The Statute of Secrecy

[Ken Hutchinson]

No: HPFGUIDX 158885

> Carol wrote:
>
> Mike recently made an interesting point regarding the interaction
> between Dumbledore and Mrs. Cole. Dumbledore had to hide the fact that
> the school he was recruiting Tom Riddle for was a school of magic from
> Mrs. Cole because of the Statute of Secrecy, so in order to send Tom
> to the school (and prevent an untrained wizard from wreaking potential
> havoc among the Muggles), Dumbledore had no choice but to trick her
> into thinking that the blank paper she was looking at was an official
> document. (I won't get into the gin discussion, but he seemed to sense
> that something was wrong with Tom and needed to find out about that,
too.)
> 

Ken:

I generally agree with Mike on issues as much as I do with anyone here
but I disagree on this. I think that Dumbledore reveals himself as a
conniver in this scene. He was not *forced* to do anything, he *chose*
to do what he did. The things he did were small ethical infractions
and they have their Muggle equivalents. A conniving Muggle would have
prepared a forged document in advance and would have been sure to
bring a hip flask of gin along. A wizard or Muggle who wanted to act
properly would have gotten an official document authorizing Tom's
attendance at a boarding school and would have realized that Mrs. Cole
could have been charmed into revealing the background information
necessary understand young Tom. The MoM has relations with the Muggle
government, surely they could get offical documents legally to handle
cases like this without compromising their policies related to the
Statute of Secrecy. It is in everyone's best interest. But I also
happen to believe that Dumbledore does not have to be perfect to be an
epitome of goodness. Taking these kind of shortcuts to bamboozle the
head of Muggle institution (or any other Muggle who is acting legally
and ethically, like the hosts of the Quidditch World Cup) is both lazy
and wrong. This wasn't Dumbledore's finest moment. It isn't nearly
enough to demonstrate that he is not the epitome of goodness because
no human being is perfectly good but many epitomize goodness in spite
of their flaws.

> Carol:

> It seems to me that the whole premise of secrecy, which is necessary
> to our belief (or suspended disbelief) in the WW (it exists all around
> us but we never knew it till we read her books) depends on the Statute
> of Secrecy, along with the equally suspect device of Muggles not
> seeing what they don't want to see ("They don't see nuffink, do
> they?") And once the Statute of Secrecy is in place, the characters
> are compelled to obey it, even if that means resorting to methods that
> either seem to be or actually are unethical or unfair to Muggles.
> Despite all of Dumbledore's statements about freedom of choice (and
> I'm not questioning the importance of the concept to the books), at
> least some of the characters' actions are determined by the world they
> live in and its peculiar laws and worldview.
> 
> Carol, wondering how JKR could have solved the problem of
> believability (a magical world that Muggles can't see existing right
> under our noses) without resorting to the Statute of Secrecy and
> Obliviators
>

Ken:

I understand what you are saying and at some level it is true. To
maintain such a large subculture in nearly total secrecy in a modern
country without *any* use of unjust and inethical tactics would
probably be impossible. However I think the WW that we see has become
quite lazy and quite callous about this. They use these techniques
much too often when other methods would do as well and would show more
respect for Muggles. "Other methods" would take more work on the part
of the WW and they have fallen into the habit of taking the easy
route. The moral corrosion that has resulted from the callousness
required to take the easy route is having obvious consequences for the
WW. 

I can think of two authors who have written about secret subcultures
and surely there are scores more. Isaac Asimov's "Foundation" novels
depict both a secret academic society embedded in a galactic empire
and an even more secret society of humanoid robots who manipulate
human history. After his death the "killer B's" Benford, Bear, and
Brin wrote an extension of Asimov's future history at the invitation
of his heirs. Since it ties into Asimov's early robot and "spacer"
novels it would be a big task to examine how this was done, espcially
if you aren't interested in science fiction. The three killer B novels
would probably be the best way to sample it at minimum effort.

More accessible but not as well written in my opinion would be Harry
Turtledove's _In The Presence Of Mine Enemies_. It is an alternate
history predicated on a Nazi victory in Europe in WWII and a
subsequent Nazi victory over the US in a nuclear war. The secret
society is a community of Jews who manage to survive the Holocaust and
who live in Berlin. The story is told from their viewpoint. Mostly
they live their lives quietly but they do use illegal techniques to
ease their lot. Under the circumstances this is morally defensible.
The WW is not in anything like the precarious position of Jews living
in Nazi Berlin. My main complaint about the book is that at some point
you realize the plot is derived from recent actual events, almost one
for one. To my taste a recognizable similarity would have worked well,
a slavish copy of stories from newspapers looks too much like
authorial laziness. But I still enjoyed the book.

Ken