Special treatment - yes or no

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 146020

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Irene Mikhlin
<irene_mikhlin at b...> wrote:
>
> Before I start the long list of the instances where I
> think Hogwarts authorities provided special treatment
> either for Harry, or Gryffindor in general, a disclaimer:
> 
> You don't need to refute it with the claims that Harry
> is a nice kid who didn't ask for special treatment, but
> deserves it all anyway. Meta-arguments about this treatment
> to be necessary for plot reasons also miss the point.
>
> The point of the exercise is to demonstrate that other
> houses who don't have an insider information about Harry's
> character or the broader context of the fight with Voldemort)
> have a good  reason to perceive Harry as Headmaster's pet.
> Have you noticed that he is not very popular with
> Hufflepuff and Ravenclaw either, at least until book 6? 
> They are very quick to believe the worst of him.
> 
> Now to the list.
> 
> ...edited list ...
>
> Irene

bboyminn:

I will respond in general rather than point-by-point; I agree and
disagree. There now, isn't that better ;).

Your disclaimer makes a very good point, that other Houses aren't
dealing with all the information. As the series goes on, we see that
most of the BIG Incidences are either explained by rampant rumors or
by a quick mention in the Leaving Feast speech by Dumbledore. That
creates plenty of room in the other Houses for exagerated rumors and
unfounded speculation, and that certainly works against Harry.

So, on your central point that, in the view of the other Houses, Harry
seems to get special treatment. In fact, even Ron expresses that Harry
'always gets away with stuff'. So, no argument on that point.

But on the point of rule breaking and special treatment in general, I
do take issue. To many people (though perhaps not you) argue that
Harry is always getting away with things that they think other student
would never get away with. They tend to be 'moral absolutests'. They
tend to take a very 'Percy' view of the rules, and make the assumption
that rules are absolute and can never be broken. One might say that
'the Rules are the Law'. But history consistently proves them wrong on
that point. There are times when the right, just, and morally correct
thing to do is to buck the system and disobey the rules. It seems
clear that Dumbledore recognises this. He understands that rule are
general guidelines for a cooperative society. Without rules as
guidelines for expected and excepted behavior, we would have anarchy
and chaos. 

But again rules are not absolute. Regime become corrupt. Laws and
rules are made for self-serving reasons rather than the greater good
or social order. We certainly see this in Fudge and Umbridge's actions
in OotP. There are times when the moral and just thing to do, is for
citizens to disobey the rules in order to correct corrupt systems and
restore order in the name of justice and common good. But enough of
this sermonizing.

Does Harry get special treatment? Yes, but, like it or not, Harry is a
special person and Dumbledore more than anyone knows it. Harry has a
heavy burdenous fate weighing on him. He has a dark and dangerous
destiny that is vital to the fate of the wizard world. That certainly
makes him special.

In light of all this, we see that for routine infractions, Harry is
punished or not punished roughly in proportion to what we would expect
in any school. Yes, there are exception, but we have no reason to
believe that those same exceptions wouldn't be applied to other
students under similar circumstances. In real life, amoung intelligent
civilized people, rules are tempered with mercy and understanding.
Even in a court of law, where rule seem their most absolute, judges
and procecutors will take extenuating circumstances into account. So,
the fact that Harry is let off for certain rountine violation is not
that big a deal. As I said, we could expect a similar leniency for
other student under similar circumstances.

In the big incidences, where Harry goes to save the Stone, or to
rescue Ron from Sirius, or to rescue Ginny from Voldemort's diary, or
to rescue Sirius from Voldemort; I think we have special
circumstances. We have situations that are, without a doubt in my
mind, the very moral exceptions to the rules that are necessary in a
free society. In these instances, Harry is not acting for his personal
gain, or out of some petty desire to 'make mischief'. He is acting
selflessly, at great risk to himself, and in the strong interest in
the welfare of other people. That is brave and noble and necessary,
and reflects the very essense of the best Gryffindor qualities, and
Harry is rewarded for his selfless bravery and actions in the interest
of others, just as he should be.

The moral absolutest, need to understand that there really are times
when moral imperitive overrides the rules.

Back to your main point, certainly the other Houses misunderstand
Harry, and they do so because of a lack of detailed knowledge of
various major incidences. In some cases, they view Harry more
favorably because of this scant knowledge, though more often, the bear
him some degree of ill will. 

But I think from both a authoral point of view and from a story point
of view, this is necessary. Dumbledore has a very strong tendency to
only give out the minimal amount of information necessary. If every
student and adult in the wizard world knew the details of Harry life
and his fate, it would make it very hard for him to do what he must
ultimately do. Futher, it would make it very hard, if not impossible,
for Harry to live anything approximating a normal life. 

Even now while the wizard world believes or at least suspect that
Harry is the 'Chosen One', his life is difficult, but if they had
known for a fact that information from the time of Voldemort's
original defeat, Harry life would have been impossible and
impractical. So, I think Dumbledore chose wisely. Better to have a few
fellow students suspicious or envious of Harry, than to have the world
pestering him and interferring where ever he goes.

Just because people WANT to know, doesn't mean they NEED to know. Just
because I want to know the intimate details of the life of "Brad" or
"Tom", that doesn't mean I need to know nor that it is any of my
business at all. Still enquiring minds want to know.

Just a few thoughts.

Steve/bboyminn