Betrayal (was Rowling and Philosophy)

[Tom Wall]

No: HPFGUIDX 53710

Replies to both Pippin and The Admiring Skeptic are in this post.

Pippin wrote:
I see what you're getting at, but I'm not sure Dante would. 
Cassius was not an intimate friend of Caesar's. <snip>

I believe Dante chose his three mortal sinners to represent 
treason against spiritual, temporal and familial benefactors, with 
Lucifer of course having commited all three. ( Brutus was 
supposed to have been Caesar's natural son.) To the medieval 
mind, their sin was not to betray someone they loved. Rather, it 
was to fail in love toward someone to whom they owed fealty: a 
father, spiritual superior, or lord.

I reply:
You know, I'm inclined to agree with you here. So, in the sense of 
Cassius, it would perhaps be a similar comparison if we were at some 
point presented with a 'Pettigrew murders Harry' situation, right?  
Caesar forgave Cassius. Harry saved Pettigrew. Not that it's totally 
parallel, since Harry's not Pettigrew's 'lord' or anything. But I do 
see your point. Nice one, too. ;-) 

I guess I'm not working from a concrete definition of betrayal here, 
which I think ultimately would include a lot of stuff that I'm not 
condsidering... I am really just thinking of betrayal between 
friends/family. The broader stuff that falls under the definition 
isn't really what I had in mind. And Dante just sprung right into my 
head when I tried to think of a good example of treason, but I do 
completely agree that the medieval and modern ideas of Christianity, 
and what constitutes loyalty and betrayal as seen under those 
perspectives, are superbly different.


Pippin wrote:
Though perhaps Riddle's betrayal of Ginny would not put 
Voldemort in Dante's lowest circle, since he doesn't owe her 
fealty, it is no mere fraud. He couldn't have invaded her soul 
without winning her trust at the deepest level. This is very unlike, 
say, Bagman's fraud on the Twins which relies simply on the 
general social contract not to pass false coin.

I reply:
Hmmm. Well, Riddle would have had to *earn* her trust, I agree with 
that. And I also agree that Ginny probably *felt* deeply betrayed by 
Tom Riddle. But, is that the same thing? I mean, if Riddle didn't 
love and care for Ginny and then later change sides to her demise, 
ala Pettigrew, then I;m not persuaded that it's an indictment for 
Voldemort on betrayal.


Pippin wrote:
All that said, I see what you mean. But of course it's impossible 
for Voldemort to betray anybody he really cares about, since 
according to Dumbledore he doesn't really care about anyone, 
even his own followers. 

I reply:
Yup - I totally agree one-hundred-percent here. I don't think we've 
seen any indication to date that Voldemort ever cared about anyone, 
really. So in that sense, my point is sort of inapplicable, right, 
since if Voldemort doesn't care about anyone, then he couldn't betray 
them along the lines that I'm talking about? Yeah, I see that. 

On that note, though, I do hope that we find out that he did care 
about someone deeply, and maybe even that he betrayed them or was 
betrayed *by* them - although the Lily bit is probably a little too 
dramatic for me. ;-)


The Admiring Skeptic wrote:
So, starting at the bottom, we have Draco offering many unprovoked 
insults for the singular purpose of putting people down. HRH never do 
that. They respond in kind very often, but they never put people down 
out of the blue. 

I reply:
Well, they I'm not sure I agree here. Maybe in contrast with Draco, 
okay, although I really see that comparison in terms of two equally 
opposed and antagonistic groups. But as for them not putting people 
down, I mean, what about Ron's talk when prepping for the Yule Ball? 
In fact, I'd say I have to disagree with you on Ron, in particular, 
here. Ron puts people down a lot.

"And my names's Malfoy. Draco Malfoy."
Ron gave a slight cough, which might have been hiding a snigger.
(PS/SS, US paperback, Ch.6, 108) 

"It's no wonder no one can stand her," he said to Harry as they 
pushed their way into the crowded corridor, "she's a nightmare, 
honestly."
(PS/SS, US paperback, Ch.10, 172)

"She just didn't want to go with Neville... I mean, who would?"
(GoF, US hardcover, Ch.22, 399)

So, I'd argue that Ron is often found insulting others. We wouldn't 
be told that his cough 'might have been hiding' a snigger unless it 
probably was. So, in that sense, Ron really starts it there. Draco's 
the one retaliating. And on Hermione, well, I agree that she came off 
as having mildly annoying behavior in the beginning of PS/SS. But 
still - she heard it, and she had really not done anything to Ron. 

And imagine saying that about Neville. What has Neville ever done to 
Ron to warrant that? IMHO, that's downright awful of Ron to say such 
a thing.


The Admiring Skeptic wrote:
Draco has minions, not equals, for "friends." HRH are quite equal. 
Draco tattles to teachers; HRH do not. Draco tries to get Hagrid 
sacked; HRH try to save the stone from Snape, but they don't report 
him to anyone in order to get him fired. (They wish it, but they take 
no action to accomplish it.) Draco and co. unfairly sabotage the 
Quidditch game in PoA; Harry helps Cedric improve his chances in GoF. 
Draco's prejudiced against Muggle-borns; HRH aren't.

