Debatable ethical issues in OotP and HBP

[lucianam73]

No: HPFGUIDX 142357

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. But I was thinking of how 
differently children read books. Children still can't fully 
understand that a book is not an infallible source of wisdom, but 
justsomething someone wrote. They don't understand Dumbledore's 
wisdom is not that of a 150-year-old wizard, but that of a 40-
something-year-old Muggle woman. 

I don't think, even for a moment, that my own personal beliefs are 
superior to JKR's. But I do think a few parts of the HP books 
(namely, OotP and HBP) were written in a way that conveys certain 
ideas, either intentionally or not. In my opinion, those ideas are 
not very good, or, to say the least, are ethically debatable (as in 
title), and if I had any children I would like to hear their own 
opinions on those points and have them hear my own opinions. I 
wouldn't like the books to have the only say in those matters. 

Well, now that I've (hopefully) explained what I'm talking about, 
let's talk specifics. Please, note that I can't beat around the bush 
all the time, so I'll have to use words 
like `wrong', `objectionable', `bad', etc. I'll try my best to be 
very respectful, if I fail please let me know! 

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; two, the 
other adults' responsibility concerning Sirius was overlooked.

Yes I know JKR was once a single parent herself, and I know there's 
a link to the One Parents Families Charity in her website. Well, 
that's her personal life, not her writing. It doesn't change 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. 

Those characteristics make Sirius clearly unfit as a substitute 
parent, and they are stressed by Molly's attacks and Hermione's 
agreement with Molly. 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.  I don't think 
it was a `bad' thing to do, ethically, but I expected better. Not 
because of JKR's personal life, but because we're in the XXIst 
century.

On to more OotP disagreement. 

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. Ugly not because the `people of the Order 
gave up on him', which actually seems to have been the case, but 
because said abandoment was not addressed, it was not recognized. I 
don't even know if JKR noticed she wrote it! 

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.

Dumbledore has his line of excuse to say, he tells Harry `Sirius was 
much too old and too clever' to let Snape upset him. But isn't 
Sirius, as quoted above, a case of arrested development? Twelve 
years in Azkaban count for nothing? 

The Order's, and Dumbledore's attitude towards Sirius's depression 
was not a compassionate one. It wasn't even a wise one (what if he 
had cracked?). Because he was an adult, they expected him to take 
care of himself and basically just shrugged (and disapproved, in 
Molly's case) as he wasted away.

If that is JKR's idea of how mature, responsible, wise adults 
(including Dumbledore – more about him later) should behave, 
specially when confronted with weakness in others, I'm positively 
sure I don't share her views in this particular matter.

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!  

The problem word in that sentence being, of course, kill.

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? 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.

Let me say very clearly I'm not raising the `What is a righteous 
war' or `Why can't we kill the Evil' debate (*shudders at the 
thought of such debate*).  

What I'm saying is: I very much object to how little_ or even none _ 
room to debate JKR left in those two paragraphs. She left absolutely 
no question of how great it is that Harry wants to kill Death 
Eaters. She very specifically says Dumbledore enthusiastically 
approves of this plan. 

I had to read HBP a second time to convince myself Dumbledore was 
not an impostor, just because of those two paragraphs.

Well. That was number One Debatable Ethical Issue for me, by far 
worse than the issues in OotP and than the next one I'll cover. 
Funnily, this point (it's also the last) also involves Harry and 
Dumbledore.

`I see,' said Dumbledore eventually, peering at Harry over the top 
of his half-moon spectacles and giving Harry the usual sensation 
that he was being X-rated. `And you feel that you have exerted your 
very best efforts in this matter, do you? That you have exercised 
all of your considerable ingenuity? That you have left no depth of 
cunning umplumbed in your quest to retrieve the memory?'

When was the last time I read about, or watched a movie about a wise 
and righteous mentor telling his young apprentice to leave `no depth 
of cunning umplumbed' to get something?  I can't remember! Yoda and 
Obi Wan-Kenobi never told Luke anything even remotely similar.

I admit Dumbledore did not say `hang morals, you fool, just do what 
it takes to get that memory!' Neither did he use the words `forget 
right and wrong.' But, again, to exactly what depth of cunning is he 
ALLOWING Harry to reach so he can get what he wants? That's right, 
children, NO depth. Just sink as low as you can. So it really 
doesn't matter Dumbledore used ambiguous words, he's hanged morals 
and ditched notions of right and right just as effectively as if 
he'd chose more crude words.

Hmm. I apologize for a very long post, I also apologize if I have 
offended anyone. I know `right and wrong' is a very touchy subject, 
but I thought it was a good idea to address it. Harry Potter can be 
very deceptive sometimes, with all its plot twists, funny bits and 
(now) Horcruxes – there's also a lot of ideas underneath, and I 
confess not all of them are fine with me. Constant vigilance!

Lucianam