Something I'd like to see in the Books (Long)

[Wendy]

No: HPFGUIDX 83099

June wrote:
 
> When I first started reading the HP books back in 1997, when 
> dinosaurs roamed the earth, I was instantly struck by a comparison 
> with one of my (other) favourite books: The Earthsea Trilogy (now 
a tetralogy) by Ursula le Guin.
 
Wendy:
 
I have not read these, although have heard of them (and my husband 
agrees with you that they are very good). So, of course, my answer 
to this question won't come from the perspective of comparing the 
two series' - but that's not necessarily a bad thing, I suppose. <g>
 
June:
>
> Where precisely does the magic come from in the Potterverse? Yes 
we know that there are "wizarding families" who generally, though 
not always, produce wizarding children, and there are instances of a 
> kind of genetic mutation (for want of a better word) where non-
> wizarding families (such as the Grangers) produce a magically 
> talented child. But does magic per se have a source - a 
wellspring? Is it like "the force" in the movies that must not be 
named? Is it finite - both as a general force of nature and are 
there finite quantities of magical powers in the wizard?

Now me (Wendy):
 
My theory is that magic *is* part of the divine energy of the 
universe, and is therefore infinite, and that originally, *all* 
humans were magical. For example, when cavepeople roamed the 
earth . . . that everyone had access to magical energy, but that it 
was perhaps a bit different than the way it is in the modern day (or 
maybe the energy isn't really different, but is just experienced or 
used by wizards differently). Magic as early humans knew it is what 
is now called "Ancient Magic" by modern wizarding folk. Then, for a 
variety of reasons, as human culture evolved, some of this 
connection was lost, and some people were born without the ability 
to perform magic. Through the centuries, more and more people were 
born without magic, and everyone began to notice that there was a 
difference, and this is when humankind sort of "split" 
into "Wizards/Witches" and "Muggles." Once the distinction between 
groups had been noticed, things like prejudice and persecution 
arose, which is about where JKR seems to begin the historical 
information about her world. And as things have progressed into the 
modern day, the way this energy is used has changed (becoming magic 
as it is taught at Hogwarts), but that occasionally a Witch or 
Wizard will tap into the power in the way Wizarding ancestors 
did . . . in other words, use the "Ancient Magic."
 
This "theory" of mine is informed by a couple of things . . . first 
of all, I like it from an animistic point of view . . . that there 
is a spark of "divine energy" in all things, and that some people 
are better at tapping into this energy than others (which could 
manifest itself as magic), and that some people (Muggles) are 
completely disconnected from it. Another thing that planted this 
idea in my mind was something Alice Walker wrote into her 
novel "Temple of my Familiar." Bear with me . . . this may seem a 
bit far-out, but for some reason I'm inclined to mention it here 
<G>. In that book, she talks about lions as having (in the ancient 
past) been able to communicate with humans. (IIRC, it was a 
telepathic communication - not speech). Anyhow, at some point, 
humans and lions had a "falling out" (my memory of this is really 
shaky, and I don't remember the details), and over the subsequent 
generations, this ability for lions and humans to communicate was 
lost. This is sort of how I see the "Ancient Magic" mostly dying 
out - for whatever reason, Muggles turned their backs on the divine 
(or magical) energy, and over time it was lost to all but a few of 
them. So, these few banded together and formed their own separate 
society. But, of course, since Wizards, Witches and Muggles are all 
human (and therefore FAR more similar than they are different), from 
time to time, Muggle parents give birth to an offspring with 
this "magical gene," or whatever it is in the makeup of Wizarding 
Folk that isn't present in Muggles. Okay. Maybe this doesn't really 
work - I'm not sure if "wizarding genes" and this idea of "original 
Ancient Magic inherant in all humans" can be reconciled. I'd love to 
hear any thoughts about this - if it seems to work, or not. In any 
case, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it. <tips hat to bboy> 
(At least for the time being <G>).
 
