: Moody -- "Types"--Where Are the Bleeding Hearts? by Elkins'

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 125393


Elkins in post 33990:
This is germaine because -- given that you admit that you pretty
much agree with the *content* of my post, even down to its
political elements -- what I suspect you must have read that 
angered you so much was: "Moody's a law-and-order type, and I just
don't *like* people like that, so I don't like Moody."  

And so (being perhaps a law-and-order type yourself?), you quite
reasonably took personal offense at this and retaliated with: 
"Oh yeah?  Well, I don't like you bleeding-heart jerk-offs either.  
So there!"
 
<SNIP>

But getting back to the Potterverse, where *are* the bleeding
heart liberals in canon?  Have we actually seen any at all?  
 
Fudge is certainly a head-in-the-sand appeaser -- but he also
allows his dementors to perform summary executions on accused
criminals, which absolutely disqualifies him for the Bleeding 
Heart Club.

Then we have the Pensieve mob who let off Ludo Bagman -- but their 
behavior is motivated more by a starry-eyed worship of sports
heroes than by any bleeding-heart tendencies; we later see
that they are more than capable of turning hard-line, even
when faced with a screaming pleading teenager in the dock.

Now, Lupin would initially seem to fit the profile well enough 
(he's so *sensitive,* don't you know, so...well, so pale and 
interesting) -- but when push comes to shove in the Shrieking 
Shack, he is revealed to be no bleeding-heart.  And the same 
goes for Hermione, who otherwise would seem to be the primary
candidate.
 
Really, so far in the series, Dumbledore seems to me to be the
closest thing we've got to the stereotypical bleeding-heart 
liberal -- and he's still not all that close.  Dumbledore may
not like the dementors, and he may approve of giving people
second chances, but he's hardly a _softie_.
 
So where *are* the Bleeding Hearts of the wizarding world?  If
they exist (and surely they do), then Rowling has not yet chosen
to depict them within the books.
 
Bobby wrote in message 34004:

Quote by Elkins:
"I don't like Moody.
I really don't care for him at all. He strikes me as the
sort of person who would happily strip away all of my civil
liberties, given half the chance, and I consider such men a
serious threat to civilized society."


Bobby:

"This is the part that really set the tone for the entire post. I
don't want to come across as attacking you, so let's just say that a
writer for the Daily Prophet wrote the above quotation. Crouch is
definitely the type of person who would rejoice in stripping away
civil liberties and is a threat to civilized society, as JKR means
him to be. However, Moody has spent his life fighting the bad guys
for all the right reasons. He has lost his leg, his eye, and a large
chunk of his nose. He never asks for thanks, or power, or riches.
And what does he have to show for it? A writer for the Daily
Prophet, who has never actually fought anyone from the Dark Side,
believes Moody to be a threat to civilized society. Is that fair?
In a perfect world Moody would be able to catch all the Death Eaters
in totally legitimate way, but frankly speaking this is not a perfect
world and to expect him to do that is completely out of touch with
the reality of evil. This, then, goes back to my previous point
about looking at motives, rather than actions, which is easier to do
in Potter's world than in the real world. When I said that criminals
are granted more benefit of the doubt than law-enforcement, what I
meant was that criminals are always, always presumed innocent until
proven guilty (which they obviously should be). However, there is no
mechanism to acknowledge the fact that law-enforcement have their
hands tied behind there back 99% of the time while criminals/Death
Eaters do not, and if a well-meaning Auror uses questionable means to
procure a Death Eater, then he is the bad guy."


Alla:

I have been reading Elkins writings again and I  again have a couple 
of questions. :o)

Now, from reading this post  and  the replies I figured that Elkins 
does NOT think that there are many characters in canon, whose 
political views are liberal  enough or as close to RL liberals as 
possible.

I also realise that Elkins does NOT like Moody after GoF. I would 
love to know how she feels about Moody after OOP, but I guess this 
is not possible, so I will take what I can get. :)

Now, what we saw in GoF was fake Moody and I tend to agree with some 
replies to Elkins' post - we could not figure much of real Moody 
based on GoF.

I am more interested in your views on real Moody behaviour during 
the first war. From what I gather  Elkins is not very happy with his 
behaviour during that times and during Pensieve trials. Are you?

I don't know. I happen to think that  the mentioning that Moody 
always tried to bring prisoners alive is a shorthand  for the fact 
that Moody tried to behave more or less decently even during a war. 

Any thoughts?

Alla,

who apologises if she misinterpreted any views of Elkins.