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