June:
 
> The basis of magic in Earthsea is the name of things. Everything 
> has two names at least and in the case of humans - three. There is 
> the name you are called by your mother until you come of age, 
> your "true" name which is a secret you may wish to divulge to 
those 
> VERY close to you, and your use name by which most people know 
you. 
> Your true name actually defines you and if someone calls a wizard 
by 
> their true name - the wizard may be incapable of any 
> transformation. Knowing the real name of things is the cornerstone 
> of magic. 
 
Wendy again:
 
This same idea is present in many human cultures, as well, although 
seems (at least from my perspective as a modern person in the 
Western world) to be mostly superstition. Thing for me about 
superstition is that I'm not willing to discount the validity of 
anything, really. Just because something doesn't seem likely (or 
doesn't seem to work in our society), doesn't mean that it's rubbish 
in another time or another place. (Just my own personal belief . . . 
YMMV <g>). This also reminds me of the belief of some people that 
making an image of a person captures a bit of the soul . . . 
something I've wondered about in relation to Wizarding photos, and 
particularly Wizarding portraits. It seems as though the whole 
*point* of Wizarding portraits is to capture a bit of the essence of 
the Witch or Wizard, otherwise just what exactly is interacting with 
the outside world?
 
June:
 
> The other major point made in the Earthsea books is that magical 
> power carries great responsibility - because when a magical spell 
is 
> worked it can have unknown repercussions on the general balance of 
> nature, thus:
>
> "A mage can control only what is near him, what he can name 
exactly 
> and wholly. And this is well. If it were not so, the wickedness of 
> the powerful or the folly of the wise would long ago have sought 
to 
> change what cannot be changed, and Equilibrium would fail. The 
> unbalanced sea would overwhelm the islands where we perilously 
> dwell, and in the old silence all voices and names would be lost."
>
> Indeed, the wizard who trains the central character rarely works 
> magic at all because although he is an undeniably powerful wizard, 
> the central lesson is do not do anything magically unless it is 
> necessary.
 
Wendy:
 
That's interesting. In some ways, this seems to mesh with our 
current understanding of Dumbledore. He doesn't seem to work a whole 
heck of a lot of magic, but we have seen him exhibit great power at 
those times when he is moved to use magic. (When he blasted down the 
door at the end of GoF, for example). On the other hand, we've also 
seen him conjure chairs and sleeping bags and things, when mundane 
methods could have been used instead, so I don't think we'll 
actually see JKR handle magic in this way. If anything, her magic 
seems to be "useful" above all else. Wizards use magic in many 
instances where Muggles have created technology to do the same 
thing - Wizards don't use the telephone, but instead use Floo Powder 
for communication; Molly makes a cream sauce come out of her wand 
instead of melting butter and cheese in her sauce pan.
 
There are still some things about this use of magic that don't 
always make sense (not to me, anyway) . . . take the cream sauce, 
for example. Just where did that butter and cheese (or whatever - I 
don't often make cream sauces myself <g>) originate? Does she still 
have to shop for the food? Are there Wizarding farms and 
slaughterhouses and such? Or do they buy their produce from Muggles? 
How do the house elves at Hogwarts prepare all that food? Magically? 
I'm not sure that these things matter, but sometimes I wonder if JKR 
has actually thought through all these things and made sure her 
world really all "works." <g> 
 
June:
 
> Now while enjoying these books (both sets) I am not for a moment 
> advocating that JKR sits down and takes the line that ULG does. 
> Plagiarism notwithstanding, I find some of the concepts that 
> Earthsea puts across would be quite challenging for younger 
readers. 
> However, there seems to be little taught to the budding wizards at 
> Hogwarts the very central idea that with great power comes great 
> reponsibility. 
 
Wendy:
 
I can think of very few instances where *any* ethical guidance was 
given at all. The Unforgiveable curses would be one example - the 
kids are taught not to do them. Although I'm not sure a satisfactory 
answer as to "why" was ever given. While I can personally, as an 
adult, come up with some good reasons for not using these curses, 
I'm not sure that all 14 year-olds couldn't use a lesson on this 
sort of thing. And telling students, "If you do this, you'll get 
sent to Azkaban," doesn't count. <G> Another is the fact that 
Hermione is cautioned against mis-use of the Time-Turner, but again 
this seemed to me to be more of a "you could really screw things up 
if you're not careful" warning, rather than a concern of a purely 
ethical sort. 
 
