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

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 179597

> >>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. And I don't think JKR bothered with that.

> >>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. 
> > Why should the author just hand it to us on a platter?
 
> >>Mus:
> But that's not really, I think, the point that Betsy Hp is making -
> it's certainly not the problem that I have with the nature of good 
> and evil in the books.  Whenever you read a book set in another     
> world, one does, as a reader, have to work out what the "rules"    
> are - what the morality is, in other words.  We have to do it with 
> Tolkien, with Le Guin, with Gaiman, with hundreds of others.  That 
> we would have to do it with the Potterverse isn't asking anything   
> out of the ordinary - in that, I'm in complete agreement with you.
> 
> The problem I have, and the problem that Betsy Hp referred to, is   
> that the *author* doesn't seem to have decided what the moral rules 
> of her universe are. 
> <snip of examples>

Betsy Hp:
Yes! Thank you, this is *exactly* what I'm talking about.  It's not 
so much that JKR needed to pour through philosophy books and pull out 
one or another to rule her world, but she *did* need to have a 
constant or underlying morality running through.  Especially since 
her characters act like there *is* a constant.  What McGonagall 
refers to as things Dumbledore would be far too noble to do in 
PS/SS.  

Because in the usual course of things, I *love* books where the main 
characters struggle with questions of morality as they make their way 
through their world and their various quests.  The struggle is what 
makes it interesting.  The issue I have with the Potter series isn't 
that Harry and friends make moral mistakes or get confused, it's that 
as far as I can tell they *don't* make moral mistakes or get 
confused.  Harry uses Unforgivables, and he doesn't, his friends 
don't, and the author doesn't, even blink about it.

Those uses *could* have been used to make the character of Harry 
deeper, more fully nuanced.  Instead, they seem to be there to make 
the character more "kick-ass" or "cool".  We're not supposed to 
question, nor expect Harry or his friends, to question their use.  I 
*love* to see characters struggle.  Harry doesn't struggle.  Nor do 
any of his friends.  (Except for *possibly* Ron.)  

> >>Mus:
> In a series ostensibly about the struggle between Good and Evil,   
> there are in principle two ways to go with magic.  Either there is 
> Good Magic and Bad Magic, or there is only one kind, whose *users* 
> are good or bad.  I'm quite happy to have to work out either        
> scenario by myself.  For me, the problem with the nature of Good    
> and Evil in the series is that the first option doesn't work,       
> because the White Hats do some awfully questionable things.  The   
> second option doesn't work either, because for that to work, magic 
> itself has to be neutral, but the author has already spiked our    
> guns on that score, because she tells us repeatedly that there is   
> Dark Magic.  The hallmark of a Dark Wizard, as far as one can tell, 
> is that they do Dark Magic, and Dark Magic is what Dark Wizards    
> do.  That is a circular argument.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Exactly!  Amusingly enough I'm reading a series right now with a 
world madeup of various theories of magic.  What's "good" magic for 
one group is "bad" magic to another group. And the politics of the 
various countries also come into play, so you've got wizards tortured 
and/or executed in one country for practicing a type of magic that is 
acceptable and good in another country.  As our protagonists move 
through the world it becomes pretty clear that it's more the user 
than the magic (though there is the complication of various magics 
having slippery slopes).  But the propoganda machines still keep 
spinning and so what's clear to the reader isn't necessarily clear to 
the protagonists.

And JKR could have gone in that direction.  (Honestly, as the series 
progressed and we failed again and again to get a definitive answer 
as to what makes some magic "Dark", I assumed that's where JKR was 
taking us.)  But she didn't.  Not really.  A big flashing sign to 
tell us how evil the Carrows were was that they changed *Defense* of 
Dark Arts class to plain old Dark Arts.  (Teaching children *dark* 
magic!  The horror!)  And yet, when the "good guys" do what seems to 
be "dark magic" they're okay.  So there's no clarity there.  We the 
reader *can't* figure it out for ourselves, we need JKR to out and 
out *tell* us who the good guys and who the bad guys are.  Which I 
think makes for weak story-telling.

> >>Mus:
> My problem isn't that I have to figure out what is Good and what is
> Evil, rather that there's no coherent answer to that question in the
> books.  I have no objection to a universe with no answer to that
> question, but in that case I think it's wise for the author not to
> tell me there's Good and Evil.  It's contradictory.  So either JKR 
> is being astonishingly cynical, or she never thought the thing     
> through to begin with.

Betsy Hp:
If I were figuring things out for myself, Hermione would be further 
down on the scale towards evil than say, Narcissa.  If I were to base 
the outcome on actions taken, etc.  But do I honestly think that's 
where JKR wants me to end up?  No.  Which tells me that there's a 
disconnect between the story JKR was trying to tell and the story she 
actually ended up telling.

> >>Sharon:
> <snip>
> Now I understand that your problem is: how can we even contemplate 
> that if we don't know what exactly good or evil consists of? but   
> again, I think that is OK. The novels let our imaginations and our 
> own moral senses try to come to terms with the contradictions. 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Hmm...  Well, I do agree that the lack of a moral rudder makes for 
some interesting discussions.  But to my mind it means that the 
conclusion of the series was... inconclusive. <g>  Harry et al won, 
but was that a good thing in the end?  I mean, yes obviously the 
scary, Nazi-like, blood-baths for all, group wasn't any good.  But 
the scary, cult-like, do as we say it'll be *good* for you, group 
isn't *that* much of an improvement, IMO.  And that very sense that 
it was all for nothing, a seven book quest that ends with an amoral 
whimper, leaves me feeling that the story itself wasn't well told.

Betsy Hp