Harsh Morality - Combined answers

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 121238



>> Betsy wrote earlier:
>Okay, I thought that folks were trying to say that JKR, herself, 
through the rules of the Potterverse, had set up a harsh morality 
wherein if you don't side with Dumbledore, you are by definition, 
evil, and if you do side with him, no matter what you do, you are by 
definition, pure good.  Something I disagree with completely for 
reasons I set out above.<

>> Alla:
>No, no, Betsy. Players are not perfect(that would be annoying ), but 
principles they support are (the forms, since we were discussing it 
in connection with Plato).  Good and Evil are very clearly defined in 
Potterverse, don't you agree?
>It does not preclude greyness in the characters at all. But id does 
preclude greyness in the ending.<

Betsy:
I guess I would say Good and Evil are as clearly defined in 
Potterverse as they are in real life.  Some actions and therefore 
characters are obviously good: Lily's sacrifice for Harry, so Lily is 
good.  Other's obviously evil: Tom sucking out Ginny's life-force, so 
Tom is evil.  But other actions are harder to define: James, 
unprovoked, ganging up on and publically humiliating Snape. So is 
James evil?  His actions certainly are.  But then, he gave his life 
to protect his family.  Now his actions are good.  So what is 
James?    

>>Lupinlore is quoted in message # 121068:
"Is JKR trying to say something about complex morality in the HP saga?
The more I think of it the more I think she is saying something in
exactly the opposite direction. She seems to be implying that
morality is harsh, Good and Evil are real, and human ideas about
justice or reason or individual worth or even the right to be loved
and comforted are not very important in the great scheme of things.
You either support the good principle or the evil principle, there is
no middle ground and there is no quibbling. JKR has said she doesn't
care if she has only six fans when she is finished. I think a lot of
people (including me) have assumed that means things will come to a
very confused, complex, and possibly grey conclusion. I am starting
to believe that, on the contrary, we will see an end that is shocking
in its harshness and clarity."

>>And Del replies later in the same message:
"In fact, I get a feeling that, far from getting more complex, the
morality presented in the HP books is getting more simple : if one is
on the side of Good, then one's faults don't matter, but if one is on
the side of Evil then one's qualities, honesty and good intents are
irrelevant."

Betsy:
As in real life, there are times when you do have to step up to the 
plate and decide what you stand for.  I do think the ending of the 
series will be fairly cut and dry.  One side will win (and I'll be 
shocked if it's Voldemort's) and the other will loose.  There isn't 
much grey as to which side is good and which side is evil, but is 
that so unrealistic?  The greyness that was OotP was the argument 
over whether the side of evil was actually in existence.  Fudge, 
rather pig-headedly, was arguing that it was not.  Percy and Marietta 
and Seamus weren't siding with Voldemort, they were siding with 
Fudge.  So not evil really, just mistaken, and possibly hopeful.  
It'd be much more comfortable for all involved if Harry and 
Dumbledore were crazy and the past terror was not rising again.

I suppose a RL analogy would be the British government under 
Chamberlain up to WWII.  Chamberlain tried to avoid the evil of war, 
and appease Hitler, with at least some support I assume (not much of 
a historian, me) of the British.  But when push came to shove, the 
British did stand up to Hitler, and were on the side of good.  

I think Potterverse will be the same way.  Until Percy says, "Oh good 
one, Lord Voldemort, most amusing," or something along those lines, 
judgment has not been made.  And even if it did turn out that way, 
Dumbledore would talk about how he'd let Percy down or something and 
his fall is to be pitied rather than thought of irredeemably evil.  I 
get the sense that Dumbledore feels like he let Tom Riddle down too.

Of course a character's qualities will mean something, in that 
they'll help the character decide which side they're going to be on.  
The fun and interesting part for me is going to be seeing which side 
various characters come down on.  And the complexity may still be 
there in a fashion.  Fudge has to admit that Voldemort is back now.  
But will he throw in with Dumbledore et al, or will there be a 
divided front going against Voldemort?  I can't wait to find out!

Betsy, who so needs to do laundry it's not even amusing anymore.