Okay, having said that, I do see *some* indication that there is a 
sense of ethics in the WW, judging by Sirius' words in GoF:
 
(UK hardcover, p 457) "Crouch fought violence with violence, and 
authorised the use of the Unforgiveable Curses against suspects. I 
would say he became as ruthless and cruel as many on the Dark Side. 
He had his supporters, mind you - plenty of people thought he was 
going about things the right way, and there were a lot of witches 
and wizards clamouring for him to take over as Minister for Magic."
 
And later, Sirius also praises Moody for his actions during the war:
 
(p 462) "I'll say this for Moody, though, he never killed anyone if 
he could help it. Always brought people in alive where possible. He 
was tough, but he never descended to the level of the Death Eaters."
 
So there *is* a concept of ethics in the Wizarding World, we just 
haven't seen much of it taught at Hogwarts. Perhaps JKR is assuming 
that Hogwarts students bring with them some sort of ethical 
framework equivalent to what people in the real world would have, 
and she dosn't plan to specifically address this. 
 
To take it a bit further, Wizarding society in general is not what 
I'd call "pacifistic." The WW has the equivalent of the Death 
Penalty (Dementor's Kiss), plus what I'd personally consider "cruel 
and unusual" punishment in the form of Azkaban Prison under the 
guard of the Dementors. The other thing that really disturbs me is 
the use of Memory Charms. Anything that is messing with the mind of 
another person needs (IMO) to be *closely and carefully* regulated, 
if it is even used at all. I have a few reservations about 
Occlumency and Legilimency for these reasons, but these don't give 
me nearly as much trouble as Memory Charms, which I'd actually place 
on the "unforgiveable" end of the spectrum. Not only are children 
apparently not taught to use these things appropriately, there is 
lots of evidence that the use of Obliviate is seen as acceptable in 
Wizarding society. It's not entirely clear if it is used just on 
Muggles, or if it is also acceptable to use on other Wizarding 
folk . . . judging by Lockhart, I would guess that it is frowned 
upon. Which then leads us to another point: this seems to be a 
rather ugly biogtry against Muggles. Are they considered to be so 
far beneath witches and wizards, that they aren't entitled to the 
same human rights? In any case, I am very uncomfortable with the 
idea of memory modification and the fact that we've not seen what 
safeguards are in place to assure that it is used ethically and 
responsibly. This more than any other single issue in the books is 
what screams to me "MORALLY DEFICIENT" about the Wizarding World, 
and why I would *definitely* like to see the students receive some 
sort of formal guidance in the ethical use of magic. 
 
June:
 
> Is it me or is everyone just wand happy? There seems to be the 
> minimum of restraint on the entire wizarding population - right 
> every underage wizard risks serious educational penalties if they 
> break the underage rules, but where does that leave the adult 
> wizard? Pretty much in the middle of a free for all. Now there may 
> well be considerable rules that are in place and that we are just 
> not aware of - and that's quite possible because there's an awful 
> lot of information that we don't have about the WW yet, and that 
> would hold up the story unbearably if JKR were to constantly go on 
a major narrative digression to sort this out for us. 
 
Wendy:
 
Hmnnh . . . wand happy? Well, maybe there are rules in place of 
which we're not aware. There are times when we've seen magic used 
for very mundane purposes. On the other hand, though, we've also 
seen times when magic *wasn't* the default response. I'm thinking 
specifically of early CoS, when Arthur and Lucius come to blows in 
Flourish and Blotts. Why did they attack one another physically? Why 
not draw wands and duel? Is this a clue that maybe there *are* rules 
in place that govern this? Perhaps duelling is illegal (or 
regulated) in the WW. It seems like the students get up to a lot of 
this in the hallways at Hogwarts (sprouting leeks out of one 
anothers' ears and such), but in one situation where a magical fight 
might have seemed the obvious thing to do, the combantants chose to 
wrestle instead. It's really difficult to say. I do think there are 
inconsistencies here. But maybe no more so than in real life. After 
all, in the modern-day U.S., we have laws against killing other 
people, yet also have the Death Penalty. (There's no Death Penalty 
in Britain, though, is there)? So maybe some of these troubling 
things in the Potterverse are merely a reflection of some of the 
sorts of inconsistencies that we experience in the real world, as 
well. 
 
