I don't get it WAS Re: Death in the Wizarding World

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 129858

>>K:
<snip>
>I don't understand why there seem to be so many people so hopeful 
to see the "bad" guys--ie. Snape, Malfoy, even fargin' LV--as 
Potentially Good, while there seem to be at the same time many 
people advancing the idea that "good guys" (ie. Lupin, Ron, 
Dumbledore) are really on the verge of turning into some flesh-
eating bacteria.<

Betsy Hp:
I think you can lay the blame squarely at the feet of JKR.  One of 
the most fasinating and frustrating things she does is mix up her 
genres.  Is the Harry Potter series a fairy-tale, a hero's journey, 
a school-days story, a gothic tale, a mystery?  In a word, yes.  And 
while a fairy-tale or hero's journey tend to be very straight 
forward with easily recognizable arc-types as characters, a mystery 
is an entirely different animal.  And from PS/SS JKR makes clear 
that not everything we're told will hold true throughout the story.  
Will Voldemort remain the main villain?  Sure.  And Harry will no 
doubt remain the hero.  But everyone else is fair game, and even the 
hero and the villain get shaken out of their predictable roles.  
Harry has and will act in some less than noble ways; Voldemort had a 
horrifying childhood.  

We've already been told that the last Order nearly fell because of a 
traitor in its midst.  Commonsense dictates that where there's one 
spy there may very well be more.  So all "good guys" are suspect.  
And if the Order has spies of their own then all "bad guys" might 
not necessarily be bad.

>>K: 
> 1.  I don't think the HP books are expressly Christian in nature. 
Moral, yes.  Christian, no.   Allegorical, in part.  Ethical, very 
much so.<

Betsy Hp:
I agree, though I don't think the books are all that allegorical.  
Not expressly so, anyway.

>>K: 
> 2.  I think that JKR intends for us to be fairly sure of the 
dichotomy of parties in the WW.  There are good things and bad 
things.  There is some waffling to be sure (Sirius' origins vs. his 
outcome, the Marauders' indiscretions, HRH's numerous rule breaking 
sprees) but I think she is very clear on the nature of Malum 
Prohibitum (bad because it breaks a rule or law) versus Malum in se 
(Bad because the thing itself is bad)<
<snip>

Betsy Hp:
And here's where things get lovely and gray.  Because, yes JKR is 
generally fairly clear about good and bad, but sometimes they're not 
always that easy to identify.  A prime example is house-elves.  
Through Hermione and Dobby, JKR seems to be saying slavery is bad.  
Makes sense.  But then Hermione's actions on behalf of house-elves 
aren't necessarily all that good.  The Ministry is another good 
example. Voldemort and his Death Eaters are bad, but Crouch, Sr. and 
his methods of hunting down the Death Eaters are not all that great 
themselves.

>>K: 
>I'm confused because while we often see the baddies engaging in MP 
behaviour (think Malfoy and the buttons or the being out of bed late 
at night to catch the goings on with the Dragon), we never see the 
goodies engaging in MiS behaviour.   We've never seen Hagrid murder 
anyone; we've never known of Lupin to be torturing his DADA class 
members.<

Betsy Hp:
Here's were the mystery aspect of the story comes in.  Right up 
until the end of PoA the good guys would say that they'd seen 
Pettigrew engage in some MP behavior, but *never* MiS behavior.  So 
why on earth would they believe that he's really a bad guy?  But 
then the truth is revealed and it turns out that Pettigrew *was* 
engaged in MiS behavior.  He just wasn't caught.  Pippin (who I 
think is the biggest champion of ESE!Lupin) would argue that Lupin 
*has* engaged in MiS behavior, he's just not been caught yet.  I've 
taken a shine to ESE!McGonagall ('cause it would make an interesting 
twist) and though she's not done a thing wrong that we've seen -- if 
she is a traitor I'm sure some MiS stuff would soon follow the 
reveal.

Of course, someone like Lupinlore would (I think) argue that 
Dumbledore has engaged in MiS behavior by allowing Harry to live at 
the Dursleys.  Which gets into the actual ethical rules as laid out 
by the books and questions if they are indeed ethical.  And that's a 
whole other argument.

>>K: 
>JKR does give us several examples of wizards who fell on the wrong 
side out of misguidance but their actions are not MiS.  The best 
example I can think of is Ludo Bagman.   He was accused as a DE, but 
his actions were those of passing information and doing so 
misguidedly.   These can be argued as MP or MiS, but I would place 
them as MP.<

Betsy Hp:
And those who think Bagman is really a sleeper Death Eater agent 
would argue that Bagman passed the information on *knowingly* and so 
therefore was MiS rather than MP.  That's where the arguments come 
in, I think.  Because one type of action is much more easily 
forgiven than another.

>>K: 
>All of this is to say that I really empathize with all who want to 
hope to see the redemption of certain characters, but as far as this 
work of literature goes I don't think we'll see it.  I think that 
the various rainbow of baddies serves to show the stages of rot 
within the WW that are born of its exclusionary principles.<
<snip>

Betsy Hp:
And I would argue that Draco and Snape (two baddies mentioned) don't 
really *need* to be redeemed.  Draco has only acted in a manner I 
would catagorize as MP.  In fact, I would argue that his MP actions 
are well within the range of MP actions the "good guys" have engaged 
in.  And Snape, though possibly taking part in MiS action while a 
Death Eater, seems to have already redeemed himself (based on 
Dumbledore's trust).  

Both characters need to be redeemed in *Harry's eyes* and I have 
hopes that both will be.  Of course Draco is really teetering on the 
edge, I think.  It would be very easy for him to do something in the 
MiS category now that war has come and he's personally involved.  
But I do hope he's somehow directed in another direction.

Both characters have been painted too subtley by JKR for me to agree 
that they're just there to serve an allegorical role.  Plus, I like 
both characters and I hope that the story ends well for them.

Honestly, as far as redemption goes, the only characters that I 
think qualify for the big save (eg Luke redeeming Vader) are 
Pettigrew and Voldemort.  Pettigrew is a possibility; there is that 
life debt after all.  Perhaps he'll sacrifice himself to save Harry 
thereby redeeming himself.  Voldemort... has a *much* longer way to 
go, IMO, and I honestly don't see it happening.  Tom Riddle's 
reluctance to go back to the orphanage in CoS pulled a small pang of 
sympathy out of me.  But since he'd brought the school closing down 
on himself (by KILLING someone!) I wasn't really heart-broken on his 
behalf.  Perhaps Tom could have been reached at this time, but I 
think his problems started a long time ago.

(I recall reading a theory that Tom was twisted by dementors when he 
was just a baby. I thought it came from Redhen, but now I can't find 
it.  Does this ring any bells for anyone?)

If JKR was writing a pure fairy-tale or an allegorical tale then I 
could agree that it's silly for people to look for something good in 
the "bad guys" or rotten in the "good guys".  (It's rare for someone 
to argue on behalf of the evil queen in Snow White, for example.)  
But JKR has given us a much deeper and more human story where the 
bad guys and the good guys are a tiny bit harder to identify.

Betsy Hp