Notes on Literary uses of magic in Terabithia, Pan's Labyrinth and Harry Pot

[lealess]

No: HPFGUIDX 167966

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "tbernhard2000" 
>
> lealess wrote:
> I honestly see Rowling's message as being more reactionary than
> anarchist in its setting up of extra-state militias seemingly
> answerable to no-one but a strong leader like Dumbledore or Harry.
>
>dan:
>
>It was set up as an educational organization dedicated to knowledge
>the ministry didn't want the kids to have access to, didn't want them
>to be exposed to - it acted in an anarchist manner when it become
>obvious that the state was, in its ignorance and promulgation of
>Ignorance, endangering the safety of all.

I agree with you about the first part, but not the second.  Where did 
the group specifically express an anarchist intent?  They took direct 
action, it is true, but anyone can do that, for any reason.  Was 
their *intent* to specifically oppose state authority, or were they 
there just to learn DADA methods?  Did they seek to empower everyone, 
or only those who were not Slytherins?
 
>Ignorance, Rowling posits, 
>is above all else the most disenfranchising thing - knowledge and
>truth - nothing good will come of pretense ... Magic, with the wand 
>as its representation, is an extention of the person and
>their intention - it is the perfect
>idealist tool, in a sense, and makes words into deeds. This object
>allows Rowling to talk about ethical decisions made in that world,
>with the wand as agent, without sending up commie gun control flags,
>for example. But that IS a ruse.

I agree with you about ignorance being disenfranchising.  But truth 
and nothing good coming out of pretense?  These are books full of 
pretense and lies.  There are all the Polyjuiced individuals, and the 
spies, for one.  Then there are the lies told by Dumbledore and Harry 
and Hermione and whoever needs to lie situationally.  What is the 
value of truth, then?  It is something than can be bent by anyone 
towards whatever ends seem important.  I agree that truth is an issue 
in the books, but some truths are more equal than others (rephrasing 
Orwell).

The wand is a tool, but so is the word.  The word is at least equally 
powerful in Rowling's world.  If wandless magic exists, the word may 
be more powerful.  The word is quite powerful in our world, and is 
the perfect idealist tool.  It is also available to anyone, as is 
direct action.  Deeds can be based on whatever political theory or 
ethical system you choose.  So, what other factors cause you to think 
Rowling advocates anarchy?  How do you define anarchy?  I provided 
some of my definitions.  I would be interested to know what yours are.

>Rowling's world, again I say, creates the possibility that the raw
>emotional honesty of youth can be given clear expression, and will be
>influential there, for the evil or good of the world. That's what the
>DA did at the ministry, in spite of the repression of the state-they
>sent out a warning that the sympathetic adults, like Dumbledore and
>Arthur and such, were incapable of sending, for whatever reason, be 
>it fear of the consequences, their job positions, or what have you.

The message they sent was that they would follow Harry into battle 
and risk their lives following him.  Is that anarchy in action?  If 
they sent a warning about the repression of the state, which I doubt, 
who heard it?  In any event, the next year, our heroes were mostly 
all engaged in teenaged dramas, not smashing the state or setting up 
an alternative to it.

And what about the Order?  They went to the Ministry, too, on their 
own volition, supposedly.  Dumbledore and Arthur are capable of 
acting out of emotional honesty or whatever.  They are capable of 
choosing to oppose the official line, and they do.

lealess