June:
 
> All the same, I would have liked to see some ethical training in 
the 
> Hogwarts curriculum. When it isn't appropriate to use spells, when 
> it is. Is there any other effect of spells apart from the obvious. 
> For instance, if you used magic to push some clouds away because 
> they were raining on you, what is the effect of those clouds 
raining somewhere else and is it a good effect? 
 
Wendy:
 
I agree - I'd like to see this. This is also something that human 
society struggles with in the real world. Are we creating global 
warming with our use of flourocarbons? Does it or does it not matter 
if an endangered species becomes extinct? I think these things 
should be addressed - in both the Potterverse and the real world. 
Just not sure if this is one of the issues that JKR is likely to 
tackle. Maybe she will. Maybe she has very deliberatly made the use 
of Memory Charms appear *really* dodgy, and that this will be 
addressed later. I think that we're still going to see a lot more 
about house elf emancipation, and that inter-species relations are 
going to be a big theme in future books. Perhaps Rowling simply 
can't tackle all of it. Hmnh. This has gotten rather rambling, 
hasn't it? Or is it Rowling who has perhaps bitten off more than she 
can chew? <g> 
 
And here's a rather random thought that occurred to me while writing 
this . . . maybe the Wizarding World itself doesn't understand the 
source of their magic, and this is one of the things being studied 
by the Department of Mysteries. I've thought that perhaps the Arch 
and Veil in the DoM are some sort of gateway to the Underworld; 
perhaps the Ministry is also investigating other things, and part of 
what Harry does in future books will be related to this research and 
discovery about the true nature of magical power. Poor kid. As if he 
doesn't already have enough to do trying to vanquish Voldemort, now 
he's got to help them sort out eternal mysteries as well. <g> 
 
And this is a good transition to my final point about JKR's 
treatment of ethics in the WW: I am personally going to be 
*extremely* disappointed if Harry ends up willfully killing 
Voldemort at the end of the series. This seems to be what the 
Prophecy tells us will happen at the end (and it's what Harry now 
believes is his destiny), but as a pacifist myself, I will be *very* 
disappointed if the denouement of this series involves turning our 
young hero into a killer. That's the single issue I most want her to 
address. I have hope that she will . . . I'm still trying to figure 
out just what's up with that prophecy, and I think it's very likely 
that Rowling has worded it in such a way that the outcome will be 
something most people will have *never* been able to guess. But I'd 
like to try and guess it, and this is something I'd love to discuss. 
I've had a post about the Prophecy bubbling around in my brain for a 
while now; maybe this week I'll manage to write it all down and we 
can discuss that as well. :-)
 
June:
 
> So what does anyone think? Am I just a stuffy spoilsport moralist, 
> have I missed entirely on some fairly explicit treatment of 
> responsibility by JKR, or does anyone agree that there should be 
> ethics classes?
 
Wendy:
 
Oh, I'm sure you're a stuffy spoilsport moralist, but that's not all 
bad. <GGG> I'm like that myself. At least that's what I've been 
told. ;-) In any case, I definitely agree that the students at 
Hogwarts need more moral guidance than they are currently receiving. 
I'm frankly not satisfied with either the formal education they've 
received NOR with much of the role modeling they've gotten so far - 
not even from Dumbledore. Heck, especially not from Dumbledore. He's 
done some of the dodgier things we've seen, actually (the point-
giving at the PS/SS feast, for example). I think they could use some 
education in ethical use of magic, in addition to some plain old 
common sense about right and wrong in general.
 
Great post, June! Thanks for bringing this up for discussion.
 
:-)
Wendy