Philosophy of Dumbledore (was:Moody's death...)

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 179560

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > As an author though, building a world where good and evil are     
> > going to battle for ultimate victory, it's probably a good idea   
> > to have some sense of what differentiates your good guys from    
> > your bad guys.  

> >>Pippin:
> Is it necessary to have good guys and bad guys in order to tell of 
> heroism and villainy or good and evil?  Can't there be stories     
> about heroes where it's not guaranteed that they'll make the right 
> choice, or even that they'll always want to?  Heroes, in short,    
> less like the characters in a TV serial and more like you and me?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Goodness, yes, of course.  But we're talking about the Harry Potter 
books here where good and evil characters are rather sharply 
deliniated and determined at a very young age.  And where, IMO, 
actions don't mean that much at all in the end.

> >>Pippin:
> <snip>
> Harry will lose most of his illusions about the WW, and a lot of   
> his illusions about himself.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I never saw that happen.  On the contrary, Harry was shown to be one 
of the most special of special boys who ever lost their mom.  And 
business as usual within the WW was his happy ending. 

> >>Pippin:
> <snip>
> Harry escaped into a world of wonder and magic, but he did not      
> escape into a world where moral choices are made easier by the     
> presence of infallible role models or simple formulas for           
> discerning dark deeds from light.

Betsy Hp:
Sure he did.  The easiest formula of all: what color is your tie?  
Harry is lucky enough to be wearing gold and red so any choice he 
makes is by default the morally correct one.

> >>Pippin:
> <snip>
> I don't understand why some readers seem to think it's unjust
> that there's no healing for the undead remnant of Voldemort's soul 
> when he never wished to heal the souls he maimed or the families
> he tore asunder. Not even his own.

Betsy Hp:
I'm not sure about justice or not (though the thought that Dumbledore 
has standing to deliver justice to Voldemort or anyone is sickening 
to me) but since Voldemort is shown to be a sociopath, that he's not 
repentant is... unsurprisingly boring.  He's presented with a choice 
he's incapable of making and that's supposed to be the dramatic 
denouement?

> >>Pippin:
> As for Dumbledore, he did enough questionable things that only 
> someone as besotted  as Elphias Doge could approve of them all, but
> there are many times when he did uphold justice and mercy. Who
> else would have maintained Hagrid's innocence, or admitted Lupin to 
> Hogwarts, or given Snape a second chance, or hired a werewolf
> to teach,  or offered help to the Giants or risked so much to teach
> Draco that he was not a killer at heart? 

Betsy Hp:
And then had him dropped like a hot potatoe two seconds after his 
usefulness was over?  Yeah, that Dumbledore... he's all heart.  
Combined with his keeping Lupin strung along in abject poverty, 
sticking Hagrid in a position he was in no way qualified for without 
assistance or training, emotionally abusing and then discarding Snape 
as soon as he was done with him (ooh, a theme!), oh, and 
offering "help" to the giants he was in no position to give...  No, 
I'm sorry, I don't look to Dumbledore for either justice or mercy.  I 
don't think Dumbledore has a clue as to what those two things are. 

> >>Betsy_Hp:
> > The twins...  well, one of them died but it was played as a      
> > tragedy, not the outcome of their own  mistakes or a consequence.

> >>Pippin:
> Um,  tragedy in literature *is* the outcome of one's own
> mistakes or a consequence. Otherwise it's melodrama, IIRC.

Betsy Hp:
Yeah, exactly. Melodrama about covers it. <eg>

> >>Pippin:
> <snip> 
> Does JKR have to insult our intelligence in order to prove that she 
> knows  that careless disregard for human life is wrong?

Betsy Hp:
I guess so. <bg>  To borrow a phrase from Mike, I may be a bit thick, 
but yeah, I don't see any evidence in the text at all that suggests 
JKR saw the twins actions (or any of her heroes actually) as wrong.  
But then, the lives they treated carelessly weren't those considered 
human according to the books, I think.  Magic creatures, Slytherins 
or Harry's muggle relatives: go ahead and prick them, they won't 
bleed.

> >>Pippin:
> For me the characters live and breathe precisely because they
> refuse to be good guys or bad guys. They're people: complicated,
> ornery, frustrating, little lower than the angels,  little better   
> than the worms. 

Betsy Hp:
And for me, they're not "people" at all.  They're cardboard cutouts 
being moved through a creaky plot for no discernable purpose.  
Plaster saints who's actions should not be questioned because the 
author has made it good.

> >>Pippin Fowler:
> Perhaps JKR's sense of what differentiates good guys from bad guys 
> was summed up in Dumbledore's comments to Harry, when Harry was    
> concerned that he could have been sorted into Slytherin. Harry     
> chose Gryffindor. We can be good or evil, depending on the choices 
> we make.

Betsy Hp:
Based on one choice made at age eleven.  And after that, no backsies! 
<bg>

> >>Sharon:
> To my mind, it makes the books that much more interesting to have   
> to work through all the confusion and mistakes that the characters 
> undergo, to try to figure out the difference between good and evil.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
So.. what did you figure out?  What's the difference between good and 
evil as per these books?

Betsy Hp (armed with a new modem and loaded for bear <rbg>) And 
reminding everyone this is all just my opinion... just in case you 
were afeared. <g>