I reply:
You make a lot of points here, so I'll kind of handle them one at a 
time. Just the Draco/HRH ones, though, since I do agree with your 
stand-alone points about Harry's morality (like re: Cedric.)

On minions: We don't know that for sure. Just because Crabbe and 
Goyle are silent doesn't mean they're Draco's minions. Yes, they are 
portrayed that way, and I would agree that most of the indications we 
get from JKR would support that position, but let's face it, we don't 
know that. In CoS, when Harry and Ron polyjuice into Crabbe and 
Goyle, I mean, Draco does appear to expect them to converse with him -
 so it's not like all he does is demand adulation from them. They do 
have some kind of dialogue going on behind the scenes.

On tattling: HRH do tell Hagrid, and several times at that, that they 
suspect Snape is going to steal the stone. And Hagrid tells them 
they're wrong repeatedly. Also, in Ch.9, Ron's about to tell on Draco 
when McGonagall catches Harry flying. The only reason he doesn't 
finish his sentence is because McGonagall doesn't let him. So, I'd 
say that again, HRH are not squeaky-clean on this point.

On Hagrid: you know, I'd like to point out that Hagrid is not without 
fault here - he holds Slytherin house in deep disregard and maligns 
them at the drop of a hat, and let's face it, Hagrid *did* choose a 
dangerous creature that perhaps would have been better left until 
later on in the year. In fact, the Slytherins across the board after 
that class think that Hagrid should be sacked, and that's pre-
Malfoy's broken-arm-act. Just because HRH like Hagrid doesn't mean 
that the rest of the school does. We do hear that the Gryffindors are 
his biggest supporters, and frankly, I think that that explains why 
we like Hagrid so much - since our main characters are Gryffindors. 
If our lead character was a Ravenclaw, I bet we'd have different 
perspectives on a lot of the teachers.

On sabotage:
Yes, Draco and co. try to sabotage the quidditch game. But let's face 
it, in CoS Harry and Ron DRUG Crabbe and Goyle so that they can 
polyjuice into them. They deceive Draco into not only revealing the 
location of the Slytherin common room (a grievous offense and total 
breach of the general sort of "school trust," IMO,) but also talking 
about secrets that they have no right to know. All this, because 
they've irrationally concluded on their own that Malfoy is not just 
mean, but is actually a murderer! Can you *imagine* what they're 
reaction would be if they found out Malfoy had been in the Gryffindor 
common room? No, I can't give you that one, here. HRH are WAY MORE 
out of line in this scene than DCG have ever been, IMHO. DCG are 
mean. HRH are out of control when they have their minds made up. 
They'll stop at nothing to do what they think is right, even if 
they're totally wrong.

On prejudice:
HRH may not be prejudiced against Muggle borns, but that's not 
because they're so virtuous. Both Harry and Hermione ARE half-bloods, 
and Ron's Dad loves muggles. So, are they accepting of themselves? 
Yes. By association, do they accept other Muggleborns? Yes.

But what about the prejudices against the giants and the house-elves 
that Ron espouses? Hermione is a bastion of tolerance, and Harry 
seems to stay out on these subjects a lot, simply because he is 
rather ignorant about a lot of this stuff, so he's lucky: he hasn't 
been pre-tainted. But Ron, I mean, look at the way he refers to Lupin 
in PoA Ch.17 when the professor tries to help him.

"Get away from me, werewolf!" (PoA, US paperback, Ch.17, 345)

He can't just say 'get away from me?' He's just got to use the 
bigoted term, right? Nope - I can't give you Ron here. Ron is pretty 
prejudiced, truth be told. 


I don't concur with your Lupin/Snape comparisons, because I think 
that Harry deserves a lot of what he gets from Snape simply because 
he's so disrespectful towards him. Yes, Snape is a little over the 
top when dealing with Harry, but Harry is simply not pleasant, 
polite, or in any way respectful of Snape - even Dumbledore has to 
remind Harry of this from time to time. Harry, IMHO, earns Snape's 
scorn, frankly. 

As for Lupin, I *love* his character (and am therefore so dismayed by 
Pippin's convining Evil!Lupin argument,) and I also love his constant 
pleasant-ness and upbeat nature. But Lupin does tend to favor Harry a 
little bit, for instance, when he makes a cheer to a Gryffindor 
victory, then quickly adds that he shouldn't be taking sides, as a 
teacher. And Lupin does save Harry's butt when Snape catches him with 
the Marauder's Map. So, does Lupin cover for Harry, ala Snape 
favoring Draco? Yeah, I'd say that he does.

I do agree with the majority of your other observations on the 
series' moral perspectives, particularly the ones about family and 
rule-breaking, which are right on the money, IMHO.

-Tom