Modern Sensibilities vs. Potterverse: The 4th Unforgivable

[lupinlore]

No: HPFGUIDX 116842


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "KarenDetroit" <kdmpf at h...> 
wrote:
> 
> 
> I have noticed frequent criticisms of JKRowling's characters and 
> their actions vis-a-vis the students in their care, with frequent 
> criticisms decrying sadism, shocking lack of concern for the 
> students' safety, etc., and this of course implies criticism of the 
> author, too.
> 

Yes, I suppose that it does.  And many of the criticisms made are 
quite explicit in that they are criticizing JKR.  Not really for her 
morals, as such, however.  I think most of the criticisms are on the 
order of wishing she would think more carefully about what she says 
and implies.  In other words, although she claims to have thought 
very carefully about the structure of her books, sometimes she seems 
rather oblivious of things that seem quite obvious to many of the 
readers.  That doesn't make her a bad person or a stupid person or an 
unworthy person.  It is simply a criticism of her as a professional 
writer.  And that, although it may seem harsh at times, is a 
perfectly legitimate activity and is, in fact, part and parcel of the 
writing and publishing profession.

> Leaving aside for the moment that this is a work of fiction, and 
the 
> author is from another culture (Great Britain), I must protest the 
> provincialism of holding other cultures to whatever pychobabble is 
> currently passing for mores in the US.

Well, you are of course perfectly entitled to your opinion.  However, 
please remember that it is only an opinion, and those that object to 
certain aspects of JKR's writing are just as entitled to express 
their opinions.  What you see as "psychobabble" others see as truth 
buttressed by reliable testimony and their own experience.  To 
dismiss it so casually is, I'm afraid, more an evidence of your own 
provincialism than that of the people you are castigating.

 "Modern" US parenting 
> practices are anything but time-tested, don't constitute "best 
> practices" as any business or science understands the term, and 
> should be taken with a grain of salt in normal (US) circumstances; 

See comment above.

in 
> a foreign culture, living in a state of undeclared war, such 
> practices and standards would be comic, to say the least, and most 
> are likely guaranteed to inflict severe damage on the people 
involved 
> if applied. Consider Hermione's S.P.E.W. campaign as a lesson in 
not 
> assuming too much.

You seem to think that damage imposed by inflicting such standards is 
self-evident.  Once again, that is only a matter of opinion, and it 
is an opinion many other people disagree with.  The practices and 
beliefs you decry would not have gained hold in the U.S. or anywhere 
else if many, many people did not find them worthwhile and valuable.  
Simply because they are not "time-tested" proves very little.  To 
take your example of S.P.E.W., are you objecting to Hermione's anti-
slavery stance?  It is true that slavery is much more time-tested 
and, in the grand sweep of history, culturally sanctioned than anti-
slavery.  I hope you are not implying, therefore, that anti-slavery 
is therefore obviously a wrong-headed policy or opinion.

Similarly sadistic teaching techniques are, as you imply, time-tested 
and, in the grand sweep of history, culturally sanctioned.  Does that 
mean that it is automatically wrong-headed to feel that they are 
foolish and destructive?  And simply because a given culture is not 
one's own, that in no way disqualifies you from offering criticism 
and opinions.  After all, it was common in the days of Jim Crow for 
white southerners to tell northerners to govern their own states as 
they saw fit and keep the H**l out of southern business.  Practices 
exist because they are approved of in a given culture.  To rule out 
criticism coming from outside of a culture only serves to buttress 
whatever practices are in place, be they good, bad, or indifferent.


> 
> Some have mentioned the fact that Harry Potter's point of view is 
> limited, and often uninformed due to the facts that (1) he is an 
> immigrant to the Wizarding World, (2) he is immature and 
> inexperienced in general , and (3) he is  a rather unobservant 
child. 
> All are valid points that acknowledge that Harry is often ill-
> informed and not terribly good at reporting fully or understanding 
> fully what is going on around him. This is perfectly natural, and 
> shows the author's familiarity of dealing with the young, as well 
as 
> providing lots of plot and character development. There is the 
added 
> possibility that he has been misinformed by deceitful or ignorant 
> informants. Harry's emotions are not good sources of factual 
> information about anything except Harry's state of mind.

But we are not told just about Harry's emotions, are we?  The fact 
that Umbridge used a quill that caused Harry to slice his own skin is 
not an emotion, it is the objective state of affairs.  The words 
Snape utters are not determined by Harry's emotions, but by what 
comes out of Snape's mouth.  The rampant presence of danger and 
bullying at Hogwarts is not determined by Harry's emotions.  Rather 
such things are a description of objective states of affairs.  The 
fact that Harry percieves little attempt by Dumbledore or others to 
restrain all this is not an emotion, it is an objective statement of 
Harry's perceptions.  Granted Harry's perceptions are colored by 
emotions, as are everyones.  But nevertheless that does not make them 
invalid as evidence, and indeed the only evidence presented for what 
goes on in this fictional world.


> 
> No doubt the author will attempt to fill in the multiplicity of 
> information gaps to satisfy our curiosity by the end of the story, 
> and it is fun to analyze what clues she leaves us. May I plead that 
> the rush for judgment be suspended? Make it the 4th Unforgivable!
> 
> "kdmpf"

You may of course plead for such a policy, however I'm afraid that 
the plea will not meet with much positive response.  JKR can write 
whatever she wants.  That is the privilege of an author.  We as 
readers may offer whatever criticisms we want.  That is the privilege 
of a reader.  There is nothing in the least unforgiveable, 
extraordinary, or objectionable about it.  It is simply a natural, 
inevitable, and indispensible part of the interaction between an 
author and his/her readers as mediated by a particular piece of 
written material.

Lupinlore