The Fundamental Message of the HP books?

[leslesaja]

No: HPFGUIDX 176250

Hello to you all,

reading DH left me very confused und feeling uncomfortable, and I was
very relieved to read that I'm not the only one.

JudySerenity:
> This leaves me wondering, if maybe JKR just wasn't all that clear, in 
> her own mind, of what message she wanted to convey, and how she should 
> convey it. At least, I hope she just wasn't clear. I would be even more 
> upset if "Revenge is a good thing," and "You can't be a good person 
> unless you're born that way," were really the messages she wanted to 
> communicate.

There seemed to be morals or ethics in the books I share, but with DH
some of them seem to have turned. Sometimes I thought, "oh, that reads
ambiguous, but JKR can't have meant it that disconcerting way, maybe
she hadn't the time or the space to resolve it more clearly", but then
I read quotes from her and it seems she DID mean it. For me, it is
what JKR has said in interviews etc after DH that make me feel really
bad, 'cos these have cut the possibilities for interpretation. 
I have even wondered if she mocks her fans somehow, e.g. when she says
"Snape is not a hero" _and_ "Snape is a hero". I think she must have
realised that there are a lot of people for whom it is important what
she says and intends to say with her books. So either she is still
misleading her readers or she means what she says - and I don't know
what to think of either.

When starting to read HP, I got the impression that JKR wrote in a
style that took Harry's POV as the one of a child at this age, seeing
the seemingly obvious surface of persons & events and judging by this,
and while adding less obvious hints, remarked and interpreted by more
mature readers, she would lead Harry and the younger readers to
realise that there are always at least two sides of a medal, that you
can't split everything in good and bad, have easy solutions etc, and
especially to understand the motives, the "whys" and the "wherefores"
that make people do the things they do, that make people the way they are.
Therefore for me it was clear from the beginning and throughout all
the books, that Snape was on the "good side", because IMO there were
plenty of hints that Harry did not see. And JKR showed that e.g. with
the scene when HRH practise a spell with cushions while speculating
about Snape; the boys fail, but Hermione with her last statement
succeeds. They're aiming with their spells, but don't hit the target,
as their speculations don't either.
Or that we readers could easily see (but Harry did not realise), that
Snape, about to kill Dd and showing "hatred and repulsion", mirrors
exactly Harry's feelings not long ago, *when he did something terrible
to Dd because he had promised Dd to do so*
So I was convinced that one message of HP would be, that with people
getting to now each other, one can understand each other better, and
that this would lead to an approach of minds and then there would be a
way of a more peaceful living with each other. - It would not have
been necessary for me that DH shows the latter, but I can't see the
way opened to it either.

I thought JKR pointed on things that are wrong (in WW as well as in
RL), showing the causes why things develop in a wrong way, sometimes
even hinted a possible solution.
E.g. when Dudley's school talks with his parents about his bullying
and about his overweight, the teachers there don't look away, and
that's right. And Dudley starts boxing as sports in his school - I
don't like boxing, but it's ok for me if it leads to something good,
and sports, even boxing, can do so. You have to accept the rules of
the sport, it's a fight one vs one, you have to deal with defeats, you
have to practise, to work if you want to be successful, and when you
succeed (or improve) you can be proud of yourself, get self
confindence because of the things you did for yourself (and btw loose
some weight ;-) ). I remember Harry mocking Dudley for boxing, and
Dudley replied that he has won against a boy who was older than him.
So, when I read scenes like the first time James and Severus met, for
me it shows that the hostility between them starts because of that
what they have learned at home: one group of people is better than the
other.  It's nothing personal, it's not about greasy hair, dark
wizards, pure-blood-supremacy, it's just "my parent(s) have been in
this house, and this house is better than (an) other(s)".
So I would think, that's the point where to start when changes shall
ever happen, but I can't see anything like that with e.g. Harry
talking to Albus Severus. There is nothing like "it doesn't matter in
which house you are sorted to, because although they are different,
they all are ok. You'll be sorted to the house that suits you best/
brings out the best of you (something like that I would have liked);
to become a good wizard doesn't depend on the the house you belong to,
it depends on that what _you_ _do_." Harrys children could have
_grown_ _up_ with their parents saying something like this,
demonstrate their position to their children and other people. If you
do so, 19 years should show some change. But JKR didn't write anything
like that, and she doesn't seem to have intended that readers wish
something like that.


