Midnight in the Garden of Good & Evil (Nel Question - LONG)

[finwitch]

No: HPFGUIDX 38297

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "heiditandy" <heidit at n...> wrote:
> This week's question from the Phil Nel database...
> 
>  Why has Rowling drawn connections between Voldemort and Harry?  In
> linking these characters so closely, is she suggesting some kinship
> between opposites?  Are good and evil bound closely together?  Can 
> you think of other characters in the series who, though they appear 
> to be opposites, are in fact more alike than we initially suspect?
> 
> ********************************************************************
> 
> The connection between Harry and Voldemort is distinctly drawn in 
> CoS, when Tom Riddle points out the similarities:
> 
> "There are strange likenesses between us, after all. Even you must
> have noticed. Both half-bloods, orphans, raised by Muggles. Probably
> the only two Parselmouths to come to Hogwarts since the great
> Slytherin himself. We even *look* something alike . . ." (CoS 317)
> 
> What does Tom think these similarities mean?  What does Harry think
> they mean?  What does Dumbledore think they mean? What do YOU think
> they, and other connections that have been discussed in the books' 
> subtext, mean? 

Also, Voldemort and Harry has *ability* that's not approved of, both 
show similar uppringing, look-alike shows also genetic similarity-- 
difference is in the *choices* they made. We even have Dumbledore 
*saying* this. It's our choices that make us what we are, not our 
upbringing, abilities or anything you don't have any say upon.

<snip about Doubles>

> We've already noticed an Ambivalence double (the Father), and
> Voldemort is obviously an Antithetical double to Harry. Do any more 
> of these types of doubles turn up in HP?

Not that I notice... but there are some similarity between Draco and 
Dudley - by character, not by outer looks.
 
> ARE GOOD AND EVIL BOUND CLOSELY TOGETHER 

First to say, I don't believe in abolute moralities. I've never seen 
a moral code that'd fit in every situation. Being Good and being law-
following aren't exactly the same thing. Laws can *also* be wrong.
 
> 1. Characters
> In Post 23737, Pippin wrote, succinctly, "In Rowling's world we 
have 
> met no character who personifies the forces of good as thoroughly 
as 
> Voldemort personifies evil."
> 
> Voldemort personified evil, that is clear. We have never seen him, 
> in any of his incarnations, do anything that could be deemed 
> deliberately good or helpful (although an argument can be made that 
> he was inadvertently helpful to the students of Hogwarts back in 
the 
> 40s, when he managed to get Aragog out of the castle).
> 
> Have we, however, met no character who thoroughly personified the 
> forces of good?
> Harry? He's done some things which are against the law - wizarding 
> and Muggle.

Laws are imperfect... In general, Harry has broken rules mainly to 
defend human rights of others - or his own; And I think laws exist to 
guarantee those very rights. Breaking the letter of law, but 
defending it's spirit.

> Dumbledore? He has probably violated the law in not reporting 
> Sirius' location to the Ministry or reporting that he is an 
> unregistered animagus, but he has good reasons for doing so, 
doesn't 
> he? 

Yes. It accounts for defending a man who's under a life-threat due to 
having been sent to jail *without trial*, for something he didn't 
even commit.

>But what about the discussion we've had here about opportunities 
> for machination behind the scenes? Is it good or evil to put 
> adolescents in harm's way, even if it's for a noble cause? Many 
> people on this list would probably frown at countries who allow 
> children - 13, 14 - to become soldiers. Why don't we frown on a 
> novel where an aged headmaster may have done the same sort of thing 
> to an 11 year old - turned him into a soldier without even really 
> explaining the battle he's to fight? When is such an act good? When 
> is it evil?

He's not excactly *putting* him there, is he? The evil is always 
coming to hunt Harry, or Harry takes it upon himself to act. 
Dumbledore is mainly giving him means to, and giving support later so 
that he can understand and accept in order to heal. In any case - 
it's Harry's choice.

> Perhaps Lily will be the complete exemplar of goodness - but for us 
> to accept that now would mean concluding that she didn't know that 
> her husband was an unregistered animagus, which would then say 
> certain things about *their* relationship, or that there is no 
> obligation to turn in an unregistered animagus.

1) We don't know for certain James never registered. He was dead when 
Hermione looked at the list and would not be on it because of that.

2) James might never have told her - because doing so would have 
meant telling her also somebody else's secret.

3) They were under protection of a Secret-Keeper who *also* was 
unregistered animagus - it'd be only fair to keep *his* secret.

4) It can be questioned does Ministry have a right to insist on 
registration at all, particularly during Voldemort's reign, when 
being secret animagi could save one's life. How'd you feel if your 
society expected you to registrate for being able to do something to 
yourself that others are not, for the reason that this ability puts 
you into suspicion of using it wrong?

> 2. Actions & Words
> On a smaller level, what determines whether an act is "good" 
> or "evil"? Here's a set of examples from Book 3:
> Harry is not supposed to go to Hogsmeade, but sneaks there via the 
> Map, then uses the cloak to stay unseen. Is this good or evil?

Neither - merely an adolescent reaction to the situation. I dare say 
that every adolescent in a similar situation would have done the same.
It was being 13.

> Draco is allowed to be in Hogsmeade, and when he sees Harry there, 
> knowing that Harry is not allowed to go, he tells on him to a 
> teacher. Is this good or evil?

