The Message of DH (WAS: Unforgivables - from a different angle)

[julie]

No: HPFGUIDX 174623

<snip> to...

Debbie:
> 
> What is not explicitly stated, but is implied, is that the Good 
Guys earn
> their loyalty by their deeds in support of a worthy cause, whereas 
a Bad Guy
> like Voldemort demand loyalty to himself, for himself, and will do 
terrible
> things to enforce it.  Thus, the DA (and everyone under the sun) 
arrives at
> Hogwarts when Neville calls them solely based on the knowledge that 
Harry is
> there, rallying around a leader who has earned their loyalty.  It 
is because
> of the Cause that the Good Guys can use otherwise forbidden weapons 
if they
> use them appropriately.
> 
> I don't like this message.  I want Good Guys to learn that to win, 
they must
> behave in a morally superior way.  However, this is nothing new.  
We have
> been having this argument on the list for at least five years about 
such
> episodes as Dudley's tail and the Ton-Tongue Toffees.  Why should 
we expect
> her to take a different view of using Unforgivables?  I should have 
known
> that JKR's idea of purity of heart was different in HBP when 
Dumbledore
> fired Harry up to go on the Horcrux quest so that he could aveng his
> parents' deaths.  So I can't complain that she's been inconsistent 
on this
> point.

Julie:
Thank you, Debbie! I've been struggling with what I've 
perceived as inconsistencies in DH when compared with 
certain plot points from previous books. Specifically
I interpreted the various statements about Unforgivables
from Fake!Moody (yes, an unreliable source), Sirius, and
Snape (who appeared to be counselling Harry in his own
sneering manner against using UVs) as an indication that
using them would somehow damage Harry's integrity/soul,
and that it was critical for him to be "above" such acts.
I thought this was JKR's message, but now I see that it
isn't necessarily so, and that Harry using the Crucio
isn't inconsistent with many of the things the Good Guys
have done in previous books. 

You are so right that we've had this argument back and
forth about the Good Guys using the same methods as the
Bad Guys, and whether the morality of the methods changes
depending on *who* is using them. It is similar with the
Slytherin students--we saw that they were reviled by most
of the other students (and some teachers) because they 
were almost to a man (child) prejudiced against Muggleborns
and supportive of Voldemort, i.e. future Death Eaters. We
just didn't know if their choice to be Slytherin reflected
their generally bad characters, or if outside influences
(family ties, indoctrination during childhood, etc) were
the greater influence on that choice (which would give 
them the latitude to learn from their errors in judgment
and make the right choice against Voldemort and Pureblood
ideology). 

Not unlike Snape, whose character was deliberately ambiguous
until the final book, I think JKR also left the thrust of
some of her messages ambiguous until the final book. While
the Sorting Hat argued for House Unity, we never saw any
movement toward reconciliation of the Houses from any of
the students (no one considered inviting a Slytherin into
the DA, for instance), nor any effort from the teachers or
the Headmaster to heal the enmity between the Houses. These 
actions (or lack thereof) should have spoken louder to us
than the Sorting Hat's wise but unheeded words, but we
just weren't paying enough attention. Ditto the many times
we saw the Good Guys acting very similarly to the bad guys.

We (at least many of us) *wanted* to see the series end with
the Good Guys showing moral superiority over the Bad Guys,
even though they generally failed to do so throughout the
previous books. And we wanted Slytherins to be regular kids
who could learn and be molded as easily as children of any
other House to be good and noble, rather than intrinsically
bad children who had to go against their very natures just
to approach being "good" (Snape, Slughorn, Phineas). This
even though we never saw a single Slytherin act in a clearly 
noble or "good" manner. We saw ambiguous hints (and perhaps
JKR put them there intentionally), but as with definitely
ambiguous Snape, who might be Evil, or DDM, or compelled by
the Life Debt, we were never given a clear promise which
moral "message" would triumph in the end.

 Ceridwen:
> > The books, to me, actually
> 
> > say, "If you are not for Harry, you are against him."  Is it
> 
> > surprising that people don't care for that message?
> 
> 
> 
> Debbie:
> 
> I think JKR is sending this message.  Voldemort is Evil.  No one can
> possibly doubt this.  Harry is working against Voldemort, which is 
a Good
> Thing.  Thus, her message is simply another expression of the old 
adage that
> all that is necessary for evil to flourish is for good people to do
> nothing.   And there is a corollary message:  one does not have to 
be
> perfect to take arms against evil.  Harry's purity of heart is 
really
> another phrase for his selfless devotion to the Cause -- beginning 
in PS/SS
> regardless of personal loss.  It is not general moral superiority.
> 
> 
> 
> At that level, the message works.  If we expected JKR to send moral 
messages
> about particular behaviours in DH, or to punish the perpetrators of 
such
> behaviours, then she has failed us.  I'll settle for the message we 
got.

Julie:
Again, I can only agree. Part of me wishes JKR had gone in
the direction *I* wanted, with true moral superiority trumping
evil (though it rarely does in real life), but I can also accept
that this wasn't what JKR was writing, and enjoy the books for
the entertainment they are rather than as a statement on morality.
(And if I recall correctly, even JKR said she wasn't sending
any moral messages, but was merely writing a story.)

Julie