Whose side are we on?? :was: Arthur right or not?

[Ceridwen]

No: HPFGUIDX 156091

Katie:
> I would probably be angry at my kids if they did that to someone in 
the RW, but maybe not, if they were doing it to a complete prat like 
Dudley Dursley. 

Ceridwen:
The prat's mother may disagree with your or your children's 
assessment.  She may even think your children are complete prats and 
approve a little like for like on her own offspring's part.  Is that 
all right?  If your kids are prats, should they be subject to the 
vengeance of their peers?  Whose definition of 'complete prat' should 
be used?  What if you don't agree with it?

Katie:
I don't buy it that heroes are held to some unattainable moral 
standard...

Ceridwen:
Not pranking Muggles and not passing judgement on someone is not an 
unattainable standard.  Luna has no problem in holding back, even 
when people outright steal her things.  We have never heard that 
Lavender Brown has done any such thing to a Muggle, or anyone else.  
Nor has Neville, and we haven't heard of any such thing from Dean.  
No one is advocating the Wise Twins Sitting At The Right Hand here.  
We're advocating that they get called on bad behavior, period, before 
the consequences become prohibitive.

Katie:
by default, they are better people because they are deemed heroes.

Ceridwen:
Then perhaps they should act like heroes?  Show me how they're better 
than Dudley, their opponent in this particular scene.  Dudley hurts 
children younger than himself, Dudley takes action with others to 
hurt children younger than himself.  The twins hurt a child younger 
than themselves, the twins took action together to hurt a child 
younger than themselves.

Katie:
Someone else in this thread wrote about "Why?" are we on this side? 
Why?? Because people like Voldemort, who intimidate, threaten, 
murder, and manipulate in order to increase their own power and 
prestige are the reason the RW is so effed up...

Ceridwen:
Um, no.  I'm an escapist reader.  I have enough Real World problems 
on a personal level to go hunting up Real World allegories in 
fiction.  I read the books because I like the stories.  Some may read 
for the reason you suggest, but not all.

*(snip)*
Katie:
>   Are they not human? Are they not allowed to have foibles? 
Wouldn't we all be pretty frickin bored by a bunch of characters who 
never did ANYTHING wrong? 

Ceridwen:
I don't recall mentioning anything about wanting characters who don't 
do anything wrong.  I mentioned that I think the good guys, or Good 
Guys (TM), should be held to a higher standard because they're the 
Good Guys and not allowed to rut in the mud like the Bad Guys.  They 
should be called on their actions and not allowed to become the Bad 
Guys, nor allowed to become indistinguishable from the Bad Guys.  I 
do think it's a message issue here, the message to my kids and 
grandkids about what is right and proper for Good Guys.  So they mess 
up.  Everyone does.  Should they be given a complete pass, without 
anyone saying word one?  Even a brief chat with the parental figure 
about something being wrong, with a smile and pat on the shoulder at 
the end, would be better than just turning a blind eye, in my 
opinion.  You know, like one of Dumbledore's chats.

Even good kids can be hurt or killed by wrong actions, particularly 
wrong actions which are never addressed and so are repeated.  People 
who fly more frequently have a higher chance of ending up in a plane 
crash; children who continually break rules have a higher chance of 
being caught by authority or by an impersonal cosmic force like 
centrifugal force than children who do not break rules all that often.

Katie:
Who doesn't get excited by Harry and the gang sneaking out of the 
Common Room at midnight, by Fred and George yelling "Give her hell, 
peeves!" as they steal back their own brooms and leave scool, by 
Dumbledore stunning a few Aurors and escaping on the tail of 
Fawkes...these are some of the best moments in the series! 

Ceridwen:
And as such, are completely fictitious.  We all like these sorts of 
moments, and a good many people who think the twins should have a 
serious sit-down with their dad also thought these moments, as well 
as the ton-tongue toffee incident and others, were fun, exciting, or 
funny on a superficial level.  The point of the discussion on my part 
is that good people who do wrong should be informed that they did 
wrong, told why it is wrong, and should be shown trying to improve 
themselves as part of a story for children.  Kids know that the bad 
kids are bad.  Kids know that in some cases, the parents of the bad 
kids encourage bad behavior or are too busy/tired/uncaring to deal 
with it.  But the good kids are the kids who are reading (of course, 
we all throw ourselves into the Good Guy shoes) as well as the 
protagonists.  Good kids are told the right way to act, sometimes bad 
kids are unfortunate enough not to be informed.

>   Katie, who occasionally drinks, smokes, and gives somebody the 
finger in traffic, and STILL thinks of herself as a good person

Ceridwen, who will smoke with you and, on occasion, drink with you.  
But if you flip me off in traffic, expect to be stiffly and 
agressively ignored.  *g*