Wizarding culture/ attitude to arms (was:Re: Why I Dislike The Twins/Canon colle

[eloiseherisson at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 43462

In a message dated 01/09/2002 19:56:32 GMT Standard Time, muj at hem.utfors.se 
writes:


> Much of what happens in the HP-books would be considered Bad and Wrong if it
> happened in the Real World: Fred and George are bullies. The Dursleys are
> child-abusers and so, for that matter, are the Longbottoms. Snape and 
> Hagrid
> should, for different reasons, be fired as teachers. Lupin should be locked
> up for his own and everyone else's safety. And so on and so on. In fact,
> Hogwarts should be closed because of all the dangers the students face on a
> daily basis.
> 
> However, I think it's fairly obvious when I read the HP-books (obvious for
> me, I'm not saying everyone else would think it obvious, though this has
> been discussed on the list before) that the wizarding world operate from a
> somewhat different rulebook than the muggle world.
> 
> <snip excellent summary of the evidence>



> The point is (there is a point?) I'm not entirely sure the wizarding world
> would even know what a bully is, that they would actually be able to
> recognise bullying behaviour for what it really is.
> 
> <snip>
> Because, for every time I read the HP-books I like the wizarding world less
> and less. There's a hard, even cruel, edge to it that makes me very
> uncomfortable and it's got nothing to do with Voldemort or Death Eaters.
> It's the general condescending attitude toward muggles (I recently started
> re-reading PS/SS and cringed when in Ch 1 McGonagall says about muggles:
> "They're not completely stupid." Minerva, how could you?), the way
> characters that are perceived as weak, like Quirrell or Moaning Myrtle, are
> considered jokes (and thus legitimate targets for any kind of snide or rude
> remarks) as well as the more obvious things like their Justice System, the
> fact that there are House Elfs or the prejudice against people like Lupin,
> Hagrid etc, people who aren't quite, quite like Us. That Draco and Snape,
> ten (if not more) times worse than the twins, can get away with their
> bullying is just another symptom (to me) of the fact that the wizarding
> world is seriously messed up.


I thnk you're absolutely correct and the wizarding cultural dimension is 
something that I think got glossed over in this discussion.

The fact that wizards seem to have a Tough, warrior culture is a theme that 
often comes up in discussion here. What the twins get up to IMO is as nothing 
compared to the way Snape behaves towards students, the punishments until 
recently meted out in the school, the sending of students into the Forbidden 
Forest with an expectation on Filch's part at least that they won't all get 
out unharmed (I know this may just be his way of frightening tham, but I 
think he does at least partly believe it and given the fact that Hagrid sends 
Neville off with Draco and Fang, it's a wonder that no-one *was* hurt), the 
way even McGonagall humiliates Neville, Dumbledore's collusion in the 
demonisation of House Slytherin. All these are to my way of thinking ways in 
which adults in the books misuse the power they have to the detriment of the 
children in their charge. At least, that is how we would interpret it in the 
RW. As you say, the Potterverse seems to operate differently. I think you are 
correct to question whether bullying is a meaningful concept in the WW, at 
least as it manifests itself up to and including Book 4.

<snip>
>Because, for every time I read the HP-books I like the wizarding world less
>and less. There's a hard, even cruel, edge to it that makes me very
>uncomfortable and it's got nothing to do with Voldemort or Death Eaters.
>It's the general condescending attitude toward muggles (I recently started
>re-reading PS/SS and cringed when in Ch 1 McGonagall says about muggles:
>"They're not completely stupid." Minerva, how could you?), the way
>characters that are perceived as weak, like Quirrell or Moaning Myrtle, are
>considered jokes (and thus legitimate targets for any kind of snide or rude
>remarks) as well as the more obvious things like their Justice System, the
>fact that there are House Elfs or the prejudice against people like Lupin,
>Hagrid etc, people who aren't quite, quite like Us. That Draco and Snape,
>ten (if not more) times worse than the twins, can get away with their
>bullying is just another symptom (to me) of the fact that the wizarding
>world is seriously messed up.

