[HPforGrownups] Good & Evil/ Dark Mark

[Edblanning at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 36799

Anna:
> Chyna Rose wonders randomly:
> <<
> Is there a true, clear line between Good and Evil? Does
> a means considered 'Evil' (use of 'dark' magic and
> artifacts) automatically become good just because the
> 'Good' side uses it? And who's to say that they are on
> the side of 'Good' in the first place? After all, I'm
> sure that V's convinced 100% Right.
> >>
> 
> Interesting question. Voldemort's philosophy is kind of
> difficult to pin down, because it both conforms to the
> model of ideological tyranny (genetic purity, in this
> case) and, um, doesn't. Voldemort tells Harry that there
> is no good or evil, only power, but Harry rejects this
> idea, and I think we're supposed to as well.
> 
> It seems to me that one of the defining characteristics
> of the "Good" characters is that they have a strong moral
> compass. Or at least, they have a moral compass. They
> believe there is a line between Good and Evil. Lucius
> Malfoy, Peter Pettigrew, and Voldemort, OTOH, all seem
> unconcerned with such concepts; their beliefs and
> allegiences shift depending on what serves them best.
> It's been theorized that Lucius wouldn't have minded
> Draco and Harry becoming friends because their
> friendship is potentially useful to him - nevermind that
> this is the boy who defeated Lucius' lord and master.
> Contrast Harry, who refuses Draco's friendship - a very
> powerful alliance - on principal. None of the "Good"
> characters are perfect, but they're all able to feel
> shame when they've done something wrong and get back on
> track. Lucius, Pettigrew, and Voldemort don't seem to
> recognize the concept of "wrong," and that's why they're
> able to commit such atrocities.
> 
> Now compare that to Voldemort-Era Bartemius Crouch, Sr.
> He's so sure that he's in the right that he forgets
> what's wrong. And that leads to such intemperate
> decisions as giving Aurors free license to kill and
> prosecuting his own son without a second thought.
> Crouch's philosophy is that if you are right, nothing is
> wrong. But as with Voldemort, I think we're led to
> believe that this way of thinking is, well, wrong.
> 
> You can even apply this theory to the Dursleys, who at
> least ostensibly thought they were doing Harry a favor
> by beating the magic out of him, and surely think they're
> doing right by Dudley by spoiling him rotten. Again,
> they're so caught up in what's "right" that they can't
> see the wrong.
> 
> This is where the series achieves its greatest depth, IMO.
> So far, I don't think we've seen a villain who so much
> chooses to do evil as chooses not to recognize it. It's
> 
.

I think you're spot on, Anna. It is exactly my view of the good/evil conflict 
in HP. Back when we were summarising our Snapetheories, I wrote this:

>My understanding of him is that his soul, psyche (whatever) is a 
battleground, not >perhaps, between good and evil, which is how we might view 
it from the Light side, >but between the existence and non-existence of good 
and evil.

>(One of the things that has struck me is that the evil in HP is basically 
manifested >in evil actions, this, along with some distinctly non PC views. 
Good and evil don't >seem to be anchored in any kind of belief system. We 
don't appear to have either >good or evil higher powers at work. This is 
(IMHO) one of the reasons why we have >difficulty in defining exactly what 
the Dark Arts are. OTOH, Dumbledore and >Voldemort have more than pasing 
similarities to God and the Devil, at least as, >within the Potterverse, the 
embodiments of good and evil, so Snape turning from >one to the other *looks* 
like a conversion.Yet actually, the 'Light' side is full of grey >characters. 
Even Dumbledore, I think, particularly in the light of recent posts, can >be 
regarded as grey. The difference between them and the 'Dark' ones, IMO, is 
that >they recognise that good and evil exist.)

Rather than a conflict of 'good' and 'evil', we have a conflict between those 
who recognise those concepts - those with a moral sense - and those who don't.

I note that the idea also comes up in that interesting essay by Grynbaum, 
which David pointed us to
(www.cgjungpage.org/articles/grynbaumpotter.html): 

       'Rowling is clear that it pays to trust the self, and that the "self" 
is a progressive   undertaking of one's own personal power. Evil for her 
seems to be a form of unconsciousness.'

I think we have an unfortunate but understandable tendency to use 'evil' as a 
shorthand way of expressing the activities of the Dark side. This is then 
where we get false conflicts, as far as I am concerned, over for instance, 
whether Fudge is Evil. I have campaigned long and hard for his status as an 
evil character, yet I don't think he is conventionally evil. I think he did 
evil things in the past, but that the evil he now embodies is the evil of 
lack of consciousness, of an unwillingness to be aware. In fact I think Dark 
and Light are much more useful concepts. The Light side, being in the light, 
can see things more clearly, including their own faults. The Dark side walk 
in ethical blindness. It's terribly hard to say these things without sounding 
Biblical.

Naama writes about the Dark Mark:

> No. Voldemort would never allow a mechanism that would enable one DE 
> to recognise another. Remember we're talking about a secret 
> organisation - for one member to potentially be able to point out ALL 
> other members means that one traitor can bring down the whole 
> organisation. 
> At the graveyard scence, we saw how Voldemort used the mark - as a 
> means to call his followers to his side. I don't remember his exact 
> words, but I did get the impression that he is the only one who can 
> 

Eloise:

But this contradicts what Snape himself tells us:
 'It was a means of distinguishing each other , and his means of summoning us 
to him.' (GoF 606).
In fact we were discussing this topic (or at least, Porphyria and I were) 
last week. See posts 36545, 36574 and 36596, if you're interested.

Of course, there is a weakness in the system, as you point out. Marina points 
out that this is an infringement of Evil Overlord Rule No 104: 'My undercover 
agents will not have tattoos identifying them as members of my organisation, 
nor will they be required to wear military boots or adhere to any other dress 
code.' But  *Evil Overlords* do break the rules. Otherwise, evil triumphs and 
we can't have that now, can we? 

Eloise


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]