Theme of HP (was Notes on Literary uses of magic)

[lealess]

No: HPFGUIDX 168132

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at ...> wrote:
>
> <hard to know what to snip> 
> 
> So, Harry and everyone else side with Dumbledore because
> Dumbledore, while a flawed human being, still has the 
> luxury and the will to choose the moral high ground.
> Fudge and other members of government are in much more
> self-serving positions, therefore they are more likely
> to give the public impression of moral high ground, 
> but less likely to have taken it when their actions are
> examined at depth.
> 
> Now, the various offices of the government have the legal
> authority, as we see from Fudge's many changes in the
> laws and his Educational Decrees, his word, becomes law
> by virtue of the fact that he is the Minister of Magic.
> 
> Dumbledore's word is not law, to a more general extent, 
> but he does choose what is right over what is easy and
> over what is immensely self-serving. So, in choosing
> Dumbledore, Harry and friends are choosing what they
> know and see in their hearts as the morally right 
> choice, even though that morally right choice goes 
> against the government and against documented laws.
>
> <more snippage - I hope I retained the heart, though>

I just want to point out a couple of things.  Dumbledore, as you 
note, is not infallible.  He sent Harry to live with the Dursleys and 
left him there without intervening for most of Harry's life.  Was not 
intervening the right thing to do? There are various thoughts on 
this, and undoubtedly putting Harry with the Dursleys saved his life, 
but if you left a child with someone, don't you think you might check 
on that child's welfare, especially if the child is the probable 
savior of the wizarding world?

In HBP, we are shown instances of people questioning Dumbledore's 
wisdom.  There is the whole issue of trusting Snape, for one.  At the 
end, the various members of the Order confess they wondered about 
Dumbledore's judgment, but because it was Dumbledore, they didn't 
question.  Harry blows up at Dumbledore when he finds out that Snape 
was the eavesdropper.  All Dumbledore has to say, again, is that he 
trusts Snape and, essentially, Harry has to trust him.  What can 
Harry do?  He is shut down immediately so that they can go on their 
great adventure.  Harry realizes that he has a choice: shut up and go 
with Dumbledore, or be shut out.

We are subsequently shown the price of loyalty to Dumbledore.  Is it 
taking the moral high ground to ask a legal child to force-feed you a 
potion that is, at the very least, not a health drink and which may 
even be deadly, even when so doing causes the child great anguish?  
When Harry objects, he gets the equivalent of Dumbledore's rebuke to 
Snape in the forest, that he agreed and that's all there is to it.  
Dumbledore will not be challenged, period.  He shows this also when 
he cuts off Snape's objections time and time again.

Dumbledore does not use force to accomplish his ends, like Voldemort, 
but he uses something far more insidious -- withholding his 
approval.  He gave Harry the cold shoulder in OOTP.  Was that taking 
the higher moral ground?  He turned his back on Sirius Black for 
years, letting him languish in Azkaban instead of seeking at least 
some semblance of justice that any prisoner would deserve.  Was it 
just easier to let Black rot in prison?  (At least Harry addresses 
the imprisonment of Stan Shunpike.)

Black doesn't seem to need Dumbledore's approval, however, unlike 
Lupin and Snape and Harry, who have some ongoing insecurities.  Yet 
on Dumbledore's orders alone, Black festered in Grimmauld Place.  I 
wonder if anyone ever challenged Dumbledore on that?  Harry certainly 
resented what it was doing to Black.  Meanwhile, Black was callous 
towards Kreacher.  Was the higher good served by leaving that 
situation as it was?

Dumbledore is Plato's philosopher king, a benevolent tyrant.  He is 
laissez faire towards all, and lets them make their own choices.  But 
if they choose him, they must follow him without question.  Does he 
really have the moral force you claim?  Percy doesn't think so, but 
by your accounting, Percy is trying to make his way as a politician 
and so makes unconscionable compromises.  What if Percy is sincere in 
his questioning of Dumbledore or sincere in his belief in the 
Ministry?  He is disowned by most of his Dumbledore-following family!

And what about Voldemort's loyal followers, no less emphatic than 
Dumbledore's: Barty Crouch Jr. and Bellatrix Lestrange?  They are 
both written as deranged to follow the philosophies they do, yet I 
bet they both think they are following a higher good.  We don't 
agree, obviously, but we are on the outside looking in.

I have read that Dumbledore is supposed to stand in for some kind of 
deity in the HP books, an all-knowing and loving god, who still lets 
bad things happen to good people.  To me, however, he is ultimately 
an authoritarian god.  He offers people choice, but the cost to 
them if they do not follow him is ostracism.  Harry follows this 
pattern, too.  He is reluctant to lead, but when people decide to 
follow, it's all or nothing.  And only the chosen get to participate 
in the first place.

Government, by contrast, is imperfect, but can include the 
possibilities of participation by many and something hopeful: 
debate and compromise.  That these don't always occur is not the 
fault of government, per se.  There are all sorts of bad governments, 
depending on whose interests are being served and how much control is 
ceded by those who would be governed.

Harry indentifies himself as "Dumbledore's Man," but why make that 
choice at all?  Why can't Harry identify himself as his own man?

lealess