>It'll be interesting in ten years time (or more) when we get to Book 7, to
>see if Rowling has written the wizarding world like this intentionally or if
>I'm just reading too much into it.

I don't have any answers. And I'm not phrasing this very well (English isn't> 
> my first language). It doesn't help that this isn't really a structured
> argument, just a string of loosely intertwined questions. Ah, never mind.

You are far too modest. You express yourself extremely well.
I think it *is* intentional and I get the feeling that there are aspects of 
the Tough, macho wizard mentality that JKR doesn't like. It's too linked up 
with that proper wizarding pride thing which is criticised at the end of GoF.

It is also linked to other themes that have been brought up on the list, like 
Real Wizards don't Apologise (and look at the mess that Sirius and Snape have 
got themselves into at least partially because of that) and Real Wizards 
don't Cry.

The subject of Harry's tears has been brought up several times since I've 
been around, with discussions on whether he did or didn't and why not and of 
whether the tears themselves might have significance.

I'm pretty sure that part of Harry's coming to full maturity as a wizard and 
as a man will involve his acceptance of the fact that he *can* cry, that 
being fully human and admitting his vulnerability does not make him any less 
strong or any less of a wizard. I hope we're going to see the WW beginning to 
realise the same thing.

************************************
On a slightly related topic (at least it's related in that it deals with 
culture), Cindy referred to my comments regarding the Police/Aurors and the 
use of weapons:

Cindy (in TBAY mode):

> One last question,"  Eileen says.  "My colleague Eloise says that 
> law enforcement officers in Britain don't carry firearms.  So 
> doesn't that *destroy* your whole theory?"
> 
> "Good heavens no!"  Cindy replies cheerfully.  "Cops in Britain may 
> not carry firearms, that's true.  But it is certainly clear that 
> every witch and wizard carries a firearm at all times - their 
> *wand.*  So Aurors really are more similar to American police than 
> British bobbies in their ability to use deadly force in defense of 
> themselves, in defense of others, and to blast a fleeing suspect."


To be fair, Cindy, I wasn't trying to destroy your theory, just pointing out 
that the impact of what Sirius said might be even greater on a British 
reader, than on an American one.

I was thinking about this today. Our difference in attitutde to the bearing 
of arms is, I think, quite profound. Am I right in thinking that the bearing 
of arms for self-defence is a constitutional right in the US?

You see, here I'm pretty sure I'm right in saying that it isn't. In fact I 
don't think you could get a gun licence on those grounds (I tried to do a 
search to find out exactly what British laws do say on the subject, but 
couldn't find anything). Here, guns are legitimately held by those who need 
them for their work, such as gamekeepers and farmers, by sportsmen and, I 
suppose, by collectors. They are supposed to be locked away when not in use. 
The idea of carrying a gun purely for self defence is totally alien. In fact, 
I suspect it's a criminal offence: carrying an offensive weapon *is* an 
offence, though what constitutes one varies, I think, according to 
circumstance. I mean, if I bought a new kitchen knife and was carrying it 
home, it'd be OK, but if the police picked up a someone behaving suspiciously 
or aggressively and found he was carrying the same knife, then it could be 
classified as a weapon.

Similarly the right to defend oneself, one's home and one's property is also 
open to interpretation. A man is at present on trial for murder here, having 
stabbed to death a night-time intruder whom he claimed had made murderous 
threats towards him and was attacking him with what he thought was a machete. 
I guess it will hinge on his lawyers being able to prove, or otherwise, 
whether he really did feel his life was immediately in danger and whether the 
force he used was proportional to the threat he perceived.

But, as you, I and MariaJ (is that right?) have all pointed out, wizards 
legitimately go 'armed' from the age of 11, which is different from both our 
cultures. They are also allowed to use their arms aggressively up to a point, 
with apparently no legal comeback and so I think there isn't really a 
parallel with either the American or British view on arms.

Which begs the question, doesn't it, of at what stage a wand becomes an 
offensive weapon. At what point is a curse a curse too far?

Eloise

> 
> 
> 
> 



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