in it.  Now, before everybody flips out, this is
overall a very positive article which says a lot more good things about HP
than not.  However, the author does have a concern about the HP books, and
he expresses it as follows:

"In each of the stories there is some force of evil which threatens Harry or
his friends, and the force is not defeated until Harry breaks some rules or
tells some lies.  The consequence of his rule-breaking and lying is victory
and success; indeed, victory in some measure *depends* on his misbehaviour."

He goes on to say:

"This concept is reinforced by some of the characterizations in the books.
The authority figures who are easy-going and laissez-faire, who are happy to
overlook Harry's misconduct -- characters such as Headmaster Dumbledore --
are likeable, trustworthy, and competent.  But those authority figures who
insist on obedience to the rules and who offer to punish misbehaviour --
characters such as Professor Snape -- are portrayed as sinister and
meddlesome. ... Out-smarting and humiliating [characters like Argus Filch
and Mrs. Norris] is positively a virtue. ... but the moral laws [of a good
story should] require that a character's actions bring consequences."

After that he goes on to say a lot of positive things about the HP books:
those are really his only criticisms.  He dismisses the charges of occultism
early in the article, and he certainly doesn't say that he thinks a
responsible parent will or should reject HP.

But I did find that those criticisms got me thinking.  So I'd be interested
to know what others have to say about the following questions raised by this
article:

1.  Is it true that "in each of the stories" evil would not be defeated
unless Harry broke school rules and/or told lies?

2.  Does Dumbledore really "overlook Harry's misconduct," as charged?

My personal response would be "no" to both questions.

With regard to #1, it *is* true that Harry often chooses to break rules and
sometimes tells lies (or fails to tell the whole truth).  And it is also
true that in the end he defeats evil.  But to say that the evil could not
have been defeated had Harry *not* broken the rules or told lies is, I
think, making an unwarranted assumption.

We don't know what would have happened in SS/PS if Harry had gone straight
to Dumbledore, told him the whole story, and enlisted his help.  In CoS
Harry was on his own, because Dumbledore wasn't there to consult.  In PoA,
Buckbeak and Sirius are rescued with Dumbledore's knowledge and with his
full cooperation -- in fact he practically tells Harry what to do.  And in
GoF, I don't recall that Harry's success in the tournament or his escape
from Voldemort had anything to do with his breaking rules or telling lies.

In regard to #2, Dumbledore doesn't jump all over Harry for every
school-rule infraction, true.  But D. appears to represent the spirit of the
law rather than its letter; he takes into account Harry's motives and he
also doesn't waste time fussing over trifles.  But he does admonish Harry
about moral issues; he does warn him about dangerous behaviour; and he does
even punish him on occasion.  By contrast, Snape and Filch are obsessed with
rules *as rules* rather than the moral principles that they represent.  They
are legalists, as it were, who look at the outward appearance rather than
the heart.  That's how a selfish and malicious git like Draco Malfoy can
stay in Snape's good graces (in appearance, anyway), simply by not allowing
himself to be caught openly breaking school rules.

Those are just some superficial observations; I'd be interested to hear more
from others.
--
Rebecca J. Bohner
rebeccaj at pobox.com
http://home.golden.net/~rebeccaj