Centaurs/Umbridge

[Sydney]

No: HPFGUIDX 78300



Aam wrote:

Can JKR write about such a horrible event without mentioning it
overtly ? without referring to the person to whom it was inflicted
as a victim ?
Can she still poke fun at Umbridge as though nothing
hadreally happened ?
Can she instil the idea, inside her readers' mind,that it's a well-
founded punishement owing to Umbridge's overall attitude ?
And last (not really in fact) but not least, we know that JKR usually
gives hints more than she actually describes things in their
crudeness, sometimes even leading her to a kind of "euphemised" way
of writing. Do you think her style is appropriate for such a topic ?

Now me:

I think there's a, for lack a better word, cruel streak in Rowling
that reminds me a lot of Jane Austen.  They seem like such cuddly
writers, then in "Persuasion" Austen laughs at the "large fat sighs"
of a mother who's son was killed, because "nobody much cared him for
when he was alive".  An on-screen rape would be a bit much, but so far
we've had people tortured into insanity, slaughtered in their beds,
held captive for decades in prisons of medieval cruelty, and murdered
by their psychopathic sons (twice!).  Despite the uniquely terrible
glamour surrouding rape, I don't think she would shun the very concept.  

The more I think of it, the more Umbridge's being swept off by the
Centaurs, seems more of a cosmic irony than a punishment.  It was
Hermionie, who shares a bit of Umbrigian overconfidence in
civilization herself, who unleashed primal forces and narrowly escaped
herself and Harry being consumed by them as well. 

I don't think Rowling believes that a tidiable, civilizible universe
is possible;  that rather at some point you have to accept the
existence of awesome, uncontrollable forces, represented by the
Forbidden Forest.  I love, love, LOVE Porphyria's essay (findable
here:
http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/oAhFP4l-dyBadaEzBAW5vbl5TbCLWSLShTxrpBfc85e10QYfxgX06JRrCG2HCzIaohInxlgSbaMd0gHE/Essays/job.html
) on the books' relationship to the Book of Job and specifically
Hagrid's love of brutal, murderous monsters as referencing Behemoth
and Leviathan.  I don't have "Fantastic Beasts" on me, but I remember
something about the centaurs insisting on remaining 'Beasts', refusing
to subsume their animal nature.  I guess that's why I thought of "The
Bacchae", which is a similar sort of story to Umbrige's.  Except that
it's just possible that having your own mother rip your head off with
her bare hands is a worse fate even than rape!

As for what really happened; in a way, that's a "How many children had
Lady Macbeth" sort of question.  I know it's a bit of a cop-out, but
if she's off-screen, and it's not going to hook back up to any plot
point, "what really happened" exists in a kind of poetic limbo of
implications (yikes, have to cut down on the coffee...).  Is it
possible it crossed JKR's mind?  I think, personally, that it
certainly did, that she knew perfectly well that writing about a
screaming woman being dragged off into the woods by incarnations of
bestial nature would, well, put ideas into people's heads.  Plausible
deniability, I says.

Just a reply to some interesting points brough up by Matt--

> --- AAm wrote:
> > Matt wrote :
> > > > Conversely, an assault would contradict 
> > > > much of what we have heard about the 
> > > > centaurs' moral principles.
> > >
> > What have we really learned about their 
> > moral principles ? Besides, are those 
> > principles conscientiously applied ? From 
> > what I've already read I must say that I 
> > can't really judge.
> 
> We've learned that the ethics of the Forbidden 
> Forest centaurs revolve around passivity.
> They observe, they experience, they predict,
> but they do not interfere with the course of
> human events.  They are not interested in 
> preventing Quirrell/Voldemort from hunting
> down and killing unicorns even when it occurs
> in their own backyard.  I concede that we have 
> learned most of this from Firenze (the others 
> barely ever speak, except to warn folks out of 
> the Forest).  But Firenze is consistently 
> portrayed as representing the views of his 
> people in this regard at least.  (Indeed, is
> that not supposed to be the reason DD hired
> him?)
> 
> > > > It would be an act of abuse, inconsistent 
> > > > with the Centaurs' rejection of evil (and 
> > > > good).  It would be a supreme act of 
> > > > interference with the affairs of humans.
> > 
> > Well, in fact, I had the impression that from 
> > the centaurs' POV the interference was H, H and 
> > Umbridge's fault. . . .
> > Thus, it appeared to me that the [centaurs] 
> > were so enraged that the problem "to interfer 
> > or not to interfer with the affairs of humans" 
> > had somehow already been solved. 
> 
> I made two points, and you have addresed the second.
> I think your response largely comes back to your
> earlier premise that the centaurs do not
> consistently apply any particular moral framework 
> (with a gloss that they would be particularly
> unlikely to do so when fired up).  I disagree with
> the premise: when JKR has the centaurs say (I am
> paraphrasing) "our laws are not your laws," I think
> she means us to understand that the centaurs are
> creatures of principle, even if the principles they
> apply are different.
> 
> I agree that the centaurs were angry and out of
> control, but (and this gets back to my first point,
> which you did not address) as I read them they
> were moved by a desire to assert control over their 
> domain, not to abuse or torment Umbridge personally.


Our view is complicated by the fact that the main Centaur we know
personally is Firenze.  But remember that he was already reprimanded
for saving Harry's life in PS.  In that sense, I don't think they
subscribe to a different, but recognizably human, set of ethics than
the wizarding world.  It reminds me more, actually, of the Law that
the animals followed in the Jungle Book.  It set out every animals
proper place in the scheme of things, but didn't say anything against
wolves eating deer.
 
I think the Centaur's law, as they perceive it, is the Law of Nature--
that interferring with the natural course of things is sinful in some
way.  The schemes and machinations of humans, and the attempts of
governments to control fate, is the ultimate embodiment of hubris.  Of
course, I could just be totally getting carried away with my nice
little force of nature/civilization thing...;)

> <snip bit about Kant>

 This was not
> to assert that the centaurs are political liberalists, 
> just that they were looking for this particular type
> of respect.  Perhaps they would demand this respect
> from humans without being willing to give it in 
> return, but again (and we may differ here) I think
> they are too principled to sink to that level of
> hypocrisy.

I'm not sure if that's hypocritical-- I don't know if a Centaur WOULD
expect to be treated with respect if they went out of the forest. 

Matt again: 
> 
> Turning to a different post, Tamee wrote:
> 
> > I believe that what sent Umbridge into such a 
> > catatonic state is that SHE believed [the centaurs]
> > would do that and worse. After all, she calls them
> > "filthy half-breeds" as well as "uncontrolled 
> > animals", and as she's being hauled off she's 
> > wandless and without defense, and knowing that in 
> > her position she'd be indulging in her own brand of 
> > cruelty, she expects them to behave in whatever 
> > bestial way she can imagine. 
> 
> I find this reading much more credible than the 
> readings that infer an actual sexual assault.  It is
> consistent with Umbridge's character, and also with
> JKR's portrayal of interspecies ignorance and 
> prejudice in the WW in general (e.g., most of the 
> wizarding public always assuming the worst about 
> werewolves, giants, goblins, etc.).

Yes, but giants really ARE, in general, brutal, violent, and
murderous.  In the earlier books, the happy version of "overcome your
prejudices and everything will be fine" vision prevailed, as was
appropriate for the younger viewpoint.  I think this idea is starting
to change into something else-- that you have to continue to be true
to your principles of treating everyone as an individual and accepting
them for who they are, without expecting everything to be all sunshiny
because you do. 

Sydney