A Sense of Betrayal

[redwooddawn]

No: HPFGUIDX 172369

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Lee Kaiwen <leekaiwen at ...> wrote:
>
> Hi, folks.
>
> Well, it's over. Really over. It was a good ride, but the final secrets
> have been told, the final page turned.
>
> Personally, I felt that, in terms of character and plot development,
> while the series started out strong, it peaked in HP5; HP6 and 7 were
> marred by too many missed opportunities, and the whole series by a
> couple of nagging irritants, and one near deal-breaker.
<SNIP>
>> No Magic for the Magical
> -- ----- --- --- -------
<SNIP>
> The thing that kept nagging me throughout the HP series was simply this:
> the magical do not believe in magic. That is, the magical would no more
> view their gifts as "magic" than a sighted person would call his ability
> to perceive objects at great distances, or communicate without words
> "wizardry", whatever a blind man might believe. "Magical", "wizardry",
> "witchcraft" -- these may be labels applied to the magical by others,
> but not labels the magical would ever take to themselves. Like
> Galadriel, we would be puzzled at most, bemused at best, by a blind
> man's views of our extra sense. And just as, in the sighted world we do
> not send our children to schools of "sight and seeing", so in the
> magical world there would be no schools of "witchcraft and wizardry".
> Sight to the sighted may be fundamental to nearly everything we do, and
> fundamentally shape our perceptions of the universe; but we do not take
> classes to learn how to see.
>
> What bothered me most about this was the missed opportunity. It's simply
> apparent to me that, just as our gift of sight presents us with a
> fundamentally different view, and understanding, of the world around us
> than those who lack sight (don't believe me? Try describing the night
> sky to someone who has no concept of light), so those with magical
> giftings would find the universe a fundamentally different kind of place
> than those of us without. I would have enjoyed some explorations of
> those differences, in terms both metaphysical and psychological. As CS
> Lewis in Out of the Silent Planet, or Zenna Henderson in her stories of
> The People, JKR had the opportunity here to show us something of
> ourselves, to explore our humanity by taking us outside ourselves to
> reveal how we might have been. Lewis' race of un-Fallen beings shines a
> light on our Fallenness; Henderson People, communities of "magically
> endowed" extra-terrerstrials attempting to exist in a society that fears
> and misunderstands them, show us a bit of the darker side of our humanity.
<SNIP>
> And, finally, the near deal-breaker:
>
> Moral Inconsistency
> ----- -------------
>
> "But I thought they were bad?"
>
> My 11-year-old actually asked me this as we read HP7 together, and I had
> no answer except to say I thought JKR was wrong.
>
> He was referring to the Unforgivable Curses. From Wikipedia:
>
> "The Unforgivable Curses ... are so named because their use is ...
> forbidden and literally unforgivable in the Wizarding World. Use of any
> of these spells on any human being can carry a life-sentence in the
> magical wizard's prison of Azkaban."
>
> The thing is, I had had more than one discussion with my son previously
> about what made the Unforgivables unforgivable, and why a good person
> could not use them. Then came the end of HP6, when Snape uses the Avadra
> Kedavra to kill Dumbledore, and Harry attempts to use the same on Snape.
> At the time, I explained to my son that Harry, caught up in his grief
> and his anger, made a mistake, as even good people sometimes do. But for
> Snape no redemption was possible. Cold, calculated, premeditated, his
> use of the Curse had put him beyond all possibility of salvation. That
> is, if "unforgivable" had any meaning at all.
>
> Which, apparently, it does not. From Wikipedia again:
>
> "However, in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, the Unforgivable
> Curses are used liberally by good characters, ranging from Professor
> McGonagall with the Imperius Curse, to Harry effectively using the
> Cruciatus Curse. He also uses the Imperius curse on several goblins."
>
> And, apparently, at least one good character uses the Avadra Kedavra,
> though JKR doesn't call it by name.
>
> That the good guys started "liberally" throwing around the Unforgivables
> is bad enough. But JKR compounds the moral issue here in the way in
> which they do so – without reluctance or hesitation, without so much as
> a hint of moral compunction. When Harry Imperiuses the goblins – at
> Hermione's almost casual suggestion, no less -- he might have been
> casting a Hot Air Charm for all the reticence he exhibited.
><SNIP>



In regards to the not seeing magic as being magical, I've gotten the impression that for the
wizarding world, magic is technology.  Arthur Weasley's fascination with muggle
technology has sort of reflected this throughout the series, and even the auror's marveling
at Mr. Dursley's ability to drive in book 7 reconnected with that concept.  I loved in book 5,
when Arthur was in St. Mungoes, that a point was made between  muggle doctors and
wizard healers, and yet it was the muggle technology of stitches that actually helped
Arthur heal.  So magic is more of an everyday tool that makes life easier (much like
muggle technolgy) rather than a mystery.  Although I would say that for both the
wizarding world and our muggle world, everyone takes technology for granted. And,
IMHO, the way Dark Magic harnesses and inverts the nature of any given resource is very
similar to the way our science harnesses nature to create things like atomic bombs or
nuclear power.

The Department of Mysteries seems to be the place where the wizarding community
marvels, studies and contemplates what is truly magical, not in "magic," but in life, and the
things they study in the DoM are the universal mysteries that all humans share (love, time,
death, thought).  I was disappointed that we did not return to the DoM one last time, I
really wanted some revelation from the Love Room, but I guess it was wise for Rowling to
not create answers for that which cannot be answered (merely experienced).

In regards to Unforgivable Curses, I agree that it was upsetting to see the good guys use
them so freely in the end.  There were plenty of character comments in the last few books
about how disarming isn't good enough against the enemies, so I don't know if that was
meant to help us support the use of Unforgivable Curses or not.  This last story line wound
up having such a Christian theme going, I don't know if Harry's ultimate use of
Expellariamus (sp?) was a morality statement in general, or more directed towards his
strength of character.  What Hermione did to her parents' memory to protect them
bothered me a
lot too, and then later when she said she didn't know how to do a memory spell, the
confusion of that statement bothered me as well.  Perhaps it is a case of having to touch
base with the dark side of anything in order to conquer it.


redwooddawn