Harry Potter and the Privileges of Birth (LONG)

[Cindy C.]

No: HPFGUIDX 29051

Thanks for the interesting, thought-provoking essay, Bexis.  I'm not 
the biggest Harry fan out there, but I'm not sure I'd entirely agree 
that Harry is a "dangerous character" or that readers would learn 
poor moral lessons from the series.  So here's my reaction to a few 
of the issues you raised:

Bexis wrote:

[Harry] is courageous, considerate, and generous to a fault.  He is 
> not one to get wrapped up in his celebrity or to lord his special 
> gifts over others.  <snip examples of Harry's internal conscience>

I'd certainly agree with this, and you mentioned some of the most 
significant reasons to believe that Harry is a character 
with "character."  There are plenty of others.  So our starting 
point, I suppose, could be that Harry is a person with character and 
principles, who usually tries to do the right thing for the right 
reason.

Bexis again:

> The muggle masses have no idea the game that is afoot, and a 
>central 
> tenet of wizard philosophy is that unless things stay that way 
>there 
> will be a disaster.  <snip>  So even before 
> Harry knows it, he is on the right side of the tracks in a divided 
> world of two groups – the small, smart minority who know what's up, 
> and a vast, muggle proletariat – stupid and potentially dangerous 
> (think Dursleys) – who inhabit an ignorant world of their own 
> illusions.
> 

I'm not entirely sure what conclusions about Harry to draw from the 
fact that wizards attempt to keep their world a secret from Muggles.  
If anything, this desire seems born out of respect for the integrity 
of Muggle life.  After all, if wizards believed themselves superior 
to Muggles (as they almost surely do), then why do wizards not simply 
dominate and enslave Muggles?  History is full of examples in which 
groups who deem themselves superior dominate, enslave or even 
eradicate others.  Yet in JKR's world, the wizards inconvenience 
themselves tremendously to avoid disturbing Muggles.  

Yes, wizards are sometimes smug in the way they refer to Muggles.  
But for lack of a better analogy, I would say that the wizarding 
attitude toward Muggles is similar to the amusement an adult might 
display at the antics of children.  If there is a moral lesson to 
take away from the interaction (or lack thereof) between Muggles and 
wizards in HP, it might be that it is important to respect the 
integrity of societies that are different – which is not a bad moral 
lesson, IMHO.

Bexis again:

>As a result, 
> Harry consistently gets special treatment not available even to the 
> run-of-the-mill wizard.  Time after time he receives gifts from 
>adult 
> benefactors or older students – the Nimbus, the Firebolt, an 
> invisibility cloak, the Marauder's Map.  He gets advanced wizarding 
> instruction from Dumbledore, from Lupin, from (fake) Moody and even 
> from Hagrid.  <snip>
> Harry positively glides through Hogwarts despite his overflowing 
> extracurricular plate.  <snip>

I think there are plenty of examples either of Harry receiving 
unfavorable treatment or of other students receiving more favorable 
treatment.  

On the subject of gifts, Harry does receive the Nimbus and Firebolt.  
But Malfoy and the entire Slytherin team received Nimbus 2001s, and 
until Harry received the Firebolt in PoA, the Slytherins had the 
better brooms.  Hermione, not Harry, receives the Time Turner.  Fred 
and George have had the Marauder's Map for years, so Harry is 
certainly not unique in having had access to it.  I'm not sure the 
Invisibility Cloak is a compelling example of special treatment from 
adults benefactors.  After all, the cloak came from Harry's deceased 
parents, so it was arguably his anyway on the day they died.

On the subject of receiving advanced wizarding instruction, I think 
several students (not just Harry) receive personalized coaching or 
extra instruction.  Despite the limits of seeing the story through 
Harry's POV, we know that Hermione gets the Time Turner, and Lavender 
and Pavarti spend extra time with Professor Trelawney.  Harry's 
fellow Gryffindors receive Imperius Curse training from Moody, 
although Harry is the only one who is successful.  Neville is 
selected to demonstrate boggart defense, which he does twice.  Malfoy 
receives tips from Snape on how to duel with Harry in CoS.  I would 
speculate that there is plenty of extra teaching and tutoring going 
on at Hogwarts, but we are limited by Harry's POV, so I'm not sure 
Harry's experience is all that unusual.

It also might be an overstatement to say that Harry glides through 
Hogwarts despite an overflowing curricular plate.  He certainly has 
instances in which his classroom performance is average or worse.  He 
is embarrassed on the first day of Potions, unable to answer Snape's 
questions.  He fails at Summoning Charms until tutored by Hermione.  
His Confusing Concoction won't thicken.  He gets nowhere in 
Divination.  His transfigurations are not successful, as only 
Hermione seems to have the hang of it.  He can't work out the First 
or Second Task or the egg's clue without help.  And I'm not sure 
canon entirely supports the idea that Harry's plate is overflowing, 
as he is excused from exams in GoF, and he carries a normal load in 
the other three years, IIRC.  On balance, I think Harry's academic 
life is rather ordinary, a mix of some successes and some failures, 
just as we might expect for any other student, not some sign of a 
privileged existence.