When JKR created the WW, she put in things that didn't seemed right or
good, but added e.g. comments from characters that at least set up the
question if this or that is right or not.
One example is the house-elfs-slavery. Hermione, as a muggle-born, is
shocked when she learns that this slavery exists. Ron, as a wizard who
has grown up with that, has never asked himself until then if maybe
slavery is wrong. - That Hermione then tries to start changes in maybe
not the best way, was very okay for me, 'cos that is how some
teenagers act: enthusiasic with the best intentions, but not regarding
all consequences. But, and that is right IMO, she tries to make other
people think about it. -
Another example is the "bouncing ferret". Draco tried to hex Harry
when he turned his back to him, and he gets a deserved punishment -
that's maybe the reading of children, feeling glad that Draco gets
hurt. But, there is McG, saying that they don't punish students
physically.
So I read this as "yes, you may feel that hurting someone is right if
they deserve it because they did or tried to do something bad, many
people feel that way, but it is NOT right".


As it seems, I have totally misinterpreted the UC's and light & dark
magic, 'cos I thought that UC's are Dark Magic. Somehow I thought
that, in a fight, in a defense against dark magic, light magic would
mean to disarm and to immobilise the enemy and protect yourself. I
thought that light magic would always be reversal, so what shall I
think of the spell that scarred Marietta for the rest of her life?
Scars that write a word on your face, like a Cain's Mark, and that is
a deserved punishment for something you've done at the age of 15 or 16?
I thought AK is dark magic and casting this spell would split your
soul, and so I was sure with HBP, that Dd indeed had wanted to act
Snape as if he would AK him, but because Dd would never demand
somebody to cast an UC, that Snape faked the AK while nonverbal
casting a spell that only lifted Dd, who died while he fell by the
poison he had drunken in the cave. So that Snape's spell even had not
lead to Dd's dead by smashing to the ground, because Dd was dead
before he touched the ground, poisoned. I have thought it was crucial
that Snape did nothing that _killed_ Dd, that Dd would never have
asked for that. I thought that this scene was written to show that
things are not always like they seem to be, in a much more deeper way
than JKR eventually revealed.

I thought that Harry trying to Crucio Bellatrix was a way to show the
readers how the cruelty of people can corrupt a good person to be
cruel, too. It was completely understandable that Harry wanted revenge
in that situation, and if he had succeeded, it would have been
forgivable IMO. But he did not, because although full of hatred, he
didn't really meant to torture, and I was relieved because of that.
He tried Crucio on Snape, in a very similar situation. If he would
have succeeded we don't know, 'cos Snape blocks his spell, saying "No
UC's from you". And I, thinking as always that Snape is on the good
side, assumed that Snape not only didn't want to be tortured, but also
wanted to prevent Harry from casting an UC because UC's are evil dark
magic that damage your soul. Why else JKR should have written that
line for Snape?
So I was shocked about the situation and the way Harry used Crucio in
DH. - Maybe he only suceeded because of V's raging soul piece inside
him, that is not my point now. - Harry uses Crucio, with no further
thought about it. (Compare this with his reaction after slashing Draco
with Sectumsempra, he was terrified by what he has done). Just a
simple "yeah, you have to mean it", in a situation like this! But
wait, there is McG, she'll say something like "But Harry, by all the
spells you know, how can you Crucio him? That's an UC!" She didn't,
instead she says "gallant" and uses Imperio without any need, much
lesser need than Harry at Gringot's.
That was a scene where I thought JKR must have somehow forgotten to
add a sentence that would hint that maybe it was not warrantable to
use Crucio. But all that she says is "well, Harry's not a saint", and
I'm thunderstrucked, I can hardly believe she really means that.
So the moral message here is: "when Harry, a good person, uses an UC,
tortures someone, though it's maybe not nice, but it doesn't make him
evil." When someone believes they are good and they are right, it is
not evil when they do to others what they think they deserve, when
they take law in their own hands.

