Rulebreaking (Official Philip Nel Question #6)

Fri May 10 12:09:31 UTC 2002

No: HPFGUIDX 38632

Amy quoted Phil Nel:

"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... Arthur Weasley [who among others] 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 think the case of Arthur Weasley is interesting because he does break rules, while at the same time being in a position where it is his job to enforce them.  Indeed he gets into trouble precisely over this issue.  Furthermore, he is presented as a 'good' character - not necessarily a role model (I wonder, are *any* of the HP characters intended to be something which the reader should aspire to emulate? I think not myself.) but not somebody who is supposed to be a bad example either.

One might argue that rule-breaking should fall into two categories: justified rule-breaking, when a rule is being broken in obedience to a higher law or moral imperative (Dumbledore protects Sirius), and unjustified rule breaking, where a rule is being broken for selfish ends (Bagman tries to fix the contest).  There may be a grey area in between, where, say, somebody breaks a rule with consequences that are both generally beneficial and in the short term interest of the rule breaker, or breaking the rule is a short cut to a good end that could be achieved legally, if circuitously (some of Harry's investigations in COS plausibly fall into this category).

Arthur is interesting because his rule-breaking is hard to classify in this scheme, even allowing for the grey areas.  He charms the Ford Anglia (though he claims that is technically not illegal), he wangles perks like the World Cup tickets (it is implied that he abetted a minor miscarriage of justice over Otto Bagman's lawnmower) and the Floo connection to the Dursleys, and he gets Moody (as he believes) out of trouble with wider Ministry connivance.  Some of this looks like corruption: if people are in the inner circle, they can act above minor laws.  It is not clear whether he considers whether he is breaking the spirit of the law in his misdemeanours.

The difficulty with arguing that helping Moody is 'justified rule-breaking' is that it only appears justified because the reader and Arthur assume that Moody is a good guy who deserves a break, and special consideration in view of his past service.  Helping out Otto Bagman seems more like the unjustified kind, but what is the difference? And Arthur derives a material benefit which while not predictable in detail may well be expected to accrue generally when helping others out in this way.

I think the way I see it is that Arthur just is the person that he is: JKR accepts him on this basis, and we are to like him, and be aware that what he does might be wrong, but we don't need to make a judgement.

Amy further asked:

>(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?

I will address this in the context of what I have said above.

I think it is possible that for the type of rule-breaking that Arthur Weasley engages in, there is *no* clear message.  Is it possible that JKR is experimenting with that type of person, and is not sure herself whether their rule-breaking is ultimately justifiable or not.  She can control the consequences of his behaviour to make it go one way or the other, but, not knowing herself, she may just choose to leave it ambiguous.  None of us know the answer: why should she, and why should she make one up?

In other words, not only do we not need to make a judgement now, after four books, about AW's rightness or wrongness, but perhaps JKR's real message here is that we don't need ever make a judgement, and that she won't either.

As far as suitability for children is concerned, I don't believe that, if, for example, Voldemort gets off scot free at the end, a million children will decide to begin the quest for illicit immortality.  They will just yell "unfair" while their parents try to look knowing and say they thought it was a post-modernist series all along.  I seriously doubt that stories in which evil is unpunished will corrupt a generation: more likely they just won't sell, or they will be treated as a counter-example to avoid, like '1984'.

I would say it is a feature of our society to feel very insecure when a fictional character is morally ambiguous, and that ambiguity is not resolved.  We want all our characters to be wearing black or white hats on the last page, however shadowed they were up until then.  Sometimes the answer "I don't know" is not only truthful, it's liberating.

David

__________________________________________________________________
Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop at Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/

Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/