This *would* count for good. It's not like any group Draco is a 
member of would except any different.

> Ron lies to Snape to try to keep Harry from being punished. Is this 
> good or evil?

Ron is following teen-age norms but breaking adult-norms. Him being 
teen-ager, this is acceptable. He's also showing understanding to his 
friend who isn't likely to get understanding from *anyone* else. 
Protecting a friend -- I'd say it goes for good, all things 
considered.

> Snape, who believes Draco's accusation, says mean things about 
> Harry's father while accusing Harry of breaking the school rule. Is 
> this good or evil?

Evil... though I prefer the word wrong. Telling an orphaned kid his 
parents were bad, is just about the worst thing to do!

> Lupin chastises Harry for breaking the school rule. Is this good or 
> evil?
> Lupin, who knows that Harry broke the school rule, does not punish 
> him in the traditional way, with detentions, or a report to his 
head 
> of house or the headmaster. Is this good or evil?

I'd say he acted right so far as he could. He managed to prevent 
*both* further rule-breaking *and* Harry committing suicide to be 
with his late parents. He was unable to deal with the reason, but did 
well with dealing the symptoms.

> How does someone's movitation affect whether an act is good or evil?
> Lupin's motivation above may've been self-preservation; letting his 
> higher-ups know about the rule breaking would've let Dumbledore 
know 
> about the Map and perhaps about the Animagi as well.
> Draco's motivation may've been to get Harry expelled; does a 
> motivation make a "proper" or "good" act evil?

We don't *know* what their motivations were! Therefore, I'm going to 
give them us much as not trying to make such acts *evil* by mere 
speculation.

> 3. Themes in Literature
> One of the oldest themes in literature is the triumph of good over 
> evil. While the HP canon is still open, and at this juncture, it's 
> impossible to tell where good and evil stand on the continuum of 
> each character (other than perhaps Harry and Voldemort), what 
> factors do we, the readers, use to determine whether a character or 
> an action is evil or not? In Book 3, even at the end, did anyone 
> think that Harry's request to turn Wormtail in was anything but a 
> good decision? What would the Diggorys say about that decision at 
> the end of Book 4? 

The act of saving a life of PP. I think it *was* a good deed, even 
when considering events of Book 4. What about the decision to share 
the Cup? It was also a *good* choice. Just because there were *two* 
persons making an evil deed afterwards, didn't make Harry's choices 
any less good.

> OPPOSITES & SIMILARITIES
> 
> Do any of these pairs/groups function as doubles (they might not)? 
If
> so, which kind? What function might this doubling have in the Grand
> Scheme of Things?
> 
> Harry and James

Definate similarity- everyone tells Harry he's like James. It did 
have a function in PoA when Harry mistook his older self as his 
father, as well as Harry's Patronus. Why Voldemort was out to kill 
James and Harry but not Lily may also be explained by this.

> Harry and Lockhart

Opposites considering fame... Choice for what to do with fame.

> Harry, Ron, Hermione

Well... they all have *something* in common with JKR, but Harry and 
Hermione more so. (Anyone else read Sean Smith's biography of JKR?)

> Dumbledore and Voldemort
Powerful wizards with opposing ideas of everything. Choice of what to 
do with power.

> Sirius, James, Peter, Remus (aka The Marauders) and their animal 
> selves)

Rat's are generally survivors, but they also spread Black Death. Goes 
with Peter (who did survive).
James as Stag. Big, noble and noticeable but animal of prey. Goes 
fine with James.
Sirius and Dog. Name, loyalty, currently living like a dog - and: 
canine.
Remus' wolf... canine - therefore has something in common with 
Sirius - loyalty again. Also, Wolf is freer than a dog - but both 
need their pack. Something indeed.

> Harry and Draco
Very *unlike* each other, but both live in the footsteps of their 
father's.

> Ron and Draco

Family-pride for both. Adopted their fathers' hostilities and 
concepts, but Ron less.

> McGonagall, Snape, and Dumbledore

Ahh... leader and "hands".

> McGonagall and Trelawney
Two so much unlike each other, but *do* have similarities:
* forgive rule-breaking for talent
* enthusiasm for their own talent
* True Sight for Trelawney /Animagi-transformation for McGonagall, 
*both* in 3rd book! the prime of their subject.

> McGonagall and Hermione

Similarities... just rule-following concepts for most part. And 
transfiguration: Hermione *was* best of the class in it - and 
McGonagall teaches it.

> Crouch Sr. and Ludo Bagman
Hmm... Gambling and regretting of unseen crimes.

> Sirius and Snape

Ah... Very different ideas of what should be done! Or what *was* done.
Both very stubborn. But I tend to agree with Sirius more.

> Lily and Hermione

Both Muggle-born witches on top of class. I think Hermione will be 
Head-girl.

> Snape and James

Do they have *anything* in common? All we know of them is that James 
saved Snape, but Snape hates James.

> Ginny and Lily

Don't know if these girls have anything in common but their looks.

> Snape and Lupin

Opposites: Snape presents worst kind of teacher and Lupin the best.

> Dudley and Draco

*Very* much alike... Mirror-image, I'd say. Dursleys hate wizards as 
much as Malfoys hate Muggles.

--- Finwitch