Although it's not about the UC's, a similar scene is when McG fights
Snape. She tries to kill him, not with an AK, but with flying daggers.
Yes, she thinks Snape has killed Dd, and yes, it's war. But what about
all that DADA-stuff? Was it not the point to counter dark magic with
non-dark? A wand is no pistol, no gun, you can choose what your
magical weapon does. I thought when the WW was given that advantage in
regard to RL, JKR was showing that at least then there are other means
to counter the threat of being killed or injured. I thought JKR meant
that if you are not forced to kill, injure or torture in order to
defend yourself, then you shall not do it. I thought when Dd fought
against V, it showed the difference between a good wizard and an evil
one, with the good one trying to block spells and to bind his enemy.
But now I tend to think that Dd didn't try to kill V only 'cos he knew
it would have been useless.


JudySerenity:
> What bothered me most, though, was Dumbledore. I actually wasn't
> bothered at all by the fact that he had been teenaged friends with
> Grindelwald, resulting in tragic consequences.

I liked that very much, 'cos Dd became much more human in my eyes, and
I thought that would help Harry and readers to understand that people
can do wrong things - and, very important, how and why this could have
happened -, truely regret, have learned from this and _decide_ to
change their life. That events like this can make a person set a moral
standard for themselves and act according to them - and I thought that
one of them would be for Dd that a good goal does not justify any means.
This piece of Dd's past explained so wonderful why he was giving
people second chances, did good things, did the right things even if
it seemed wasted, because of his moral principles - as it seemed to me.

It's somehow like Hagrid, who acts because of his feelings and his
love for every living creature, his faith that there is goodness in
everyone. Although this love and faith often seem to be very naive,
Hagrid succeeds e.g. in socialising Grawp (of course it helps being
not so sensitive to physical harm). Hagrid was for me an other example
of a character, who brings out the good of someone because he treats
them well, and I always thought Dd was the same. Because when he
reaches out a hand to Draco, he _creates_ the (or at least "a")
possibility for Draco to turn to the good side. He can do so only
because he understands Draco, and can offer him to withdraw him from
the forces that push him to evil. With offering protection for Draco
and his parents, he shows him a way out of a DE existence.
So I thought one message of HP was "treat people well, reach out a
hand, even to the bad ones, that enhances the chances that they can
turn good. if you treat them bad, they stay/turn bad."


JudySerenity:
> No, what bothered me about Dumbledore was how he treated Snape. (snip)

Oh, yes. Indeed. That turned everything what I thought about Dd upside
down. For me, it was cruel. And I'm not convinced, like others have
suggested, that Dd is pretending in order to force the best out of Snape.

> And then, we don't see any kindness from Dumbledore to Snape
> until Snape's been working for him for 14 years.

Meanwhile it is hard for me to see even true kindness, based on
liking. I thought that Dd and Snape had grown to a kind of
father-son-relationship, with Snape being the lost son that had
returned after recognising that he had taken the wrong path. I
favoured the idea, that there indeed was NO ironclad reason for Dd to
trust Snape, that the ultimate point would be that there can never be
such a proof, that you have to choose to trust someone. And I favoured
the idea that JKR would write it in such a way that would make the
readers wonder if Dd's trust, given without a last ironclad proof,
Dd's faith in the goodness of Snape, maybe was the cause that Snape
turned to or stayed on the good side. I hoped for that.

I haven't re-read books 1-6, but is it kindness what we see from Dd?
He says "I'm fortunate that I have you", fortunate, not glad or happy.
If you got mistrustful in Dd like me, you can read everything he says
to Snape in Snape's memories like mere reward and encouragement for
Snape for doing as Dd wants. There isn't any affection in Dd's words
that would be a sign of an emotional relationship from Dd to Snape. He
acknowledges Snape's skills, but how does it sound like for Snape (who
died still believing that Dd has only used him all the time), when Dd
says "Do not think that I underestimate the constant danger in which
you place yourself, Severus. To give Voldemort what appears to be
valuable information while withholding the essentials is a job I would
entrust to nobody like you."? Like "you are the perfect tool because
of your quite unique skills, and I know you live a hell of a life
because of that, so terrible I want no other person has to live."?


