The Trio's Morality

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 162503

Kathryn:
> Well, I've gotten in some hot water for posting this opinion 
before, but I'm going to do it again, since we're all talking about 
it again. 

Magpie:
I find it very hard to believe you've gotten into hot water for 
posting that Harry and his friends are good kids. *checks own water-
feels lukewarm*

Kathryn:

>   First - It's fiction. Fiction has different rules than real 
life, and I think that the kids who read these books are intelligent 
enough to realize that.

Magpie:
Absolutely.  But I don't think the discussions about these scenes 
are quite about what you're describing.  It's not, imo, that people 
who criticize them in these scenes are only thinking that it would 
be bad to do this to a person in reality.  They're also reacting to 
it as fiction and getting a different idea about what the author is 
saying. They are trying to judge it by the standards of the 
fictional world.

Kathryn:
 I personally, get a little thrill of "Ha, ha!" when the Cronies are 
turned into slugs in GOF and JKR describes the Trio and the Twins 
stepping over them. They deserve it. They're crappy people, who on a 
continuing basis do nasty and violent things to people. They're 
bullies, and they deserve to get bullied back once in a while. 

Magpie:
You're kind of eliding together your emotional reaction (you 
personally get satisfaction out of seeing crappy people who deserve 
it get beaten on) with a statement about correct ethics (this is the 
way bullies deserve to be treated and therefore it is right to feel 
this way). I think the reason this makes for an interesting 
discussion is that it doesn't only come down to personal reactions 
to the scene, but genuine different possibilities for what the 
author is going for--is there supposed to be an element of darkness 
in the kids' characters?  Is it an intentional parallel to similar 
scenes with a bad guy? This is a bildungsroman about a kid growing 
up, about good and evil. Isn't this the kind of thing we're supposed 
to be thinking about?  

Kathryn:
   
>   Second - In that fictionalized world, there is a lot more at 
stake than just some bullies on a train. Harry knows about 
Voldemort, and so do all his friends. They know what's at stake in 
this fight, and they suspect by GOF that the Malfoys are followers 
of Voldemort. So, why wouldn't they suspect that Draco and Cronies 
are going to attack them, even if they didn't have wands drawn yet? 
I suspect Malfoy at every turn, and always expect him to do 
something awful. Harry and his friends haven't saved the WW at least 
four times by being cautious and forgiving. They're fighting a war 
with evil! They have to be suspicious and aggressive, or they'll die.

Magpie:
But this is another thing that's being debated on the thread. 
They're not actually acting like they're threatened at all, they're 
just acting like they're angry.  And while you've said that moral 
rules don't always apply for fiction you are obviously still 
following some kind of moral idea in the scene--even though they've 
been wrong in the past, the kids should be suspicious, even if 
Malfoy & Co. don't have their wands drawn it's part of the war with 
evil so they must be suspicious. (Which is why Malfoy can't claim 
rightful suspicion when he looks up into the mirror and sees Harry 
staring at him in HBP.)

Kathryn:    
>   Third - They are children. And children need guidance. ... These 
kids seem very much on their own, and have to make their own 
decisions, which are not always the most wise, since they are 
children. 

Magpie:
So why object to adults reading the books and saying they need 
guidance?  I think I understand where you're coming from, that you 
enjoy the scene even though in real life you would teach your own 
children otherwise.  I don't think other peoples' reactions are 
really that different.  It's just that they put more emphasis on 
wanting them to grow up and get that guidance. Perhaps because their 
emotional reaction was different to begin with--they didn't get the 
satisfaction out of it (not that the two things have to go 
together). 

Kathryn:    
>   Lastly, I would like to say that I believe the Trio is very 
moral, even when making poor decisions. These kids are trying to 
save everyone from a great evil. They are, in comparison to other 
tweens and teens, incredibly unselfish, kind, and intelligent. When 
they occasionally act like real teens, people act like they've just 
had some sort of moral downfall. 

Magpie:
Now you seem to again be mounting a moral defense that says the 
Gryffindors are fundamentally good and they have done X good things 
(I disagree they're particularly kind--that's one virtue I'm not 
going to give them) so presumably should not be spoken of in this 
manner--and also the things they are doing here are not bad, but 
normal (as opposed to the usual super good). In fact, saying they've 
done something bad here is claiming they've had a moral downfall. I 
don't think that's all accurate.

Kathryn:
Can anyone in this group say that they have NEVER, EVER teased 
someone into tears- even if it was your own sibling? No one had ever 
made a bad decision? Been unkind? Come on. 

Magpie:
What difference does it make if anyone on the list has teased 
someone to tears or made a bad decision?  And if you think it's so 
normal to make bad decisions or tease someone to tears why are you 
judging Crabbe and Goyle and Malfoy as crappy people who deserve to 
be beaten up? How come you get to get satisfaction out of the text 
and defend the morality of your reaction and other people don't?

Kathryn:
These kids act like angels all the time, and when they occasionally 
don't, people jump all over them. They are human, and JKR wrote them 
that way. I wouldn't be very interested in heroes that were perfect 
all the time. That's boring. 

Magpie:
I don't think they act like angels all the time, myself, and I agree 
they would be boring if they were perfect.  But if you like the fact 
that they're not perfect, why is it a problem to talk about the ways 
that they're not perfect--that is, to talk about it in ways other 
than to turn it into another virtue?

Kathryn:    
>   Begging everyone to just lay off the poor kids, Katie    

Magpie:
I can't help but find it ironic that you began your post explaining 
how this is fiction, which makes it okay to knock deserving kids 
unconscious, and wind up begging us to lay off the poor equally 
fictional kids meaning that we shouldn't analyze or judge them 
harshly.  

This just seems to be defending them from every angle, even when 
it's contradictory: 1. Different rules apply in fiction so if they 
do something that would be wrong by real world standards it's not 
wrong in their world. 2. What they did was right because it shows 
how bullies (the badness of whose behavior exists in both worlds) 
deserve to be treated. 3. Not that the personal satisfaction of 
beating up crappy people was their motivation--they were threatened 
themselves and fighting evil. 4. In every other scene they're 
exceptionally moral, and focusing on a scene where they do bad is 
unfair. 5. Not that what they do is bad--it's normal kid behavior. 
6. This behavior is so normal it's universal so can't really be 
criticized. 7. You can't criticize it if you've ever done wrong 
yourself. 8. Doing right all the time would make them boring, so 
saying they are doing wrong is asking for bad writing. So in 
conclusion, these characters can only be spoken of in admiring terms.

-m