Revenge, Greek tragedies & the heart (Re: Molly's "revenge" )

[Jen Reese]

No: HPFGUIDX 174828

lizzyben:
> If we look at things from the Rambo-esque revenge viewpoint, the
> story starts to make a whole lot more sense. Harry's use of the
> Cruciatus curse was totally justified, because he was taking revenge
> on Carrow for using that same curse against students. That's why 
> Harry is never expected to question or regret his actions. The same
> message is given in the various ironic deaths that the villains 
> suffer. And, in a larger sense, the same message is given in the 
> punishments that the good guys dish out to the bad guys throughout
> the series. We really were supposed to cheer when DD took away the
> House cup, laugh when Draco got stomped, gloat at the Dursleys' 
> magical punishments, smirk at traitor Marietta's scars. It's all
> about the revenge, and the fact that Harry & co., as the 
> unquestioned moral arbiters of the Wizarding World, have the right
> to exact that revenge. "Revenge plots" are one of the staple plots
> of literature, and IMO the Harry Potter novels fit this model much 
> closer than a "coming of age" plot. 


Jen:  There are elements of revenge in all the books, on both sides.  
I don't think the epigraph is from a Greek tragedy for nothing!  Eye-
for-an-eye justice is at the core of Western literature (not to 
mention the world of kids) so for the series to bypass this very real 
part of any society would make the WW come across as very sterilized 
indeed in my book.  It seems like a distillation to say the series is 
focused on revenge to the exclusion of the overcoming of revenge as 
well, though.  For every example cited of revenge, there are several 
examples of turning the other cheek and not just by the good guys.  
Which may very well be the point, or at least the point as I 
understand it.

What I see as an important part of DH and the series is this 
question:  How does a person, a society, stop action begetting 
action, cycles of violence, perpetuating conflict out of unexamined 
ideals?  Because there are unexamined ideals on both sides of the 
fence and we see Harry/Trio, the good side, engage in some activities 
that aren't  particular commendable but are a very real part of the 
world in which they live.  

Reading up on "The Libation Bearers" by Aeschylus yesterday, I was 
interested to find out it's a transition play, a second play in a 
triology about a society moving from a vengeance-based system, which 
was begetting cycles of violence, to a justice-based system of law, 
where responsibility for actions and choice is placed on humans 
instead of held in the hands of the gods.  The protagonist is a man 
whose heart, whose agony about what he's done in perpetuating 
violence yet again, is the spark for the gods to reconsider the 
choice of man, ultimately pushing justice back down to the level of 
the human race.  It's message is more hopeful than most Greek 
tragedies!

The first parallel I see in DH is with Dumbledore.  He's grown up in 
a family where violence perpetuated violence, first with the Muggle 
boys hurting Ariana, which led to the father seeking revenge, which 
led quite probably to some of Dumbledore's ideas about taking over 
Muggles for the greater good.  Then a violence is perpetuated that 
causes a loss so great and feelings of guilt so deep, that Albus is 
stopped in his tracks and never fully recovers from what he might of 
done or come close to doing.  His turning point plays out in the rest 
of the story because he passes on his (sometimes unexamined) ideals 
to Harry.

Ultimately, despite the flaws, his ideals *are* better than those 
that have come before.  The idea that a person can choose how to act 
and not only to carry out the dictates of their family's past, their 
house, and the various wizarding prejudice espoused toward each 
other, creatures and Muggles.  By the standards that have come before 
him, Harry *is* an unusual wizard as pointed out by various creatures 
and humans, not because he was somehow born annointed and perfect but 
because of a combination of entering the WW later in life, latching 
onto Dumbledore's ideals - considered odd and dangerous to many in 
the WW - and his nature, which was oriented toward Lily's concept of 
justice more than James's interest in revenge.  

In the end, I'd say that Harry & Co., like Dumbledore and the Order 
before them, are not the Ultimate Right in the WW so much as *more* 
right than those they are opposing.  Trying to stop cycles of 
violence, attempting to do so by making choices for right action more 
often than not, taking small steps against the various centuries-old 
rifts in the WW...all are meaningful and worth doing if only because 
the alternative, following the path Aberforth recommended and 
disregarded himself <g>, is to do nothing.  

Jen