JKR Morality (was "Stereotyping")

[Matt]

No: HPFGUIDX 85013

Quick response to a few points raised by Steve:

I wrote:

>> I agree with Steve(#84678) that a story -- 
>> like any other work -- should be valued for 
>> the factors that make it great, and cannot be
>> expected to accomplish an infinite set of 
>> social agendas.
>> 
>> On the other hand, I disagree with the 
>> suggestion in Steve's post ... that it is ok 
>> for a bestselling author simply to ignore the 
>> fact that her book is being read by millions 
>> upon millions of children. That, to me, is 
>> like the famous athlete (and there have been 
>> many) who says "I am not a role model." Those 
>> athletes are (were) role models, like it or 
>> not. They can choose to be bad role models or
>> good ones, but they cannot escape responsibil-
>> ity for their actions. 

Steve responded:

> Well, it's nice that we agree to some extent.
> 
> But I must reiterate that the author does 
> indeed NOT have an obligation to those millions 
> of children reading the story. If the natural 
> course of the story, of her artistic vision, is 
> to drift in the direction of the most extreme 
> SLASH fan fiction, then so be it. 

I'm not sure whether you are making an objective moral claim here or
just a practical point.  If it is a moral claim, we could continue to
debate whether power carries with it a moral duty to exercise the
power responsibly; suffice it to say that it does in every
widely-accepted ethics of which I am aware.  (To be clear, I am not
passing judgment upon any particular course of writing on which
Rowling has or might choose to embark -- judging the actual practical
effects, much less the morality, of her artistic choices would be much
more complicated.  I am simply pointing out that she, like all of us,
has an ethical obligation to consider the consequences of her actions.)

If your point is instead the practical observation that Rowling is
legally free to write what she will, then it doesn't really have any
bearing on my original disagreement with you.  The fact that Rowling's
popularity gives her a great degree of artistic freedom (as well as a
large audience) -- i.e., power -- is the very reason that she has an
accentuated responsibility to think about the consequences of her
choices.  An analogy: Not infrequently, a world leader has the *power*
-- sometimes even the legal right -- to start a war.  To say that no
one can stop him (or her) does not prevent us from debating whether or
not it is the *right* thing to do.  If you don't wish to get involved
in that discussion, no one will force you to, but it would be silly to
deny that the decision has moral implications.  

Steve continued: 

> As far as the moral quality and role model aspect 
> of these book, let me point out that every major 
> religion has endorsed these books as having a strong 
> moral message, and therefore, serve as an excellent
> moral guide and source of role models.

Hey, you don't need to appeal to external authorities to convince me
that the books have a moral message.  I already said that I think
Rowling takes her responsibilities seriously: "I believe that Rowling
is very conscious of the level of influence she wields. In some areas
she has chosen not to preach; in others (personal responsibility, for
instance) her books send a very clear message."

> However, we need to stop at this point and take note 
> of the means by which JKR incorporates her moral 
> lessons. She does it with moral ambiguity, and that 
> is, to some extent, a conscious effort on her part. 
> She doesn't want a book of characters drawn in black 
> and white; she paints them in shades of grey. 
>
> [snip]
>
> Harry disobeys the rules, and does so frequently to 
> his detriment and to the detriment of others. However, 
> in most cases, when he breaks the rules or goes 
> against clear and specific orders, he does so
> selflessly, and acts for the greater good without 
> regard to his own personal gain or safety. 
> 
> How can a boy, who disobeys and breaks rules be the 
> hero? How can he be a role model for the reader? He 
> is, because when you look at the bigger picture, you 
> see that Harry is a good and decent person, who
> always puts the value of other over himself. 

I agree with your basic point, although I think you hit closer to the
mark when you say "shades of gray" than when you say "moral
ambiguity."   I don't think Harry's actions are morally ambiguous in
the least.  You don't have any difficulty concluding that he is acting
morally, and it is perfectly clear that Rowling takes the same view. 
There is perhaps some room for debate about the ethics of Harry's
actions, but the grounds on which they are to be debated (i.e., the
relevant moral principles) are fairly clear, and it is not hard for
any individual observer to come to his or her own conclusion.  What
the debate reveals is that most real-life actions cannot be judged by
reference to a single moral principle ("don't break the school rules"
or "show respect for others").

Even if you picked a tougher example, say Dumbledore (whose strategies
have been amply dissected on this list), the morality of his actions
may again be debatable but is not really ambiguous.  To the extent
there is ambiguity, it is largely because we are not given access to
all of the information on which DD is acting.

> This moral ambiguity is far more powerful method of 
> teaching morality, than any blatant in-your-face 
> preachy moralizing pontificated lessons. In fact, the 
> more obvious in-your-face lesson are most often
> discounted or ingnored.
> 
> Moral ambiguity, however, demands that you look deep 
> inside yourself and ask you own conscience if Harry 
> is good or bad, if Sirius is good or bad, and 
> frequenly, we find that the answer is YES, Harry is 
> good, and yes, Harry is bad. Just like real life, the 
> answers are not cut and dried; they are not black and 
> white. So, in the reader's subconscious struggle to 
> resolve the moral ambigity, they managed to stumble 
> upon a great truth. 
> 
> Truly, in life, the lessons we teach ourselves are 
> the lessons we learn the best. To be told this is 
> right and that is wrong, will never carry the same 
> immense moral weight as *realizing* that this is right
> and that is wrong. 

Here, I think you are making two separate points: 1) that the reader
is left to judge morality for him or herself without being forcefed
the author's morality, and 2) that part of what makes Rowling's
characters interesting, and real, is that their actions are not always
perfectly "good" or "bad".  I generally agree with both points,
although I wouldn't call either of them moral "ambiguity".  

I think Rowling generally makes her view of the morality of a
situation perfectly clear without needing to state it in any
authoritative way.  And I agree with you that that approach is both
more palatable and more educational than the alternative.

With respect to good characters acting badly, at times, I agree that
this makes them more true to life.  Again, I don't think it's an
ambiguity (the "bad acts" are unambiguously bad, etc.), but a
reminder, as you say, that people, like life, are not black and white.

Steve, quoting me:

> <<<< Matt continues: >>>
> 
>> When folks say, for instance, "I wish there were more 
>> strong female characters", they are not saying "JKR's 
>> characters do not fit my image of what women are like"; 
>> they are instead saying "there is a particular type of 
>> female character I would like to see portrayed." You 
>> can agree or disagree about their choice of words (i.e., 
>> what makes a "strong female character"). You can agree 
>> or disagree about whether the characters in the book 
>> really lack the characteristics others want to see 
>> portrayed more prominently. You can agree or disagree 
>> about whether Rowling made good choices in the 
>> characters she chose to portray. But you cannot really
>> deny that Rowling made the choices she made, nor that 
>> those choices have an impact on the reader (and, in 
>> most cases, different impacts on different readers).
> 
> bboy_mn:
> 
> When you say, "I wish there were more strong female 
> characters" and "there is a particular type of female 
> character I would like to see portrayed", you are 
> stating an opinion, and as I said, opinions are like 
> noses, everybody gets one. 

I didn't say either of those things.  I said I liked the characters
that Rowling chose to portray, but that others are entitled to their
own likes and dislikes.  I think this is the same thing you are saying.

> As far as yours and the wishes of others for more 
> developed female characters, I can only say that the 
> story isn't over yet, and I feel very confident that 
> before it is done, you will get your wish. 

I appreciate the sentiment, but again, you are attributing others'
wishes to me.

-- Matt