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

pippin_999 foxmoth at qnet.com
Wed May 1 19:34:19 UTC 2002


No: HPFGUIDX 38379

At first I was with those who saw the theme of the books as a 
struggle between those with a moral code and those without. 
Eloise put that very well, so I wasn't going to say anything,  but  I 
have reconsidered. The Dursleys definitely live by a code, and it's 
probably a moral one according to their lights, so I think we need 
to look a little deeper.

I think the theme is a struggle between those who live by a code 
that recognizes the  rights of others, and those who do not. I think 
Dumbledore's code includes  the right to determine good and 
evil according to one's own conscience.  Thus Dumbledore's 
goodness is limited: though we may regard Dumbledore as 
morally superior, he does not claim to be so himself. This is 
what distinguishes him from icons of goodness like Aslan and 
Gandalf.  This is a very humanist point of view, so those who 
despise humanism are probably not going to be happy with the 
books. 

Looked at this way,  the ambiguities begin to resolve. Although 
Dumbledore doubtless disapproves of the Dursleys, he upholds 
their right to be Harry's guardians, and their right to raise him as 
they see fit.  Likewise, it appears he believes that Harry has a 
right to face Voldemort, even though it puts him in danger. Snape 
has the right to be a nasty git, so long as he doesn't exceed his 
authority as a teacher. In the same way, Sirius and Lupin 
acknowledge Harry's right  to decide the fate of Pettigrew. 

Hermione has a right to take too many classes. Sidelight: if
she had been forced to limit her choices at the outset, she 
probably would have chosen Divination over Arithmancy and 
Muggle Studies so that she could be with her friends, and she 
might never have discovered her favorite subject.

If this is the traditional morality of the wizarding world, then what 
makes the Unforgiveable Curses unforgiveable  is that they 
tresspass on  basic rights: life (avada kedavra), liberty (imperius) 
and the pursuit of happiness (crucio). Though this concept of 
rights appears in the American Declaration of Independence, the 
American founding fathers derived theses values from the 
Scottish enlightenment, so Rowling is not necessarily invoking 
an American ideal here.  

Much of the conflict in the story revolves around how universally 
those rights should be applied -- do House Elves have a right to 
liberty? Do Muggles have the rights of "beings"? -- and the way 
prejudice interferes with recognizing the rights of others.


By rejecting Slytherin and accepting Gryffindor, Harry has chosen 
to be educated in a House that emphasizes rights and 
obligations to others, ie "chivalry" and we see him, as he grows 
up, internalizing its values. Lying is the norm in the Dursley 
household, and Harry has had no compunction about it, but for 
the first time, in GoF, Harry's conscience dings him when he tells 
a lie, not because he's decided lying is wrong, but because he 
believes Hagrid has a right to expect the truth. 


 *******
Marina:
>>>The Slytherins deserved to  lose the House Cup because of 
Draco's actions.  They did *not* deserve to have their faces 
rubbed in it in front of the whole school.  And Snape, in particular, 
did not deserve to be jerked around by his boss in front of all his 
colleagues.<<<

Don't forget how the Slytherins behaved when they took the lead. 
They were rubbing Harry's nose in it, in front of the whole school. 
"Slytherins, on the other hand, clapped as he went by, whistling 
and cheering." Apparently they've been insufferable about 
winning for the past six years, because even the other Houses 
are angry that Gryffindor blew its chances.    As for Snape, who  
"lives in disguise, who deals in secrets and tells naught but 
lies," I'm sure he knew exactly what was coming. Malfoy is 
"stunned and horrified", as he deserves to be, but Snape isn't 
shocked, he goes at once to shake McGonagall's hand.

I admit in real life it would have been unfairly harsh. However in 
the context of the books, it was more like hitting the proverbial  
mule upside the head to get his attention. The wizards are   
more resistant to physical damage than Muggles are, and can 
recover miraculously. The same seems to be true of emotional 
harm. It's already been noted many times that Harry has suffered 
far less  from the Dursley's'  treatment of him than we could 
expect. What if that is true of wizards generally? Wizards aren't 
just expected to act tough, they *are* tough, and their culture 
reflects that. 

It's a dramatic device as well: like the characters in sitcoms and 
soap operas, the people of the wizarding world can tolerate a lot 
more verbal abuse and emotional punishment than real people, 
which allows the author to put them in highly  dramatic 
situations. Their initial reactions are realistic, but the likelihood of 
longterm emotional damage is slight, unless the plot requires it. 
Look at Sirius. As others have noted, he's a lot saner in GoF than 
he has any right to be, considering the way he acted in PoA.

Lilahp:
>>>it would be quite  interesting if, in one of the future books, 
JKR does point out the  discrimination against the Slytherins, 
which is quite unfair at  times. <<<<<

I think JKR is setting this up. I don't think it's subversive to see 
Hagrid's "there's not a single witch or wizard who went bad who 
wasn't in Slytherin" as slander, and Lee Jordan's "why don't they 
just chuck all the Slytherins out?" as  prejudice. And Harry 
wonders whether his first impression of the Slytherins is not 
colored by what he's heard about them.

Pippin








More information about the HPforGrownups archive