Moral Ambiguity in Main Characters

[M.Clifford]

No: HPFGUIDX 126956


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "abadgerfan2" <ABadgerFan2 at m...>
wrote:
> 
> I recently read a crtique of the "Potter" books that caused me to 
> briefly question whether, as a parent, I should be endorsing the 
> series as whole-heartedly as I have. I remain a big fan, but I'd
like to at least expose others to a few of the critiques and hear
their views on such criticisms that I saw.  I'll start this message w
just one such point!
> 
> The first criticism was that the books "clearly teach that obedience
to rules or morality is required only when such obedience serves you
best." 

Valky:
As honour among theives, you seem to imply I think. Though I have
always personally had an affinity for Pirate codes of ethos I am not
actually trying to espouse them when I say this.. I promise.

My veiw on the rule breaking in HP is that it's not so much a
rebellion on Morals as it is a questioning of morality. It's fairly
obvious that when HRH, DD, The OOtP choose to break some rule there is
no ambiguity as to what moral basis that they propound their rebellion
on. For example the notion of protecting Sirius Black, a major
breaking of the rules, harbouring a wanted criminal, but is it morally
ambiguous to the reader? No. It is clear to the reader that a far
greater injustice is the soul sucking of an innocent man because noone
was brave enough to challenge the flawed system that convicted him.

I have no qualms wholeheartedly endorsing this subject to my children,
and I do wonder does the writer of this critique you're speaking of
put the kind of stock in tradition that leads to injustices like
Sirius 12 year sentence in Azkaban and Pettigrews exploits? Because
precisely this loquacious obsession with debased traditions is, for
me, a far more pressing moral question.

Valky