Rule Breaking & HP

[Penny & Bryce]

No: HPFGUIDX 29182

Hi --

Beck, Jim wrote:


> I see the theme of rulebreaking as key.  The rulebreakers (except the evil
> Voldemort) tend to be portrayed as right more often than wrong.  The only
> major exception to this is rulebreaking to make money.  That kind of
> rulebreaking tends to fail, whether it's by Bagman, Fletcher, or the Weasley
> twins.  Rulebreaking for moral reasons almost always succeeds in the HP
> series.
> 
> I have no problem with rulebreaking for moral reasons.  But it's problematic
> whether it should be so strongly advocated for children.  It's one thing
> when Martin Luther King, Jr., or even Daniel Berrigan, does this.  It's
> another to have 10-year-olds do it.

Why?  Do we not want our children to learn to think about rules in the 
*context* of over-arching moral principles?  Do we not want to foster & 
encourage complex thinking?  I don't *get* the problem here really.  I 
was just talking about Connie Neal's book ("What's a Christian to do 
with HP?") in another post to address Peg's question.  Neal has some 
really worthwhile things to say on this subject.

She notes that no one (most especially children) wants to read about 
one-dimensional characters who always do the right thing.  Dividing the 
characters into Good or Evil would be quite simplistic and unsatisfying. 
Neal said "One dimensional characters have limited instructive value. 
Once kids know the difference between right and wrong, the real test 
becomes teaching them *how* to do the right things, even in the face of 
peer pressure and in a complex moral world."  She also notes a bit later 
that rules are to be "followed or disregarded in the *context* of moral 
principles."  There are *lesser* rules, laws, etc., and I would argue 
that there are times when the lesser rules & laws must give way to the 
greater principles.  Without sitting down & chronicling each instance of 
rule-breaking (although it's a task I'd like to do someday ... for 
purposes of arguments like this), I would say that the rule-breaking 
that occurs in HP and goes unpunished (or is rewarded) is probably 
almost always the result of a lesser rule giving way to the greater good.

The Alan Jacobs article that Peg referenced in her post has some nice 
things to say about this subject also.  Jacobs notes that Harry is a 
good character ... but he is not *inevitably* good.  He must learn that 
he bears the responsibility for making his character.  In CoS, he asked 
"Who am I?  Do I belong in Slytherin?" when instead he should have been 
asking "What must I do to become the sort of person I should be?"  He 
must realize that he has to take affirmative steps to do the right 
thing.  Dumbledore says at the end of GoF that sometimes one must choose 
between what is right & what is easy.  Sometimes "following the rules" 
and "toeing the line" are what's easy.  It doesn't mean that this is 
always "right."  Percy may be a good example of someone who will need to 
learn this lesson.

One author has charged that Harry's misdeeds are always without 
consequence, always unpunished.  I used an example from PoA to 
contradict this statement in a recent church discussion group 
(discussing the Connie Neal book).  When Harry breaks the rules to sneak 
off to Hogsmeade, it is for his own pleasure (there is no higher good 
involved here).  He doesn't get detention or expelled.  Lupin saves his 
neck from Snape.  *But,* if you recall the conversation that Lupin had 
with Harry after they left Snape's office, you will remember that Harry 
thinks to himself that he felt far worse after what Lupin said to him 
than he had at any point in Snape's office.  He wishes, in fact, that he 
was back in Snape's office.  No consequences?  Pshaw.

Penny