Harsh Morality - Combined answers

[delwynmarch]

No: HPFGUIDX 121105


Hickengruendler wrote:
"In all respect, but I happen to disagree with about everything you 
wrote." 
(snip)
"IMO, the books made it obvious that Seamus just needed more
informations, and that he is not solely to blame for the rift between
him and Harry, and I must admit, that I am surprised that anyone
thinks he is presented as downright wrong or even evil."
(snip)
"Therefore I am convinced, that when all is said and done, Percy will
be seen in a more sympathetic light, than he currently is."

Del replies:
This is quite a funny situation, Hickengruendler, because we actually
seem to agree very much in our personal judgements of the characters.
I agree with everything you said in defence of Seamus, Ernie, Ron,
Marrietta and Percy.

My point, and it's not an easy one to explain clearly, is that I get
the distinct feeling that the books do not promote such more-objective
judgements as you and I make. I get the clear feeling that whatever
Harry thinks or feels is right, even when he is wrong, simply because
he is the hero on the side of Good.

As Lupinlore explained, I feel that the characters' motives and
circumstances don't matter, it's only their actions that matter. If
their actions support the side of Good then they are good, but if
their actions don't support the side of Good (for example, if their
actions hurt Harry), then they are bad.

I personally DO NOT agree with such a view of things. But I do get the
distinct feeling that this is the morality that is applied in the
Potterverse.

For example, when you say that the books clearly show that Harry was
as responsible as Seamus for the rift between them, I would say yes
and no. The *facts* given in the books do show that Harry has his
share of responsibility. But the *judgement* passed by the narrator
denies this responsibility. The narrator clearly judges Seamus and his
mother for being entirely responsible of what happened, and relents
only when Seamus apologises to Harry. As you said, the narrator does
tell us that Seamus tries to talk to Harry, but then immediately he
gives us "good" reasons for Harry not to talk to him, which in effect
means that the narrator agrees that Seamus didn't deserve a second chance.

The narrator is partial to Harry, and because of that things are not
at all presented in an objective way. The readers *can* try and make
their own judgement, but if they don't want to or simply can't, then
they *will* adopt the narrator's opinions. Which is why I say that I
think JKR does intend the readers to condemn whoever goes against Harry.

I have a feeling I didn't make myself any clearer, somehow...

Del