Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP

[spotsgal]

No: HPFGUIDX 142361

> > lucianam:
> >
> > Of course it'd be very naïve to expect a book to match one's own 
> > moral standards, being part of the reading experience to disagree 
> > with the author's views once in while. ButI... Children still 
> > can't fully understand that a book is not an infallible source 
> > of wisdom, but justsomething someone wrote. ...
> > 
> 
> bboyminn:
> 
> Don't sell children short, they understand more than you think,
> though, I must agree they do not have an adult's perspective on 
> life.

Christina:

I agree, and from what JKR has said in various interviews, I think she
agrees too.  I went to the really huge HBP release party at that mall
in Illinois, and I had the opportunity to talk to some of the younger
HP fans.  I was shocked by how intelligent and sophisticated a lot of
these kids were.  I got into a pretty deep discussion with a little
girl about Sirius's ultimate purpose in the books, Snape's possible
childhood background, and how the Marauders might have come to lose
trust in one another.  The Harry Potter books demand a sort of
maturity in thinking- I think they appeal much more to smart and
complex children.  Even in terms of plot, the books are complex. 
While reading the ending of GoF, I had to stop every once in a while
to make sure I was understanding what was going on.
 
> > lucianam:
> > ...edited...
> > 
> > Book 5 first. ... JKR chose to show the Single Parent ... in a 
> > bad light; two, the other adults' responsibility concerning 
> > Sirius was overlooked.
> > 
> > ... the fact that she chose to write Harry's legitimate guardian,
> > a single man appointed by his own mother and father, as a slighty 
> > deranged, reckless, moody, tragic man, smelling of booze and `a 
> > case of arrested development' too. 
<snip>
> > I find such a negative portrait of a potential 
> > alternative family – Harry and Sirius – in opposition to the 
> > perfect family, the Weasleys, to be very unrealistic. ...

Christina:

Yes, but look at the ultimate "conventional" family in HP- the
Dursley's! *shudder* Hermione has two parents, but it seems as though
they don't really understand her; while I'm sure they love her, she
seems to spend an awful lot of time away from them.  Draco Malfoy has
a conventional family as well, and we all know how much hugging must
go on in *that* household.  The only character I can think of at the
moment who is raised by one person is Neville- and while his
grandmother can be a bit harsher than Neville will like at times, I
would argue that she raised one of the most compassionate, loyal, and
morally upstanding characters in the entire series (sorry, I just
can't ever seem to resist the opportunity to gush about Neville).

> lucianam:
> Those characteristics make Sirius clearly unfit as a substitute
> parent, and they are stressed by Molly's attacks and Hermione's
> agreement with Molly.

Christina:

I would argue that I don't think JKR means to imply that the Weasley's
are a "better" family for Harry than Sirius would be.  I think her
main point in having Molly and Sirius disagree (and Dumbledore and
Lupin's opinions come in it also) is to show that just because
somebody loves you and wants what is best for you doesn't mean that
they are actually *doing* what is best for you.  And really, I think
that Molly (and Hermione's) disapproval of Sirius wasn't what JKR
herself agreed with.  First of all, Lupin, who is a huge voice of
reason in the HP series, agrees with Sirius, who *does* get his way
and gets to tell Harry some information.  Also, Molly sides with
Dumbledore in saying that Harry doesn't need to know a whole lot about
what's going on.  I think this sentiment is wrong and JKR demonstrates
that with showing all of the tragic things that happen because Harry
*isn't* told things that he should know (ie, why he must learn
Occlumency).

Going back to what you were saying about Sirius's personality as a
whole (and I *wish* I had my copy of GoF with me so I could quote the
exact passage), but I would disagree that Sirius is characteristically
moody, deranged, and alcoholically unbalanced.  Look at him in the end
of GoF- he comes immediately to Harry's aid (isn't he there before
even Mrs. Weasley?) and holds on to Harry's shoulders so hard that it
hurts him.  He seems to have gotten a bit better since the end of PoA-
the reason he turns into a moody, brooding presense in book five is
because of his confinement in his parents home, which I suspect turned
out to bother him more than he thought it would.  I think that having
Sirius stuck in his parents house served as a way JKR could have Harry
relate to his godfather- Harry is awfully moody and depressed when he
is stuck in the Dursley's house himself.

