Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP

[zgirnius]

No: HPFGUIDX 142364

Responding to two messages in the thread...

lucianam wrote:
> > Book 5 first. IMO there are two objectionable situations in OotP, 
> > both of them concerning Sirius. One, JKR chose to show the Single 
> > Parent (as opposite to the Standard Family) in a bad light; 

zgirnius:
If two parent families were portrayed as uniformly better than the 
Harry and Sirius relationship, I might see better where you are 
coming from. But Harry's actual, legal parents, who raised him, are 
the Dursleys. They are a very conventional 2 parent family, and very 
awful as parents.

Sirius, on the other hand, clearly cares deeply about Harry and takes 
his responsibility seriously. He tries to advise and support Harry 
with his problems. In the end, he dies while on a mission to rescue 
Harry from Death Eaters. I think especially young readers are very 
likely to walk away with the idea that Harry would have been much 
better off with Sirius instead of the Dursleys...

> > lucianam: 
> > the other adults' responsibility concerning Sirius was overlooked.

I think JKR did know what she was writing here. And she did have DD 
address it in that conversation at the end of OotP, by reminding 
Harry that Sirius was in danger of his life if he left 12 GP. Both 
from DEs and overzealous MoM employees. The situation for Sirius was 
not great, but there were few alternatives.

And I would agree that some characters treated Sirius badly and 
exacerbated the situation, for their own reasons. Snape, obviously, 
but he really does hate Sirius and I'm sure readers of all ages 
grasped that this was not good behavior on Snape's part. And Molly 
Weasley, who was, it seemed to me, acting out of her own motherly 
feelings towards Harry. I did not feel, however, that JKR was 
endorsing Molly's behavior. Not only did she have Harry express 
negative thoughts about it, but she also had other characters (Lupin, 
at least) disagree with her about things.

> > lucianam:
> > Now, HBP. It got a little worse.
> > 
> > `But while I was at the Dursleys',' interrupted Harry, his voice 
> > growing stronger, `I realised I can't shut myself away or _ or 
> > crack up. Sirius wouldn't have wanted that, would he? And anyway, 
> > life's too short 
 look at Madam Bones, look at Emmeline Vance 
 
it 
> > could be me next, couldn't it? But if it is,' he said fiercely, 
now 
> > looking straight into Dumbledore's blue eyes, gleaming in the 
wand-
> > light, `I'll make sure I take as many Death Eaters with me as I 
> > can, and Voldemort too if I can manage it.'
> > 
> > `Spoken both like your mother and father's son and Sirius's true 
> > godson!' said Dumbledore,  with an approving pat on Harry's back. 
> > `I take my hat off to you _ or I would, if I were not afraid of 
> > showering you in spiders.
> > (from Chapter 2, `Horace Slughorn')
> > 
> > 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!  

zgirnius:
Well, yes. At least, when they are in the process of killing you. 
Harry is affirming that he considers it likely that he will be killed 
by Death Eaters in a lopsided fight, outnumbered. And that, when this 
happens, he plans to go down fighting. While there is a purely 
pacifist ethical position that violence and killing of any kind are 
completely unacceptable, centuries of thinkers on religion, ethics, 
and morality would find Harry's position defensible at worst. (Lots 
of them would agree with Dumbledore's stated approval of Harry's 
views.)

> lealess:
> I agree with you more than not.  I find much of the moral 
> underpinnings of the books disturbing, to put it mildly.  The 
> whole "girls follow the boys" message of HBP really depressed me.

zgirnius:
Not sure what you mean here...Ginny's acceptance of the break-up at 
the end? I don't think Ginny has accepted it, so I'm not bothered by 
it. I'm believe she plans to pick her moment and resume the 
discussion.

Tonks' depression over Lupin? In the end she overcomes his 
objections, and gets her man. I did find the whole changed Patronus 
thing annoying, so maybe I agree with you there. I did wonder whether 
it had some other function. A red herring? Establishing the 
possibility of such a change for future use?

Merope Gaunt? Well, she was certainly a sorry specimen of female 
humanity, but with what we saw of her home life this neither 
surprised nor bothered me.

Hermione? I can't fit her into 'girls follow the boys' at all, maybe 
I'm not seeing something.

> lealess:
> I think the book 5 Sirius situation serves a literary purpose.  
> Sirius' relationship vis-à-vis Harry serves to put him and his 
> special "love" magic at peril, serves to isolate him and make him 
> vulnerable to dark magic.  

zgirnius:
Yes, but Sirius also provides the focus for a demonstration of Lover 
Magic. Voldemort possesses Harry at the MoM, and Harry (who is in 
great pain) hopes that Dumbledore will just kill them both and end 
it. He then thinks happily that he will be rejoining Sirius, which is 
the point at which Voldemort can take no more and leaves Harry. It is 
Harry becoming filled with love for Sirius that accomplishes this.

> lealess:
> It is the same with Dumbledore, to a 
> degree.  Dumbledore was reprehensible in HBP, stringing Harry 
along, 
> as usual, on miniscule information, then leaving him to face a 
> situation in which Harry not only is out for revenge, but may feel 
> lingering guilt over his inability to prevent the death of someone 
he 
> loves.  

zgirnius:
So much has been written so often by so many on this list on the 
subject that I am afraid I do not recall your views of what happened 
on the Tower...so it is hard for me to assess why you feel Dumbledore 
is culpable. Personally, I do not believe that Dumbledore 
orchestrated events to ensure that Harry got to witness his murder by 
Snape. (My guess is, that is the *last* thing he would have wanted). 

He is surely still be making the mistake of not giving Harry full 
information, or fully listening to what Harry tries to tell him, but 
I don't see this as a problem with the ethics of JKR's books. DD is 
not lying to Harry, or misleading him, just not telling him 
everything. Which is a mistake that leads to his death, so the author 
is hardly endorsing his actions.

> lealess:
> I think Harry's temptation by darkness may be a more 
> pronounced theme in the next book, and the sacrifices of both 
Sirius 
> and Dumbledore will play into that, as well as the counterbalancing 
> loyalty and comradeship of Ron and Hermione, and Harry's one-
> dimensional perception of "evil" villians.  Whether Harry will 
yield 
> to bloodthirsty revenge and a full-on battle warp has yet to be 
seen, 
> though significantly, he is now willing.

zgirnius:
I agree 100% that this is a theme which she set up that I expect to 
see come to the fore in Book 7. But since I expect Harry's 'good 
side' to win out, I expect not to object to the way in which this 
theme plays out.

> lealess:
> I don't underestimate the significance of that, either.  I think it 
> is a dangerous message to send to youth, that violence is the
> answer to conflict.  

zgirnius:
First, Harry and the Order are not reacting to 'conflict'. They are 
reacting to violence. Murder, terrorism, blackmail, and so forth. 
Voldemort does not strike me as a leader who can be successfully 
dealt with using non-violent methods of conflict resolution, W. 
Slinkhard's text on DADA notwithstanding ;). 

And I think the kids old enough to be reading the series grasp the 
difference between dealing with a Dark Lord, and their own 
schoolyard 'enemies'.

I recently reread Chapter 24 (Sectumsempra) of HBP, and I think this 
chapter does a great job of illustrating this, in a way. Draco is 
Harry's biggest 'enemy' at school. And Harry is absolutely horrified 
by what he does to Draco. *Even though* Draco was clearly the one who 
escalated the fight all along. (Drew first, threw the first hex, and 
started to cast a Crucio...)