On following rules

[gwendolyngrace]

No: HPFGUIDX 37413

Greetings!

Porphyria came up with some top-notch questions based on the Percy
discussion.

I have a general response, since I realize that my answer addresses
all her specific questions, kinda. In general, I think JKR's "deal"
with rule-breaking is a question of degree.

I think the books show that not all rules or laws are equal. Some are
more and less important. I think that she is trying to promote a
*healthy* questioning of authority. Those who are presented negatively
in the books are people who are following rules blindly and just for
the sake of upholding them.

I think another point she makes is that we aren't always happy with
the constrictions rules place upon us, but that there are times when
following them is for the best, and times when it is better to break
them. For example, when Hermione tells McGonagall about the Firebolt,
yes, Harry is unhappy. And Hermione is upset not because she doubts
her action, but because taking the stand made Ron and Harry angry at
her. But it turns out in the end that her suspicions were right, even
though Sirius had no motive to harm Harry. Lesson: better safe than sorry.

When characters *do* decide to break rules for good reasons, reasons
of "moral fiber," as Dumbledore would put it, they are shown
sympathetically. When characters break rules for their own
satisfaction, it is presented less as less ideal. Again, there's a
question of scale at work. Fred and George sneak into the kitchens,
but as HRH learn later, there's no provision upon the house-elves
against providing snacks. The only rule broken then really is being
out of the common room after hours. In the grand scale, that's not a
very important rule. Hence, little consequence if caught (a detention,
a few points, no real harm done).

But the larger the infraction and the more sensible the rule, the
worse the characters appear to us. When Barty Sr. arranges to switch
his wife and his son, he is taking the law into his own hands, and as
it turns out, he is abetting a dangerous criminal, aiding his eventual
escape. The strain on father and son in this episode is not
sympathetic at all, and neither benefits from it in the end. On the
scale, it's a more drastic case of law-breaking, and thus a more dire
consequence.

I do think there are inconsistencies in this portrayal, but that
overall, Rowling is using a combination of respect and common sense.
She acknowledges that there must be some order to the world, or else
it will be impossible to navigate. But at the same time, she cautions
that not all rules are to be followed to the same degree, and not in
all circumstances.

Gwen