[HPforGrownups] Sportsmanship in Harry Potter

[elfundeb]

No: HPFGUIDX 151809

Some rambling thoughts on JKR's use of sport and sportsmanship --

Betsy:

> Do these books ever give us an example of good
> sportsmanship?


Well, of course they do.  Cedric's a good sport.  That's one reason we feel
so much anguish when he is killed simply for showing up unexpectedly at
Voldemort's little rebirthing party.  It establishes him unequivocally as
one of the Good Guys.

a_svirn:
And I agree that there is nothing sportsmanlike about awarding
points for "moral fiber". In fact, it's downright ridiculous.

Debbie:
Especially in a contest that is more like a simulation of warfare, requiring
cunning and resourcefulness rather than athletic skill.  In a war we
wouldn't dream of rejecting espionage as a weapon because it's not
sportsmanlike.  Cheating is expected, and it is rewarded when successful.

OTOH, sport imitates life, and an act of true humanitarianism that may
spell defeat for the actor is the stuff that saints are made of.  Future
generations not only remember saints, they revere them.  Perhaps that makes
it appropriate to  award Harry full marks.  (Besides, the task was for the
champions to recover what was taken from them.  IMO, the critical fact
Dumbledore learned in his conference with the merpeople was that Harry was
the first to reach the hostages.  Harry arguably recovered Ron as soon as he
unbound him, so I don't necessarily assume he disobeyed the rules by trying
to do more.)

Magpie:
No, to say that Harry loses it to say that Harry never loses.
Nobody's missed that Harry knows about the help he's gotten.
Whether or not Harry ever gloats has nothing to do with noticing
that the author never writes a competition where Harry tries and
fails.  He's a great guy--and he also has the most points as long a
he's physically present and awake.  Sometimes he temporarily thinks
his team might have lost or he might have lost before he wins.

Debbie:
I certainly agree that Harry is ridiculously successful.  In fact, I thought
it was so overdone in PS/SS and CoS that I might not have read further but
for the fact that two years earlier I had babysat a friend's children and
read them one chapter of HP at bedtime; the chapter was Grim Defeat, so I
knew those victories wouldn't go on forever.

But it's worth noting that when Harry does lose it's because he has lost his
focus on the task at hand.  In PoA he is drawn to the memory that the
Dementors dredge up and he loses consciousness because he is seeking to hear
his mother's voice and not seeking the Snitch.  In OOP he is banned from
Quidditch because he is drawn into a fight that has nothing to do with the
game.  In HBP it is the same thing:  he does something foolish and it costs
him.  There *is* a lesson here -- talent is not enough to win.

Betsy Hp:
That's a continual problem in the Potterverse, IMO.  Like when the
twins complain about Slytherin's spying on the Gryffindor practice,
because that's just so not done, and then come running back to
report on what they found out *while spying on the Slytherin
practice*.  Or how it's just horrible that the Slytherins have such
good brooms, but isn't it great when Harry gets the best broom on
the market?  There's a bit of eating her cake and having it too, I
think, within the school competitions.

Debbie:
This is, in my view, a much more significant issue than the results of the
Second Task, and one which plays out in her portrayal of the Slytherins
generally.  In fact, if I were discussing whether HP is or is not a
children's series (something this list once debated regularly), I would cite
her too-clear separation of the Hogwarts world into Good Guys (Gryffindors),
Bad Guys (Slytherins), and scenery (Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff).  As adults we
know that individuals are much more complicated than this, but JKR seems
intent to play this aspect of the series like a Road Runner cartoon.

And those Twins (don't let me get started on them).  They are above the law,
but as long as their lawlessness is employed in the service of the Good
Guys, anything goes.  And Mundungus, that goes for you, too!  But in a war,
you use all the tools at your disposal, or most of them, at any rate.  And
the lawless ones can be very effective (not to mention funny) so they are
acceptable.

However, the leeway granted to the Good Guys to use less than ideal methods
does tend to draw attention away from the acts that do demonstrate superior
moral fibre.  And while in a real-life situation such as WWII we recognize
that certain things were necessary to defeat the evil that the Third Reich
represented, I'm not sure that a 10-year-old takes the same message away
from the books.
Magpie:
Exactly--and I agree that this is one of the themes of GoF, the difference
between fantasy glory and real glory, and fantasy danger and real danger.
But as you said, you don't really know until you've been there, so I do
still think that there are probably many kids who'd see the glory of Harry
defeating Voldemort before they saw how awful it was.  Naturally the kid
would assume that, being Harry Potter, he'd have the same success.


Debbie:
Nor would many of these kids see that despite Harry's spectacular flying
ability, his talent at DADA and his resourcefulness that makes
him creditable opponent for Voldemort, he would be nowhere without that
"moral fibre" that the judges in the Second Task give him credit for.  So to
get back to the original question in the article, maybe that's the thematic
importance of the scene:  it highlights for those young'uns who tend to see
Harry the Comic-Book Hero that a lot more goes into lasting success than
cunning and bravery.

Debbie
who thinks she may have more to say but has run out of time and hopes this
is coherent


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]