Arthur Weasley and Rules (WAS Rulebreaking (Official Philip Nel Question #6)

[elfundeb at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 38983

I've been meaning to reply to David's comments on Arthur Weasley and 
rulebreaking since I first read it a week ago Monday, but I seem to have got 
sidetracked.  David said:

> 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.
> 
> [snips problems with these actions]
> 
> 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.
> 
[snip]

> 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?
> 
I see Arthur as an illustration of just how easy it is for even the Good Guys 
(and I think Arthur unquestionably is and will stay on the side of Good) to 
get caught on the "slippery slope" of rulebreaking.  

I think he works hard to stay within his own reading of legality.  Arthur's 
definition is a bit elastic, though its not clear whether the extent of 
corruption in the Ministry -- or maybe just the general wizarding attitude 
toward government service -- is such that even the "good" employees come to 
think it's acceptable (or perhaps become compelled as a matter of job 
security) to bend the rules as personal favors for other MOM officials.  It's 
interesting that Arthur, who seems to be very principled about not setting 
aside his concern for Muggles to get ahead at the Ministry, is caught up in 
this culture of personal favors without apparently noticing anything amiss.  
It's not altogether clear to me why he stays at the Ministry under these 
circumstances. (No wonder Percy has a reform agenda.) 

But I think JKR clearly shows the negative consequences of Arthur's 
stretching of the rules, in that his actions encourage rulebreaking on a 
grander scale by his children.  For example, he enchants the Ford Anglia 
(possibly legal), but then his sons use it to pick up Harry at the Dursleys 
(illegal, but with good motivation).  Arthur can't come down hard on his sons 
because he caused the rulebreaking; indeed, he doesn't even want to.  
Emboldened by this encouragement, Ron and Harry fly the car again (rash and 
illegal).  So he's aided and abetted two substantial rule violations by his 
children.

And in GoF, I'm sure whatever he smoothed over for Bagman's brother, for 
which he received the World Cup tickets, was a little thing.   But it sets 
him up later: when Bagman solicits bets (whose illegality is unclear, though 
his dealings with the goblins sound downright gangsterish), Arthur feels 
obligated to place a small bet with Bagman.  This seems ok (raise your hand 
if you've never ever placed a small bet in an office pool, etc), but Fred and 
George follow his example and bet all their savings.  Arthur can't use any 
moral grounds to stop them because he's just placed a bet himself.  My word 
to describe Arthur's actions here is "enabler."

Arthur may know how to negotiate the slippery slope without straying outside 
his elastic view of what's right.  However, his children, being children, 
don't have that kind of judgment, and they (particularly the twins) IMO often 
push the elastic too far.   And they don't get called to the mat on their 
behavior.  While the message is subtle, and undoubtedly is lost on many, I 
think JKR doesn't really approve of all this stretching of the rules.  Every 
good character seems to have an Achilles heel, and this seems to be Arthur's.

Debbie


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