Rules in HP

[dfrankiswork at netscape.net]

No: HPFGUIDX 37445

Porphyria wrote:

> 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?

I'm not sure that the horror of rules is as strong in the books as you make out.  I think there are three reasons that people follow rules in general:

because Rules are Good and Must Be Obeyed;
because they are supported by a system of rewards and punishments;
because in the big picture each rule has a reason for being there, and breaking it will lead to undesirable or even catastrophic consequences.

My view is that Percy is portrayed as being influenced by the first reason, but much of this has to do with the fact that we mostly see his interaction with Ron and the twins.  It does go further, as when he insinuates Arthur shouldn't have spoken after the World Cup, but it need not be the whole story.

I believe that it is easy to think that the overthrow of the first or second motivations above must lead to a view that rule-breaking is to be encouraged, but this is not really the case.

Hermione seems at the beginning of the series to be influenced by both the first and the second reasons, but she matures rapidly and adopts the attitude that rules are there for a reason.  I also think that this is the view that JKR is leading us to adopt, too.  Thus, in PS, she makes her famous remark about expulsion being worse than being killed, which could be an example of reason 2 (or it could just be a statement of fact: better dead than not at Hogwarts - Harry and Tom Riddle would understand).

However, I see her crossness with Harry and Ron over the Flying Ford incident as evidence of reason 3:  like Dumbledore and McGonagall, she realises that what Harry and Ron did was daft and dangerous.  I believe she is mostly angry not because of what they did but because of the attitude of the rest of the Gryffindors.

The Firebolt incident is not really to do with rules at all, as the Firebolt was not illegal.  She was merely being protective.  The outturn of events showed that in that particular case that was not necessary, but I would say that's merely a case of hindsight.  Whether anxiety leads to good judgement is IMO a separate issue from rule-keeping (though one that JKR addresses).

I'd say Hermione's concern over the Marauder's Map is likewise based on the realisation that it represents a danger to Harry.  It *is * illegal, but only because the twins de-confiscated it, and she does not seem to be saying Filch should have it back.

As a result of this increasing maturity, Hermione does not abandon rules, she just gets them in perspective.

The case of Harry with the time turner is particularly instructive.  Hermione repeatedly has to tell Harry not to interfere in a way that 'breaks the rules', but, given that the whole escapade is a Dumbledore-endorsed rule-break, it is clear that her concern is the consequences.  Harry himself admits that he would think some sort of dark magic was going on if he saw himself in Hagrid's hut.  However, when Harry does allow himself to be seen, it is precisely *because* he already knows what the consequences are, in a way that normally one never can.  He knows that he *did* see himself, so the whole imperative not to upset history *demands* that he be seen.  So he is obeying the spirit of the rule (don't use time travel to create paradoxes or otherwise upset the applecart), rather than the letter (don't be seen).

My basis for believing that JKR supports the responsible view of rules (as I think of it) is mainly that Dumbledore appears to take this view.  His twitch of the lips when describing Harry and Salazar Slytherin's picked pupils as having 'a certain disregard for the rules' says it all.  He is not about to let Harry get away with anything ('*Professor* Snape, Harry' sounds like zero tolerance to me; 'Please explain why you did this'), but he knows that rules are not everything.  He is consistently portrayed as on the side of order, not just good, the most telling case being the dismay almost universally felt when Malfoy suspends him.

McGonagall is interesting, too.  She generally behaves as though she takes the 'responsible' view, but just occasionally she appears to lack the courage of her convictions.  She tells Fudge that 'Dumbledore would never allow a Dementor on the premises', and while this may merely represent good psychology with the institutional-minded Fudge, it also smacks to my ear a little of appealing to Dumbledore's authority because she doesn't quite have confidence in her own.

There is a person in HP who is consistently portrayed as being a rule-breaker.  He is never shown doing anything other than things which no teacher would countenance, and would be seen as flagrant rule-breaking in any student.  That person is Peeves.  It is clear that he is not meant as a role model.  What he *is* meant to be (IMO) I will save for another post, but as a dot on the landscape of possible attitudes to rule keeping and breaking, he clearly represents an authorial 'Don't Go There'.

David


__________________________________________________________________
Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop at Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/

Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/