Rulebreaking (Official Philip Nel Question #6) (Take #1)

[Penny Linsenmayer]

No: HPFGUIDX 38521

 Hi all --

I've been looking forward to this discussion topic for some time.  I hope we'll kick around lots of good ideas this week as we explore the concept of "rule-breaking" within the Potterverse.  Amy is certainly correct in noting that it is this aspect of the books that seem to result in the heaviest criticism, both from people who object to the books on religious grounds as well and those who have no religious or occultic objections.  

Think about the individual's relationship to the law -
Hogwart's rules, national wizarding laws,
international wizarding laws - and then think about
those who operate outside of these laws.  Focus in
particular on the characters of Sirius Black, Barty
Crouch, Ludo Bagman, Arthur Weasley, the Weasley
twins, Harry, Ron and Hermione, all of whom either
bend the rules or break the law.  Which rules or laws
do they break?  Does Rowling see their behavior as
justified? Why or why not?  How does she gauge whether
a law or a rule is just or unjust?  When are laws or
rules susceptible to challenge?

I'd like to take the time to go carefully through the books & catalogue each instance of rule-breaking, but in the interests of time, I'm going to just go from memory & probably only hit the big stuff.  

SIRIUS BLACK -- 

Irene said, with regard to The Prank (that Sirius played on Snape):

<<<<I sincerely hope that Dumbledore thinks it was wrong, or else I don't 
understand how Snape can work for him. And it does not matter what Sirius meant - if there is a life  debt between Snape and James (and Dumbledore thinks there is) there must 
have been a certain life threat. So it really bugs me when characters 
(and Sirius fans ;-) keep referring to it as a childish prank.>>>>>

Well, I am a serious Sirius fan, and while I don't speak for all of us, I can say that I've not heard it referred to as "just a childish prank" that should be excused on the grounds that Sirius was too young or immature to understand what he was doing.  

What I do think most of us would say is: We don't know too terribly much about the underlying circumstances that led to The Prank, and *really* we don't know too awfully much about The Prank itself when you get right down to it.  So, my principal argument on this score is that there is not enough information to make an informed judgment one way or another.  IMO of course.  We've no idea what Snape did to incite Sirius to pull the Prank; I don't think I'm alone in supposing it is most unlikely that Sirius did it for no reason at all.  We don't know what Sirius' intentions were, and yes, intentions *do* matter.  I think they matter in general in *our* society (certainly criminal statutes prescribe different penalties depending on the perpetrator's intent at the time of commission of a crime), and they certainly seem to matter in Rowling's conception of the WW in the HP series.  That is in fact the entire point of this week's debate: Does Rowling perceive that there are higher purposes that justify breaking rules or laws in order to accomplish a desired end?  Yes, I think clearly she does.  We see evidence of this time & again in the series.  So, with regard to intent, I would argue quite strongly that Sirius' intentions do indeed matter very much in evaluating this question.  Of course, we don't know what his intentions were, so I think we must in fairness concede possible motivations at both ends of the spectrum and everything in-between.  It is quite possible that Sirius pulled a Prank that was supposed to have certain non-life-threatening results, but unbeknownst to him, certain variables occurred that led to vastly different possible outcomes.  In the other extreme, it is also possible that Sirius *knew* that Snape's death was a possibility.  

Sirius is seemingly completely unrepentent about The Prank.  In every other area of our exposure to Sirius in GoF, I would argue that Sirius has a strong moral grounding (a strong sense of his responsibilities as Harry's godfather, a strong sense of how Crouch, Sr. might have handled family affairs poorly, etc.).   So, does he have a blind spot with respect to Snape, or maybe, just possibly, is there more to The Prank than we the readers yet know?  <g>  

While I'm on Sirius, other evidence of "rule-breaking":

-- Becoming an unregistered animagus -- IMO, this falls into the category of "rule-breaking" akin to Harry's trip to Hogsmeade (for all the "Marauders").  At the *time,* there are no real drastic consequences for their actions (Lupin doesn't kill Snape and they merely frolicked & had fun, etc.).  But, think about how this series of "rule-breaking" eventually spins out to have rather dramatic consequences.  This leads rather directly to Pettigrew's ability to hide-out from justice for years and Black's wrongful imprisonment. So, I think Rowling's ultimate verdict on this score is that rule-breaking for fun or convenience has consequences, often serious consequences.

--   Escaping from Azkaban - higher purpose "rule-breaking" surely.  While he could have used the same methods to escape at any point, it isn't until the motivation of safe-guarding Harry that he takes the steps to escape.  He does seek to safe-guard Harry.  

He also seeks to take vengeance into his own hands, and it is here that he runs into problems under Rowling's moral compass IMO.  If his sole objective had remained the protection of Harry, circumstances might have turned out very differently.  Consequently, Sirius doesn't get to clear his name -- a consequence of his attempts to exact his own scheme of justice.  

But, in GoF, Harry's welfare has remained his central concern.  While he may have some short respite in the tropics, he is clearly not leading the good life for the bulk of the action in GoF (living on *rats*!).  So, his escape & continued evasion of the WW legal system seem to get a nod of approval from JKR -- again, a higher purpose where the ends justify the means I think.  Also, since the circumstances of his wrongful imprisonment are meant to excite the readers' sympathies (heh ... JKR might not have reckoned on the Snape fans) & perhaps their outrage with respect to the vagaries of the WW legal system in general -- I think this bolsters the sense that his escape and his continued existence in hiding are justified.

Hum... I haven't even touched on any of the other characters & I'm out of time for tonight.  Well, I'll continue tomorrow -- maybe I'll have time to parse through the books some more.  I agree in general with Marina's break-down of categories though.  

Penny 




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