Another message of HP seems to be, that it emphasises the loyalty to a
person, not to an own, as "right" recognized/developed morality. It's
not "Snape fought for us!" or "Snape fought for the good side/ freedom
/justice", it's "Snape was Dd's man", and of course Harry is "Dd's
man". DH emphasises the loyalty to a leader (and that is "Führer" in
German, outch), not to question his motives and ways.
As so often before, Harry has the same feelings like Snape towards Dd,
when he feels used, not fully trusted, not given the whole truth by
Dd, when he gets to know that Dd knew all time that Harry has to die
by V's hand. And suddenly with King's Cross, for Harry everything is
okay again with Dd, but I can't follow him. I miss forgiveness in the
books, too, here we get forgiveness, but I can't understand how Harry
can Dd forgive so easily. "Oh, you guessed there was a 90% chance that
I would survive! Well then... And anyways, all you did turned out
well, so everything was right and good." In the end, it seems, Dd was
wiser than anyone, and because of that, we may not understand why he
does what he does...? Just follow the leader, be "his man", and
whatever he wants you to do or to ignore is right, and therefore if
you do what he wants you'll be good.
I don't like that, I prefer to follow moral rules and not persons.
It's easier to lose track of means and motives if you follow a person,
especially if you are emotionally connected to this person. It hinders
people thinking for themselves IMO.


va32h:
> But I also firmly believe that JKR lost sight of her own series. Either
> it got away from her or she just became tired of it - but I don't
> believe that Deathly Hallows is a fitting end to the series. I don't
> believe it captures the spirit of Harry Potter as I have come to know
> it, (snip)

I wondered if somehow her characters grew out of her determined
story-ending, if that is possible. So that the end of the story that
she had fixed from the beginning didn't fit anymore.
She gives us a backstory of Snape that makes him so understandable
IMO, she parallels him so often with Harry and contrasts him to James
regarding their childhood, she mirrors their first time at the
Hogwarts Express and the different ways their school-life take, she
states clearly IMO that children that grow up under different
circumstances don't have the same chances to actually choice anything,
or that sometimes fortuity may have an influence on somebody's life -
what would have happened if Severus hadn't shared the compartment with
James? Would Snape had ever been the target of his bullying? Would
Sirius have chosen Gryffindor (if that is possible) if he had met
Severus, but not James in the compartment?

With her way of writing, with the scenes she presents us, JKR rises
questions like these. She parallels Riddle, Snape and Harry as the
abandonned boys, but what made the difference in their life? Was
Riddle born evil, as he was evil at age eleven, seemingly already
beyond any chance of changing? Is it fate or predestination what
determines life? Or is it a question of how big the love of a mother
is, even if she's dead?
Harry's parents are dead, but they loved him, his mother loved him
more than her life and died for him (a way to prove the love for your
child); Harry grew up neglected, even maltreated physically and
mentally. Riddle was not neglegted, but without loving parents; his
mother died not for him, by dying she left him as his father did
before, so she didn't live for him (an other way to prove the love for
your child), maybe she didn't love him at all. Snape maybe had a
loving mother, but was either very poor or somehow neglected; his
mother appears to be weak, so her love was not big enough. It doesn't
count which care a child actually recieves, but how much his mother
loves/loved him, even if she isn't there while it grows up. The
environment doesn't determine your ways in life, they are determined
by the love of your mother in the moment you're born, maybe in the
moment you were recieved. Harry was recieved with the true love of his
parents for each other. Riddle was recieved with a selfish love from
his mother for his father and a false or forced love from his father
to his mother. And Snape? Was there an unrequited love between his
parents? Has the love from his father for his mother died away with
the years, so they had a weak love, a love that was not true? Like a
divorced marriage?
If you deny that the enviroment you grow up in influences your life,
then you deny the possibility of choices and changings. Your life is
determined, and as it is so by the love of your mother, your life
itself is proof to how good your mother is, how big her love is - is
that the fundamental message of the books?


I hope my post is not too confusing and apologise if it is, as English
is my second language.

Greetings from Germany,
LesAJa