>lucianam:
>Why was it okay to leave Sirius to his own devices, if it was clear
>even to Harry (a child) that he was depressed? It struck me as an
>ugly case of abandonment....
>All we have is Sirius having `fits of the sullens', avoiding contact
>with the others, retiring to Buckbeak's room, etc. It gives the
>reader the impression it was all his own choice, perhaps to excuse
>the members of the Order (and Dumbledore) of their responsability
>towards a friend in need.

Christina:

There's a war going on, and there's just no time for a secret
fighting-the-dark-side organization to sit around coddling a grown
man.  Sirius is sullen and withdrawn for a reason- he's stuck in his
parents' house and can't be with Harry (and the poor guy has Kreacher
and his mom's portrait nagging at him).  There is no way to fix these
problems; even Sirius himself knows this.  Therefore, there really
isn't anything to be done about it.


> bboyminn:
> 
> I think part of the appeal of the JKR books, especially to young
> people, is that the world and the people in it are just as flawed 
> and imperfect as people are in real life.

Christina:

Exactly.  *All* of the characters have huge flaws (even Harry the Hero
and Dumbledore), which is the way life really is.

> bboyminn:
> But /he binds himself/ to Grimmauld place out of a sense of
> duty and loyalty. Miserable as it is, war brings out the heroes even
> in the worst of us.

Christina:

Sirius might not always make the best choices, but he is trying his
best to be useful and to make things right.  He gives the Order 12GP
knowing that he'll be stuck there, and he does it anyway.  And
although I'm glad that JKR isn't trying to write a PC series, I think
this is a great message to kids about sacrifice- even somebody who
hasn't gotten much of a chance to cultivate maturity can still show
displays of the trait.

> lucianam:
>....snip...
>
>That sent shivers down my spine. In two very small paragraphs, in
>short sentences coming out of the mouths of the biggest heros in the
>series, JKR demolishes centuries of religious, ethical and moral
>debate. Yes, children, it's allright to kill Death Eaters. As many
>as you can!

Christina:

I read this passage as being in the same vein as Harry's thoughts
during the climax of GoF- how he wasn't going to die lying down, that
even if there wasn't a single defense that he could use to save
himself, that he was going to die standing straight and tall like a
man, like his father (and mother) did, which says a lot about bravery
and dignity.

>lucianam:
>Just so we keep the comparisons mundane, haven't we watched
>Apocalypse Now? The Deer Hunter? Any war movies at all? Don't most
>of them try to show the dilemma of taking human life? 

Christina:

Well yes, but since I was just watching "Pearl Harbor" the other
night, I'll give you this bit of dialogue:

"I wasn't built to be a prisoner, so I'd have my crew bail out and I'd
find the sweetest military spot and drive my nose right through it,
killing as many of those bastards as I could. But that's just me."

>lucianam:
>What about books, isn't there a book called the Prisoner of Azkaban?
>I thought I read something there about `becoming a murderer' being a
>bad thing.

Christina:

I know you said that you're not trying to start the "righteous war"
debate and believe me, I shudder as much as you do at the thought
(*grin*), but I think that is part of the point.  Sirius and Remus
were about to kill Peter in PoA in cold blood, as revenge.  Peter was
unarmed and could not defend himself.  I would argue that that
situation is completely different from one where Harry is being attacked.

Overall, I hear your point about the potential messages that JKR is
sending to children (the books deal with some heavy topics), but I
believe that the children that are attracted to Harry Potter in the
first place are a quick lot.  I like that the characters aren't just
"good" or "evil," that sometimes people can have the best intentions
(Dumbledore, Sirius, Harry, etc.) and still make huge mistakes.  I
think that JKR sends the *better* message that the "right" choices are
not always easy to see- sometimes we have to sit a think for a long
while to tease out whether our actions have been in line with our
moral standard or not.  I think that instead of spoonfeeding her
readers her own morality, JKR takes the better route and writes books
that enable children to start conversations about their own moral code
and the moral codes of their peers, parents, and other adults.  For
the most part, I think JKR raises many more moral questions than she
answers, encouraging the reader to constantly think and question,
which I would argue is much more valuable for children these days.


Christina