Potterworld grown-ups are a sorry lot

[blpurdom]

No: HPFGUIDX 31119

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Dawn <coyote823 at y...> wrote:
> 
> I have just finished rereading GF4 and I have begun to find vast 
> simarlarities between JKR and Roald Dahl.  In most (I only say 
> most because I have not read them all)of the RD books the children 
> have to fen for themselves and are treated very poorly by the 
> grownups in their life.  Dumbledore could of course "take Harry 
> under he's wing" but he chooses to allow Harry to figure it out on 
> his own.  The Weasleys are very sweet to Harry sort of like Miss 
> Honey in Matilda but they are powerless to truly help her.  Does 
> anyone else see these simaralities? 

Actually, it's not just Roald Dahl's books.  It's a common theme in 
children's literature in general.  To name just two other examples, 
you have Jane Langton's books about the Hall children (Diamond in 
the Window, Swing in the Summerhouse, etc.) which also share a 
number of other similarities with the HP books, and Susan Cooper's 
The Dark is Rising sequence (Merriman Lyon being the exception as 
far as ineffectual adults go).  

That said, it is interesting that the most competent people in the 
HP world seem (on the surface) to be the ones up to no good.  

1. Quirrell - successfully reaches the mirror where the stone is 
being kept and manages to otherwise seem innocent and harmless until 
then.
2. Lockhart - wildly successful at claiming other people 
accomplishments for his own.  He comes very close to wiping out 
Ron's and Harry's memories and leaving them in the Chamber of 
Secrets (thwarted only by Ron's broken wand).
3. Pettigrew - managed to lie low with the Weasleys for twelve years 
and then when discovered, he escaped and became instrumental in 
Voldemort's rebirth.
4. Moody/Crouch - overcame the Imperius Curse his father had on him, 
killed his father, overpowered a very paranoid Auror and kept him in 
a trunk for ten months, fooling even Dumbledore with his 
impersonation of a very distinctive person, and on top of all that, 
managed to get Harry into the Tournament and through it all 
unscathed.

There are good witches and wizards who are competant as well, but 
they generally come with liabilities:

1. Sirius - managed to infiltrate Gryffindor Tower, getting past 
swarms of dementors and the Fat Lady (liability: on the run, no 
wand).
2. Lupin - excellent DADA teacher (liability: werewolf).
3, 4, 5, 6. Arthur, Molly, Bill and Charlie Weasley - all competent 
people, their only liability (if you want to think of it that way) 
that they won't stoop to some of the same things as the bad folks.

Minerva McGonagall observed once that Dumbledore could beat 
Voldemort if he chose to; Dumbledore seemed reluctant to call on the 
kind of power that would be necessary to accomplish this.  So even 
though the evil people seem better at magic than the good people, 
the good people don't want to compromise their principles to achieve 
an end.  This is something Harry is already learning (sometimes the 
hard way, such as when he spares Pettigrew) but would we keep 
reading books about a boy who could sentence someone to death when 
he's thirteen, even the person responsible for his parents' deaths?

I think the adults Harry has for role models are teaching him what 
he needs to know both magically and morally, and the ones he's 
fighting are likewise showing him what sort of person he should try 
NOT to be.  Hardly a sorry lot, IMHO.

--Barb

Get Psyched Out!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Psych
http://schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb