Rulebreaking: Twilight in the Garden of Naughty and Nice

[tex23236]

No: HPFGUIDX 38507

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Amy Z <lupinesque at y...> wrote:
> The question in Phil's book (_J.K. Rowling's Harry
> Potter Novels_) is:
> 
>  Which rules or laws
> do they break?  

Any that get in their way.

> Does Rowling see their behavior as
> justified? 

Sometimes

> Why or why not?  

For the most part, rule-breaking is justified to stop Voldemort--
-- in the long run.  MWPP broke the animagus law, unjustifiably at
the time. But later, the act would help slow down Voldemort.

> How does she gauge whether
> a law or a rule is just or unjust?  

Actually, she doesn't, very much. She leaves it more or less to
individual
readers to decide for themselves.

> When are laws or
> rules susceptible to challenge?

They all always are, in the Potterverse, IMHO.  We don't clearly see
the MoM's legitimacy as a legislative body.  The WW seems to me an 
anarchy, with the MoM a vigilante group with some popular support.  
And a real law should have to be passed by Parliament, in England 
at least, and we don't see this.  So, some actions are not in fact against 
English law.  Murder, kidnap, forcible entry, and assault certainly are
illegal and for the most part are perpetrated only by the bad guys,
exept for the occasional altercation between students.
 -------
 
> Do
> you see changes in Harry's attitudes towards rules,
> and if so, what should we make of these changes?  Any
> predictions about further developments?
> 
Harry was a stranger to the WW in the early books.  Strangers
tend to obey such rules as they know about a place. As one
becomes more familiar with the culture, one knows better
what will be tolerated.

> (3) On a couple of occasions, characters distinguish
> between lower-level and higher-level laws.  
>...  Do you accept the
> distinction?  Is it made consistently within the HP
> universe?  

The examples given are about the only times the "levels" come 
up, AFAICT.

> Does it cause "slippery slope" problems?

"Slippery slope" is certainly a problem, and a possibility.  The 
inconsistant and corrupt MoM is a part of the problem. I personally
have problems with the legitimacy of Wizard law.

> (4) Critics of HP often cite Harry's rulebreaking,
> Dumbledore's winking at it, etc., as a reason the
> books are unsuitable for children.  Be honest, now: 
> do you think the books send less-than-desirable
> messages about rules?  About the rule of law?  How
> *should* books deal with the phenomenon of
> rulebreaking, if at all?

Kids break rules.  The rule-breaking has consequenses in the books. 
When Harry breaks the Hogsmeade rule, he is (rightly) repremanded by
two or three people, incliding Snape.

>     Corollary to 4:  Will JKR be sending a bad message if Voldemort
> goes unpunished?

The story is not about Voldemort, IMHO.  Voldemort, who so far
exibits no redeeming social value, is not really a character; he is a
part of the setting.
> 
> (5)   If it is true that one must
> sometimes contravene the law in order to do what is
> right, what then should guide us in determining what
> is right?:  

Only personal concience and popular concensus is left. And that should
be enough. King and Ghandi won because even their advasaries
recognized  they were right.


> (6) What about the fact that the law and government of
> the WW are themselves shown to be corrupt, unjust,
> misguided, fallible, etc.?   What
> do you think we are to conclude about our own
> governments/laws from the examples given in HP?

A government is at bottom a protection racket, even when
a government can claim legitimacy by having the general 
concent of the governed. Most democratic governments leave
room for "justifiable" breaking of its laws, knowing the law 
is imperfect.  I suspect most Witchards in the WW would excuse
the actions taken by our protagonist and his friends as 
justifiable; they would prefer the breaking of those rules to the
reign of Voldemort.

Tex