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

[davewitley]

No: HPFGUIDX 38315

Heidi and Dicentra 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?
> 
> ********************************************************************
> 
> What does Tom think these similarities [between him and Harry] mean?

I believe he is afraid that Harry may in some sense be his equal 
rival.  He knows from Ginny that Harry as a baby defeated Voldemort.  
He is also trying to undermine Harry's confidence as a fighter for 
good - in which he temporarily and partially succeeds, as the later 
conversation with Dumbledore shows.

> What does Harry think they mean?

Harry is afraid that they may mean he is evil like Voldemort.

> What does Dumbledore think they mean?

Apart from the transfer at the time of the failed curse, he seems 
mainly concerned to convince Harry that they mean very little.  He 
presumably agrees with the Sorting Hat that Harry can be great. 
Whatever he further thinks is not for sale yet, as he said to Harry 
at the end of PS.

> What do YOU think they, and other connections that have been 
discussed in the books' subtext, mean? 

I don't know the bulk of the (snipped) literary examples given, even 
by reputation, and I'm afraid I know nothing of Enneagrams (post 
38132).  So apologies if this is repeating, but I think that it is 
possible that Voldemort is meant to be the complement or shadow of 
Harry.  The picture of Quirrell as a man with two faces is possibly a 
foreshadowing that in some sense it is only *together* that Harry and 
Voldemort are complete.  The exchanges that have already taken place 
between them (Parseltongue, blood), as well as their brother wands, 
could also symbolise this.  The message for the reader would then be 
that everybody has their own dark side, their own personal Voldemort 
who is sitting in the back of their head, acting subtly against the 
conscious interests of the visible face (V causes Harry's scar pain); 
what each person needs is to become aware of and and accept the 
existence of this part, take responsibility for it, and acknowledge 
that its actions are his own.

This is a fairly radical view of good and evil, and if it is really a 
componrent of JKR's thinking, would imply that V's ultimate fate is 
not to be killed in battle, but for whatever contribution he can make 
to be absorbed in some way into Harry.  The sort of thing that might 
happen, for example, would be for some sort of catastrophe to 
threaten the world (probably as a result of overzealous prosecution 
of the war by both sides), and for V to take up residence in Harry, 
as he has already done with Quirrell and Ginny, but with neither of 
them in control of their body.  The only way to stop the catastrophe 
is for them to agree to sacrifice themselves in some way, which they 
do.  Afterwards, they are both dead, or are a single new man.  I'm 
sorry, this is rank fanfic, and sounds very hackneyed put like that, 
but I'm only trying to get a point across that I don't understand 
very well myself.

> 
> *******************************************************************

> ARE GOOD AND EVIL BOUND CLOSELY TOGETHER 
> 
>
> 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.
> 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? 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?

If someone's intentions are good, and they are acting as responsibly 
as the limited wisdom they have allows, can that be evil?  One 
presumes that Dumbledore recognises that Harry is a focus of conflict 
whether he (H) likes it or not, and whatever he (D) does.  Dumbledore 
is taking chances, yes, but whatever he does he is taking chances: 
there is truly no safe option for Harry (or for us - all this 
business of parental permission slip signing makes adults *feel* 
better, but does it achieve anything for kids?).

I would say that JKR's message about personification of good, if that 
makes sense, is that you can only be considered good if you are 
prepared to make the kind of mistakes that can be judged to have been 
unethical after the fact if they go wrong.  IOW, 'pure' (ie law-
abiding, squeaky-clean, all-consequences-anticipating) goodness is 
impossible, even undesirable, in the Potterverse.

> 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.

A bit of a digression, but I doubt that reporting of lawbreaking can 
be taken as a an absolute litmus for good and evil.  One is reminded 
of the old saw about the letter and the spirit.  However, I also 
doubt that Lily will be represented as a sort of latter-day Mary with 
an immaculate conception.  I think it entirely possible that she knew 
about Prongs, she laughed at the stories James and friends had to 
tell, had no intention of telling the MOM, and will still be put 
forward as a 'good' character, one whose example is to be followed. 

> 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?

I wonder if part of JKR's purpose in presenting morally ambiguous 
behaviour is to make the reader realise that they can be comfortable 
with not knowing or even caring if a given act is good or evil?  
Things are as they are, and we need to decide what to do about them, 
but having decided and done, there is no further judgement outside 
our conscience to face?

I certainly believe it is misconceived to try to rate people on a 
scale of shades of grey, where Voldemort scores 0 and Dumbledore 10.  
What is Lockhart's score?  Is it greater or less than Rita Skeeter's 
or Crouch Sr's?  Does Ron score more or less than Percy?  I am happy 
never to try to answer such questions.

> 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?
> 
names snipped.
> 
> Anyone else?
> 
Yes.  I want to suggest Dumbledore and Peeves as a fruitful pairing 
for analysis.  I believe Peeves presents a sort of disempowered evil 
Dumbledore.  His sense of humour is almost identical to D's, but mean 
and petty, where D's is generous, and frequently has a point to edify 
the target of it.  It's not as simple as saying that Peeves is the 
defeated Grindelwald - perhaps, rather, Peeves is Dumbledore's 
own 'dark self' after acknowledgement and exposure.  Not destroyed or 
imprisoned, but left to vent him/itself harmlessly.

Another pairing is Sirius with his own animagus form. (I find it hard 
to understand why this only works for me with him, and not with 
James, Peter, Miverva or Rita.  Certainly Prongs represents 
continuity not variability, as he is Harry's Patronus.)  It is in his 
name: Sirius Black.  Sirius is the brightest (and most twinkling in 
northern latitudes) star in the sky, so his name is a pairing of 
opposites: the dark star.  His ability to flip between man and dog 
comes across to me as an indication of a fundamental instability, the 
see-sawing between higher and lower, the base nature ever reaching up 
to trip up and shock the civilised man just when he thinks he has 
made it.

I have in a prior post suggested how Ginny and Harry form a pairing.  
It is hard to give Snape any 'literary partner' as there is an 
embaras de richesse - I would suggest Harry again, as indicated by 
their quizzical locking of gazes at the end of GOF - the beginning, 
perhaps, of a sort of mental priori incantatem effect for the next 
three books.  But perhaps we should not seek to give every major 
character a complement.

David