Cruel, Mean, and Nasty/Follow the Owls: Hedwig/JKR's comments

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 158799

Ken:
> I don't quite understand the dumping on Dumbledore and the other 
white
> hats in these novels. The black hats and gray hats are so bad that if
> you demonize the white hats what are you left with? Why bother to 
read
> this tripe if that is how you think of the best people in the
> Potterverse?

Magpie:
I think you hinted at the answer to your own question. Things do not 
become whiter the more black you make the things around them. They can 
be judged independently, and people are naturally going to react to 
things as they see them--hence, as Lupinlore said in another post, 
they're not going to buy a character as completely good just because 
the author calls him such in an interview, or because other characters 
are worse, or because everyone in his fictional world calls him that. 
It's easily possible that one person's idea of a saint would fall far 
short of another person's idea of a saint.  

As to why I read the books...I guess I don't need to have people I 
consider completely good in them.  Examples of great moral 
understanding honestly aren't a big appeal of the books for me.  
Especially pre-HBP I tended to agree with Ursula Le Guin that the 
books seemed ethically very mean-spirited and they still have never 
really bowled me over with their views of right and wrong.  I'm still 
interested in the way the characters interact, I think they have 
things to say about the world, but I don't read them for ethical 
models most of the time.  In fact, I probably wouldn't be in fandom if 
they seemed less flawed to me in a way that makes me want to talk 
about them. 

Even amongst people who generally like Dumbledore--and honestly, this 
conversation has *never* been about the people condemning him 
wholesale no matter how many times people try to frame it that way--
there can be disagreement about his individual actions.  HBP was the 
book that suggested some things I did find interesting ethically 
speaking, and the things that I liked have been ignored or disliked by 
some others in fandom--everyone has different reactions. Despite many 
claims from fans that there is a right and wrong way to react to 
everything in them, the fandom seems far more sustained by the 
disagreements.

Basically, in every fandom I've ever been in there have been people 
asking why people read the books/watch the movies/tv show if they have 
problems with something in it, and to me the question is more: why 
would you ask that question?  Not reacting with abject applause to 
everything or not agreeing with the main character on everything is no 
reason to not read a book.  Not everyone gets their enjoyment out of 
that.

Carol:
I really need one
that's complaining about Dumbledore's testimony, as if that's what
condemned Black. But let's look at that testimony, shall we? All
Dumbledore says is that Sirius Black was the Potters' Secret Keeper,
which is true as far as he knows. [snip]
As for DD investigating it afterwards, why? He knew there was a spy
close to the Potters, and it could only have been one of three people.

Magpie:
Yes, I can't really fault Dumbledore for telling the truth as he knows 
it about Sirius being the Secret Keeper.  For investigating afterwards 
I see many reasons for him to do so--the most obvious being exactly 
what happened, that Sirius was condemned simply on the word of the 
Muggles who witnessed it, with Crouch getting more and more unjust in 
the way he treated prisoners, and nobody really asking Sirius what 
happened-and DD knew that.  As the leader of the Order infiltrated by 
a spy it seems like basic common sense that Dumbledore would want to 
know exactly what happened.  If there was a mole in the organization 
of course he shouldn't just assume the guy just thrown in jail was him 
without a thorough questioning. If he'd done that he'd have known the 
truth.  That seems far more an oversight to me than Sirius not going 
to Dumbledore immediately after the house blew up to explain he had 
switched Secret Keepers.

So yeah, I don't fault Dumbledore at all for saying perfectly 
truthfully that as far as he knew Sirius was the SK.  He had been.  
But obviously there was far more to learn had he cared to talk to the 
person he'd just decided had to have been the one who infiltrated his 
organization for Voldemort.  Moles are by definition sneaky, and would 
naturally try to deflect suspicion onto others.  Peter acted like a 
mole, covering himself. Sirius acted like the right patsy, never 
seeing it coming and never protecting himself.  Peter was the one 
person not suspected.

I don't think any leader in Dumbledore's place, if they were 
responsible, would consider Sirius' behavior all that important here.  
I just can't see that the only thing standing between Dumbledore 
investigating and not is Sirius' rash decision to act like himself and 
go after Peter rather than go to Dumbledore first.  We can see why 
Dumbledore jumped to the conclusion he did but he still jumped to a 
conclusion just as many others have done throughout the series.

Eddie:
Since Hedwig could find Sirius when the MoM couldn't, then Hedwig
could probably find Voldemort too. So when Harry is ready to find
Voldemort, he could write a letter to Voldy, give it to Hedwig to
deliver, and then follow Hedwig on his broom. I'm sure if Harry
explains what needs to be done that Hedwig won't get his feathers all
ruffled when Harry tries to follow him.

Maybe the same technique can be adapted to find the horcruxes?

Magpie:
JKR says:
"Just as wizards can make buildings unplottable, they can make 
themselves untracable.  Voldemort would have been found long ago if it 
were as simple as sending him an owl!"

I would say the same goes for horcruxes.

Renee:
Or is it that we're inclined to read a series she hasn't written - a
mainstream story aiming for psychological realism, rather than a
fantasy series that, while not only written for children, is certainly
meant to be read with childish wonder rather than with the dissecting
and sometimes cynical eye of the adult?

Magpie:
I don't know...seems she goes for pychological realism at times as 
well.  There's plenty of scenes in canon that don't seem to be about 
childish wonder to me.  There's also plenty of scenes that, imo, are 
incredibly ambiguous in terms of good and bad that get flattened out 
by readers, not by the author.  If the books only made sense on a 
child level I don't think they'd be as effective.

I do think think there are plenty of places where the emotional arcs 
of the story fall short.  Certain moments to me just don't play out 
naturally--they feel more like they're written to an outline.  Like, I 
can imagine in the outline how a certain thing is cleared up in X 
scene through X plot development, but it's not really dealing with all 
the emotional issues dredged up.  I doubt we're supposed to be 
wondering if Dumbledore's inaction around Sirius will be brought up 
again.  But I do think the book gives us plenty of room to judge it 
ourselves without making the story fall apart.  I guess personally the 
reason I keep arguing it is that the story works okay if I see 
Dumbledore as being more cold about certain things.  It works, imo, 
far better than explanations that try to make Dumbledore come out as 
above criticism all the time.  Maybe JKR wanted him to be wholly 
sympathetic all the time, but luckily the story doesn't depend on him 
being that.  Any more than the story depends on everyone hating Snape 
or loving Sirius.  We're free to see James as mostly a jerk as Snape 
does or mostly a great guy as Sirius did without destroying the 
illusion. Likewise the story works with Harry's mistreatment at the 
Dursleys being an unfortunate side-effect of Dumbledore's 
blood/Muggleworld protection plan. It doesn't, imo, have to be made 
into another act of goodness on Dumbledore's part.

-m