THEORY: Hogwarts curriculum

[Nora Renka]

No: HPFGUIDX 112373

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "arrowsmithbt" 
<arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:

<complete snip to take something out of context>

> Society in the books reads as if it's refreshingly robust.

Thank you for a very lively post, Kneasy; now, I'm going to disagree 
with some of it. :)

I think a major theme that's starting to come up more and more is the 
need for reform in the WW.  Hold your charges of cultural imperialism 
for a moment, please.  We've been told that the Fountain is a lie, 
the idea that these other creatures adore the benevolent wizards.  
Keep in mind that Dumbledore is often used by JKR to express 
ontological reality, the way that things really actually *are*.  We 
see that much of the WW has no problem with the ideas of pureblood 
superiority and the casual treatment of other magical creatures which 
are 'inferior'.

And Dumbledore stands against all of this.  I think Azkaban is an 
utterly sick place, as the idea of a prison that forcibly causes 
clinical depression in its inmates is a place I could never wish upon 
my worst enemy.  I have a fellow-thinker from within wizarding 
society, in Dumbledore.  He seems to be consciously trying to bust a 
lot of the ingrained prejudices in the WW that modern RL standards 
would consider 'immoral', and as JKR does get to set a lot of the 
rules for her world--I think he's Right in a fundamental sense.  He's 
the Voice part of the Exit, Voice, and Loyalty model.

> You may accept JKRs boundaries or not -  better to accept, I think.
> Wishing some-one else's world to be different is a pretty pointless
> exercise; that way frustration lies. I mentioned 'cherry-picking' 
> earlier  in the piece. This I'd define as accepting some of the
> out-dated aspects of the WW while  castigating others. An example:
> Snape and  his teaching methods would be anathema today, but
> so would certain behaviours of Harry and his friends. 

Shall we make a pact then, dear Kneasy, to try to figure out what in 
the WW actually conforms to JKR's boundaries and what is presented in 
order to be a contrast to the ideal boundaries?  Something may be 
presented as normative in a society, and so we think 'Oh, that's just 
WW ethics, different than ours, let it fly'...but then the society is 
presented as being fairly deeply sick.  I think we are being 
perpetually invited to be moral critics of the WW and its denizens, 
and that we are being invited to critique the good guys as well as 
the bad guys--while not falling down the slippery slope into 
considering all actions equivocal.  Motivation matters in JKR's 
world, and the solely self-interested seem to be the worst of the 
worst.

-Nora gets back to feverishly trying to finish some work that sadly 
does not relate to this issue at all.