Bexis again:

> 	But how does Harry solve his real problems?  Through special 
> treatment.  Because of who he is – predestined to do battle with 
the 
> fearsome Voldemort – Harry is above the law.  He breaks school 
> rules.  He blows up his aunt in violation of wizard law pertaining 
to 
> both underage use of magic, and use of magic among muggles, but the 
> Minister of Magic himself covers for him,  

I'll comment on Harry's rulebreaking and whether he is above the law 
below.  But I'm not sure canon supports the implication that Harry's 
inadvertent use of underage magic is treated more lightly than that 
of others.  Fred and George deliberately use underage magic in PoA to 
bewitch Percy's badge (not to mention the magic they undoubtedly use 
at the Burrow), and Hermione deliberately lights her wand in GoF.  
They did not receive so much as a rebuke for this.  Harry, on the 
other hand, receives a reprimand in CoS for magic he did not even 
perform, and the Marge incident was not deliberate.  If anything, 
Harry receives *more* of a rebuke for his underage magic than his 
peers.

Bexis again:
>He goes everywhere he is 
> forbidden to go.  Through adroit lies and omissions, Harry conceals 
> important facts from his teachers, from Dumbledore on down.  Harry 
> puts the lives of other students at risk.  He helps Buckbeak and 
> Sirius escape death sentences imposed by the Ministry of Magic.  
><snip> Dumbledore first forgives, then rewards him, 
> and finally invites him into his own machinations against the 
> Ministry. 

There are a couple of ideas at work here.  First, that Harry breaks 
rules established by adults.  Second, that he gets away with it.  
There might also be a third point by implication:  that the rules are 
not enforced evenly, as Harry's rule breaking is excused whereas the 
rule-breaking of others is not.  

There certainly cannot be an argument that Harry breaks rules at 
Hogwarts.  No doubt about it.  Sometimes he is punished, such as when 
he was involved with an illegal dragon in PS/SS, when he flies the 
car to Hogwarts in CoS, when he is disrespectful to Snape.  Sometimes 
he is not caught, such as when he sneaks to Hogsmead.  Sometimes he 
is not punished, such as when he saves Sirius, saves Buckbeak, saves 
Ginny, saves the Sorcerer's Stone, or saves Neville's Rememberall 
(although Malfoy was not punished for the Rememberall incident, 
either).  

Maybe there is a pattern – rulebreaking at Hogwarts is less likely to 
be punished when it is a matter of life and death.  That is really 
not all that unusual, as real-life examples of this abound.  To pick 
a rather unimaginative example, murder is illegal, except in self-
defense and defense of others.  In Harry's major rule-breaking, lives 
are at stake, and IMHO, that fact excuses infractions such as being 
out of bed at night.  It would be an odd climax indeed in PoA if, 
rather than knock Snape out and misuse the Time Turner, Hermione and 
Harry had simply allowed events to run their course so that innocent 
Lupin and innocent Sirius had their souls sucked out and innocent 
Buckbeak was beheaded.

Bexis wrote:

> One lesson 
> being learned by Harry's young readers is that if you're really 
> special (and who isn't), and you know better than most adults (and 
> who doesn't), you will succeed by acting upon your own judgment of 
> what's right in preference to doing what your elders tell you to 
do.  
> Those few adults who are wise (Dumbledore) or hip (Lupin) will 
agree 
> with you and help you out.  The other adults, those in the way, are 
> either evil (you know who), obnoxious (Snape), frauds (Lockhart and 
> Trelawney), bullies (Lucius Malfoy), or weaklings (Wormtail and 
> probably most of Voldemort's followers).  

Although this characterization of major adult characters is largely 
accurate, I think a few key adult characters are missing.  Missing 
are the adult characters who abide by rules and who are not fools or 
buffoons.  We have McGonagal, who is a stickler for rules.  We also 
have Arthur Weasley, who cautions Harry to follow the rules and not 
look for Black.  We have Sirius Black in GoF, who assumes a fatherly 
role and scolds Harry for rule-breaking.  We have Hagrid, constantly 
telling the trio to stay in the castle.  These adults are "in the 
way" of Harry's rule-breaking, but are positive characters that Harry 
(and the reader) respects.  

Bexis again:

>Harry's young fans are learning some 
> interesting moral lessons about the world, their place in it, and 
how 
> to better that place.
>

Well, I guess the tough question is whether the interesting moral 
lessons of HP are appropriate ones.  My own view is that they are.  
All of us are faced with rules.  Some rules are arbitrary and trivial 
(or at least seem to be).  Others are logical and important.  Perhaps 
most people would agree that, as a starting point, all rules should 
be followed.  But those same people would likely also agree that, 
when the stakes are high enough, a rule shouldn't prevent a person 
from doing the right thing in a critical situation.  If Harry's fans 
reach that conclusion as part of their HP experience (or even just 
attempt to wrap their minds around those issues), I would say that is 
not necessarily a bad thing.

Anyway, that's my take on it.

Cindy