Harry Potter and the Privileges of Birth

[David]

No: HPFGUIDX 29122

Jim Beck wrote an extensive essay on Harry's birth privileges:

I have to say this thought provoking post made me think anew about 
the series.  One of the reasons I now dislike Lord of the Rings is 
because I see much of this type of theme in it - yet at least Bilbo 
and Frodo are ordinary.  Here are some thoughts.

> these 
> attributes are essentially the noblesse oblige of rapidly vanishing 
> British aristocracy 
> 
> 	First and foremost, Harry is one of the elect, born into the 
> select and secret elite. Witches and wizards, like the old English 
> aristocracy, know they are superior to the surrounding muggle 
world.  
> 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.   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.

Two points here.  First, JKR has a basic problem - how to give the 
stories a superficial plausibility when we all know there are no 
wizards?  Inevitably there is a story of secrecy, which is explained 
in different ways by different people (I don't agree with Rita that 
Hagrid only got the 'cover story' - it's just part of their culture 
and different parts of the myth are emphasised by different people.)  
Secondly, the wizards as elite.  There is a problem here - the 
attitude of Dumbledore in particular seems to indicate that muggles 
have as much value as wizards, ethically; the trouble is that JKR 
doesn't back it up with anything that only Muggles can contribute, 
economically, socially or culturally.  Mike Gray asked about this 
about six months ago, with no discernible response.  It is clear 
however, that JKR is very much aware that the idea of wizards as the 
elite is a major temptation, and makes it a hot topic.  The reader 
ought not to feel they can get away with this interpretation.  I 
believe the intended interpretation is that Harry has found a 
parallel universe - an embryonic family - in which he belongs.

> 	Harry is the elite of the elite.  
> Although raised muggle, he's the born superstar or the hidden crown 
> prince.  He's rich, which helps now and will help more as he gets 
> older.  He was famous before he arriving at Hogwarts – the "new 
> celebrity."   Even though he never 
> heard of Quidditch he's an exceptional player from the moment he 
> first picks up a broom.  It's inevitable that he will grow up to do 
> extraordinary things, that's what the series is about.  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.

When it comes to 'special Harry', we are on slightly different 
ground.  The person who by their noble behaviour reveals their noble 
birth is of course far older and wider in fiction than the English 
aristocracy, from Snow White through Shakespeare and The Princess and 
the Pea to Miles Vorkosigan.  Does Harry fit?  Firstly, his wider 
background - Lily's family, the name Potter not one of the 
baroque 'old wizard' families, suggests ordinariness. Secondly his 
parents are respected, presumably for what they have done, and some 
of that does reflect on to him.  Thirdly, it is a central mystery of 
the series that as a baby he defeated Voldemort.  Arguments are rife 
in fandom about what that means for his special nature, but the 
faction (perhaps too strong a word) that holds that what is special 
is the fact that his mother loved him, rather than a 'blood' thing, 
holds its end up well.  The parallel thread on the heir of Gryffindor 
shows that while plenty are tempted to take Harry as the 'elite of 
the elite', it is not universally accepted - and in three more books 
JKR can decisively resolve the issue.

It is also worth noting that the viewpoint above is expressed, and 
not completely unsympathetically, in the books, in the mouth of 
Snape.  The idea of an elite within the wizarding world, is of 
course, the viewpoint of Malfoy, fairly decisively rejected for the 
reader by JKR.

> Every crisis has Harry breaking adult rules and defying adult 
> authority to follow his own inevitably correct judgment

Undoubtedly this is true in the early books.  In GOF, however, at the 
rebirthing scene, we see that Harry has to learn that he, like 
everyone else, is wrong.  There is another aspect, however.  In 
breaking rules, Harry is following Dumbledore's example and even 
instruction (time turner), and indeed Arthur Weasley's.

This is undoubtedly a major cultural issue for fans.  I have been 
meaning to post about Mundungus Fletcher - or, rather, this list's 
reaction to him.  It seems that there is a deliberately anarchic 
strand to the series, and that rule-breaking, if not exactly lauded, 
is condoned.  Getting round ministry rules is a big game, with 
Mundungus and others on one side, and Arthur and his colleagues on 
the other.  Arthur's comment on Mundungus is like that on a sporting 
event - he tried to get one past me but I was equal to him.  Even 
Percy's comment "I've got his number" suggests the thrill of contest 
as much as parking meter officialdom.  The Veela upset the World Cup 
referee and it's all part of the fun.  Percy's rule keeping is 
mercilessly mocked.  Cheating is a time-honoured part of the 
Triwizard tournament.  The Bulgarian Minister of Magic conceals his 
knowledge of English to embarrass Fudge.

I think many fans are uneasy with this aspect of Harry Potter, and 
with perhaps more justice than the religious right.  I, personally, 
enjoy it, and have no fears for what my children will imbibe.  But as 
the list's only declared anarchist (my six comrades according to 
Penny's poll are too shy to say who they are), you'd expect that.

Yes, Harry's and Dumbledore's judgement is consistently presented as 
better than the Ministry's, and other structural sources of authority 
like the Dursleys and, to an extent, McGonagall.  I don't see that as 
a bad thing in a world governments still manage to produce a fair 
slice of the world's untimely deaths.  And the view that individual 
judgement is best is not completely unchallenged.  Sirius and 
Hermione try to act as a check on Harry, and the reader is to 
understand that not only their motives but their judgement is better 
than his.  Rita Skeeter represents unaccountable individual judgement 
taken to its extreme.

David