Vicarious Retribution (long)

[cat_kind]

No: HPFGUIDX 128852

Alla:
> > JKT does not give good guys FREE ticket to hurt people, IMO, but 
> > the fact that they punish characters who are so obviously guilty fo
> 
> > wrongdoings ( IMO only) allows them to remain good guys.
> > 
> > Just my opinion of course,
>
Magda: 
> How convenient for the good guys - but what if they happen to be
> wrong about whether someone is "so obviously guilty of wrongdoings"? 
> Does it somehow not count?  
> 
> After all Barty Crouch Sr. - who was "power mad" (according to JKR's
> new website update) but still risked a lot fighting DE's - thought
> Sirius was "so obviously guilty of wrongdoings".  Is it really enough
> just to say "Oooops!  My bad!"?
> 
> There has to be some kind of mechanism to determine guilt/innocence
> beyond the subjective and possibly incorrect one of common
> perception.

catkind:  Oooh, I do like this theory of Quigonginger's. It makes
sense of various HP scenes that previously worried me. 

Kind of Potterverse meta-morals as opposed to actual Potterverse
morals? So you're allowed to punish someone if the all-seeing reader
knows they deserve it, with no reference to what the character knows
or internal due process or whatever. 

Maybe it's kind of cheating though, if we have to revert to
meta-thinking to explain things.  It sends all sorts of confused
messages to people who don't understand these rules.  Or perhaps
children have an intuitive grasp of Vicarious Retribution - they don't
think so much about what exactly which characters know as us
over-analysing Grown-Ups.

The one scene I can't subsume here is the pensieve scene.  I don't
think the authorial voice is trying to pass that off as Vicarious
Retribution, at least to judge by Harry's reaction. Yet it does fit
the pattern of doing nasty things to nasty people.  Is JKR asking us
to question the earlier incidents by making this one so blatant?

catkind, who as usual has questions not answers, and is hoping Valky
will call it wise :-P