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

[lizzyben04]

No: HPFGUIDX 175266

 
> 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.  

lizzyben:

Well, I originally thought that the novels were heading toward such 
an examination of the ways in which revenge can perpetuate an 
endless cycle of violence. Because, as you say, there are many many 
instances of the Trio & other characters seeking revenge against 
their enemies. But in the end, I don't believe that the novels 
actually do try to show the dangers of such a vengence-based 
system. These novels are pro-revenge, IMO. That was the big shocker 
for me.

And I say this because we never see the Trio's revenges boomerang 
back on them the way it would in real life. We see the "good guys" 
getting revenge on the "bad guys," but we never see the "bad guys" 
getting revenge back. For example, we see Hermione getting revenge 
against Rita Skeeter(trapping her), Umbridge (centaurs), & Marietta 
(hex). However, we never ever see Hermione's victims retaliating 
against her - Marietta doesn't hex Hermione back, Skeeter stops 
writing negative articles, Umbridge leaves the school. The message 
seems to be: revenge is sweet, and it works! Fred & George get 
revenge against Montague, almost killing him, and it's presented as 
as a joke; Montague never comes back to the school to get his own 
revenge. Hagrid gets revenge against the Dursleys, the Dursleys 
don't hurt him back. Ginny hexes Zacharias Smith mercilessly, and 
rams into his podium to get revenge for him daring to question 
Harry. This is never presented as wrong or dangerous - instead DH 
specifically mentions how Zacharias Smith ran cowardly during the 
final battle. It's like, OK he's an awful person & he deserved 
it. I really could go on & on. 

It really seemed like "The Prank" would end up being a central part 
of this theme. Because the prank is really totally emblematic of all 
the other revenges. Sirius gets revenge on Snape for snooping, and 
his reaction is "he deserved it." Snape was snooping to catch the 
Mauraders & get revenge against them for their bullying, etc. And 
the Prank had long, long consequences - potentially being the 
catalyst for Snape entering the Death Eaters, Lupin seperating from 
the Mauraders etc. The plot was all set up, ready to go. And it went 
nowhere. In DH, the prank is hardly mentioned, and certainly isn't 
seen as a significant or life-changing event. Snape was already 
eager to be a Death Eater at the time it happened - so I guess we're 
supposed to agree that "he deserved it". At the least, we're not 
supposed to examine any long-term consequences, or the way it might 
have started a cycle of violence. 

And this is where the message of revenge seems to tie into the 
Calvanism of the novel. I keep getting this sense that, if you are 
in the Elect, revenge is simply your due. Revenge is justice, and 
the Elect are entitled to dispense that revenge/justice at their 
discretion.

Jen:
> 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!

lizzyben:

Wow, I had no idea that the quote is actually from a play which 
deals w/the issues of vengence. That seems to reinforce that this 
may be a central theme of the Harry Potter novels.

Jen:
> 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.  


lizzyben:

Where does DD ever tell Harry not to seek revenge? In fact, IIRC, 
one of DD's last speechs to Harry in HBP was all about revenge & 
vengence. DD keeps bringing up all the loved ones LV has killed, 
tells Harry that he'll "never rest" until he gets vengence, etc. 
It's a revenge pep rally! DD does everything he can to basically 
manipulate Harry into a state of hatred & rage, to inspire him to 
seek vengence against Voldemort. He IS asking Harry to carry out the 
dictates of his family's past to avenge Godric's Hollow, & show his 
honor of his house as a true Gryffindor. And, as I always suspected, 
DD just did  this to get Harry all ready to be a martyr & 
sacrificial lamb for his cause. These are *better* values? Yikes. We 
never see DD actually reject revenge - he actually seems to 
encourage it in both Harry & Snape. 

Jen:
>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.  

lizzyben:

You know what was my ultimate WTF moment? When Griphook compliments 
Harry for being a "very unusual wizard" because he actually seems to 
respect goblins & treat them fairly. All the while, the Trio are 
trying to figure out how to double-cross Griphook - like all the 
other wizards apparantly do. Was that just? At the end, when 
Griphook takes the sword & runs, I was angry at him at first - that 
sneaky goblin! Then I set down the book for a second, and thought, 
wait a minute, we're supposed to think Griphook's a bad guy because 
he won't let the Trio double-cross him? He did just what he promised 
to do, and he should get the payment they promised him. Run, 
Griphook, run! :)

IMO, it's just another example of the very narrow focus of the 
novels - where we're only supposed to see things from the Gryffindor 
perspective & not contemplate the effects that their actions might 
have on others.

Jen:
> 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
>

lizzyben:

See, I would agree that DD & the Order are not the Ulimate Right if 
we saw somebody "more right" in the course of the novels. And if we 
saw real repurcussions for the things that the Order does wrong 
(Crucios, double-crosses, various revenges). But we don't. Instead, 
the Gryfindor elect are allowed to seek revenge against the non-
believers w/little to no repurcussions to themselves. So I 
ultimately don't see any message here about stopping the cycle of 
violence. At the end of the novels, the WW remains a revenge-based 
system, not a justice-based system - and the various themes about 
social justice for oppressed groups were basically dropped. We also 
don't see a real attempt made to heal the centuries-old rift between 
the Houses - instead one House is even more demonized & stereotyped 
as deserving of revenge. This was not a series about reconciliation, 
or ending the cycle of violence, or many of the other themes that I 
thought were present. IMO, we're left with a pretty 
straight "revenge plot" - in which the good guys get revenge against 
the bad guys, and everyone cheers. 


lizzyben