On following rules

[alhewison]

No: HPFGUIDX 37408

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Porphyria <porphyria at m...> wrote:
> 
> But what this really got me thinking about is the whole question of 
> following rules as it's presented in the series. Characters as 
otherwise 
> different in personality as Hermione, Snape and Percy all have (or 
claim 
> to have) a tendency to stick to rules to the point where it becomes 
a fault. 

<snip> 

*
> In fact, one of the issues frequently cited by those who feel the 
books are a bad influence on children is what they perceive as it's 
support for rule breaking. Even if we can usually argue that Harry 
and Co. break  rules for a good reason, we still have to admit JKR 
writes the plot that  way. This leads to a related question: what do 
we make of the extraordinary injustices of the Wizarding world in 
general? I mean it's  obvious that 11 year old children will resent 
rules that restrict their  curiosity and freedom, but JKR has set up 
a Potterverse in which abound  injustices unthinkable in our society. 
It's clear from the circumstances  of Sirius' imprisonment that not 
only are lawyers unheard of, but he was  never even allowed visitors 
or the freedom to send an owl while  incarcerated. There was a thread 
a while back asking why Dumbledore  never visited him in prison. My 
interpretation is that it was simply forbidden: when Fudge goes to 
see Sirius it's not a visit, it's an  *inspection* and when Crouch 
Sr. and his wife got to visit their son it  was an exceptional 
circumstance that Crouch apparently had to pull 
> strings and rely on rank to accomplish. Further miscarriages of 
justice  abound, such as Buckbeak's conviction and Bagman's trial-as-
popularity  contest. And the most tragic (IMHO) example of a 
character whose actions  make a perversion of rules is Crouch Sr.: 
his sentencing his own  (apparently quite guilty) son is portrayed 
not as a measure of his  justice but of his failings as a parent; 
while his later  attempt at  'mercy,' policed by that nightmare of 
enforced rule-adherence the  Imperius Curse, is yet even more 
misbegotten. To some extent, those  complaining about the books favor 
of rule-breaking have a point; JKR  *has* gone out of her way to 
portray a society whose sense of Law *must*  be contested on ethical 
grounds.
> 
> So, questions:
> Is the horror of Law and rule-abiding in the books justified? Do 
the 
> books teach common-sense over blind following of rules, or to they 
> promote a dangerous distrust of proper authority figures?
> 
> What do you think JKR's deal is with rules and rule-breaking? Is 
being a 
> stickler for rules seen as a pathology? A symptom of a traumatized 
> personality? Something to outgrow and get over? When is it ever a 
good 
> idea?
> 
> When are characters punished or rewarded for rule breaking? What 
does 
> this mean?


One of the key issues to the question of Harry Potter on following 
rules - and also on the sister complaint, that the books seem to 
glorify lying, is that the books are told from Harry's point of view.

If you think about Harry's background, he will have seen a world of 
pointless rules there to increase his miserableness. The Dursleys had 
loads of rules which he ended up breaking, unintentionally, and 
therefore spent weeks shut up in a cupboard. The people who made the 
rules were unfair. Dudley could do no wrong, Harry could do no right. 
Even the other people in authority who should have helped him, seemed 
only to punish him for breaking other rules. Whilst there are very 
good reasons why children should not climb school buildings, the 
issue about why Harry was up there (to avoid another beating) does 
not seem to have been dealt with; Harry bullied and bewildered was 
punished again.

Harry has been let down by the rulemakers in the past and has 
therefore learnt that breaking them is a means of survival (like 
sneaking food out of the kitchen when the Dursleys are asleep after 
the zoo incident in PS/SS). Harry has learned to live with rules but 
not necessarily to accept them or be bound by them.

In GoF p35 English Hardback edition:

"Gone were the days when he had been forced to follow every single 
one of the Dursleys' stupid rules"

Our views of Wizarding rules and law will be coloured by Harry's 
attitude. Nevertheless we are shown an anachronistic society where 
discrimination and arbitrary laws seem to abound. What we donot know 
is how much of the time the WW has spent in a state of anarchy - 
perhaps one bad wizard after another has sought to take control. 
Perhaps the likes of Dumbledore (good and strong) have been rare. 
Perhaps the appeasers and bumblers as exemplified by Fudge have been 
more common, as the WW seeks to preserve the relative peace and 
harmony. If this is the case then the state of war which allowed 
Sirius to be sent,untried to Azkaban might be the usual state of 
affairs. Although it does seem that Voldemort's reign of terror was 
particularly bad.

IMO WW cannot have the same attitude to justice as the muggles 
society, as the powers of its members are just too strong. Allowing 
visitors to Azkaban would seem to allow much greater risks than 
allowing visitors to a Muggle Prison. Remember that the KISS is only 
used as a last resort, and death used only when effectively in a 
combat situation. Thus they have to protect their society by some 
means, which seems to be isolating their criminals totally from 
society. This in no way justifies their lack of trial but perhaps 
goes some way to explaining it.

I donot think that the conviction of Buckbeak stands alongside the 
lack of conviction of Sirius as an Injustice. Buckbeak is not a 
human, and is being treated more as we would treat a vicious dog. He 
is given some sort of a trial, but it is down to the incompetence of 
Hagrid - and the evil malevolence of Lucius that he loses. I can see 
this kind of situation being mirrored in muggle society. It is not 
right, it is not just, but it does happen.


Ali