[HPforGrownups] The Ethical Imperative in Harry Potter - why Rowling talks about death

[rebecca]

No: HPFGUIDX 154749

<snip>
> What IS meaningful is exactly what the fandom too often forgets, or
> ignores, overrun as it is by a kind of television gnosis. The fandom
> forgets that Rowling is writing, in all cases and at all times, about
> life and death.
>
> There is no other subject, there is no other theme, there is never
> anything else at stake in Rowling but life and death.

<snip>
>
> Is this because Rowling has some odd fascination with death? Or is it,
> as I hold, a sense that, in this world, almost every day, we are
> making life and death decisions (but are generally careful not to face
> the facts) - making decisions all the time, compromises, that keep us
> from precisely the spot Harry is in, originally not by choice, but by
> this point in the story, is there by conviction. Harry is at the
> centre of things, and always on that razor edge.
>
> The comfortable fandom, however, can only refer obliquely to a part of
> themselves that identifies with Harry and would do as he does "if
> compelled".
>
<snip>
> There is a circle of people in the Harry Potter series who operate
> within this ethical imperative - it is not based on anything as goofy
> as common beliefs or traits - it is based solely on whether or not
> people facing difficult times share courage, friendship, and love, or
> become self-centred, nasty little pricks, who worry only about themselves.
>
<snip>
> That Rowling can be so clear about these things, and that the vast
> majority of the fandom, including almost all of those over the age of
> 10, don't get it, is weird as felt bananas. Rowling is saying:
>
> You know what's going on, don't pretend you don't know. If you act in
> ways that exacerbate things because you kid yourself, you are not
> operating within the ethical imperative, and you risk being a traitor,
> a mindless follower of orders (like real world armies or terrorists,
> where being a whole human being is anathema, cause whole human beings
> don't blast other people to bits) or just really ugly and stupid, like
> the Dursleys.
>
<snip>

> We pass a nastiness on the street - do we run away? Help without
> endangering ouselves? Drive on? At any moment of the day, we can (and
> sometimes are, whether we admit it or not) faced with choices that
> could be really uncomfortable, but mostly we avoid it. Harry Potter
> cannot. He inscribes himself with a tattoo of honesty, that, although
> it came from that sad cow Umbridge, is the centre and circumference of
> his ethic.


Rebecca now:

Forgive the liberal snipping, please, as I hated to do it. This is one of 
those posts that I wish, I wish, I wish  I had the eloquence you had in 
writing it.

Like a soap opera, fans get caught up in the mashinations between 
characters, deciding on who is "bad" or "good"  "abusive" or "manipulative" 
when  focus on choices in a life vs death society can ripple as life moves 
forward beyond those who have perished. For example, as with any dictator, 
if enough people choose to join together and overcome the bane of their 
existence it would be so.  The problem is, only a handful do make a choice. 
As Sirius says, there aren't just wizards who are Death Eaters and people 
who are not; the WW and our world are far more complex than that.  Even 
making the choice "well, it won't happen to me so I'll do nothing" has its 
affects.  I have often found it funny that the WW focuses on Harry as "The 
Chosen One"  to rid them of Voldemort (ethically lazy on their part 
somewhat, yes?), yet all could band together and be Chosen Ones if they made 
the right choice or indeed, any choice at all.

Rebecca