Danger in designating an "Other" / Bad magic (wasRe: Deathly Hallows Reactio...)

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 173836

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip> 
> > JKR apparently looks at the world around her and thinks, "I 
> > know in my heart that a quarter of the people out there are 
> > evil, half of them are okay, and there's one quarter that's 
> > just unquestionably good." 
> >  It's an ugly view of the world in my opinion.  And it 
> > cumlminates in a rather ugly book with a rather ugly message.  
 
> >>Shagufta:
> > So you think the world is made up of good people and only good
> > people? This world of ours where murder and torture and 
> > terrorism are a sad reality - this world is made up of good      
> > people?
> >  <snip>

> >>Shagufta:
> Hi 
> Actually i was responding to the fact that you contrasted JK's 
> (alleged) world view with Anne Frank's. I thought you were saying 
> that unlike Anne Frank, who went through hell and still retained    
> the optimistic view of 'people are basically good' JK had a very    
> cynical view of the world and the people in it.

Betsy Hp:
That's what I was saying, yes.  I'm obviously guessing as to JKR's 
actual world view, but that's the message DH is giving, IMO.

> >>Shagufta:
> And my point is that, if that is her philosophy, i think it is more 
> realistic than saying 'everyone is good'

Betsy Hp:
I disagree.  I'll admit to being a bit of an optimist, but I really 
prefer to think that on the whole, most people are basically good.  
That there's a fixable reason societies descend into madness, and 
that a prime function of civilization is limiting or fixing those 
reasons.  And that's something DH does not do.

Sydney brought this up in another thread, and I think her main point 
got missed by quite a few.  But I do think there's a tendency, 
especially among people under enormous pressure to designate a group 
as their scapegoat, their "other".  And I think it's something to 
*fight* against, not accept as just a reality of life.

Throughout history we've seen what happens when scapegoating is 
accepted if not out and out codified.  And we've also seen that it's 
possible to fight the urge to scapegoat, to not designate a 
convenient "other" to bare the weight of a people's burdens.  The 
vast difference between how Germany was treated at the end of WWI and 
the end of WWII is I think a good example.  The difference between 
how the US treated Japanese-Americans during WWII, how they treated a 
defeated Japan, and even how they're treating Muslim-Americans today 
is another.

What I saw JKR setting up throughout the series was a people under 
enormous pressure, forced into such deep hiding they brought *all* of 
their animals including their insects with them, designating a 
scapegoat: Slytherin.  Slytherin, like Germans post-WWI, designated 
their own scapegoats: Muggle-borns.  It appeared to me to be an 
obvious and vicious cycle.  So I'll admit, I expected JKR to see this 
as a problem to be solved.

But then again, I studied the Holocaust quite a bit back in the day, 
with a particular interest in why it occurred.  The treatment of 
Germany after WWI practically begged for a Hitler figure to arise.  
So it surprised me, rather unpleasantly, to see the Potter series end 
on an end of WWI note, rather than an end of WWII note.

Especially in our world today, where I think it'd be a mistake to, 
for example, lump all Muslims together with Muslim terrorists if we 
have a hope of defeating those terrorists, it's very odd IMO for a 
children's book to come out and sort of encourage just that sort of 
stereotyping.  ie, If some of a certain sort are bad, then they all 
are bad.  Oh, and it's a badness *we* (as opposed to *them*) can 
never fall into.

Honestly though, I've come to the conclusion that JKR didn't *mean* 
for this message to permeate her books.  I suspect she didn't mean to 
make the Slytherins (as exemplified by Snape and Draco) quite so 
human.  Which is probably part of the reason both characters shrank, 
rather than grew, in DH.

I think she meant to write a Roald Dahl type story where the villains 
are cardboard and cartoony (no one feels sorry for Veruca Salt, and 
no one relates to her either).  But JKR's gift is breathing life into 
what could be a very flat character.  I think her gift came back to 
bite her in the end. (Though I'd also say seven books filled with 
cartoony villains *and* our infuriatingly perfect hero would have 
been a bit much.  I got into the series *because* of the depth of the 
characters.)

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/173756
> >>Lisa (providing live-chat transcript):
> <snip>
> Jaclyn: Did lily ever have feelings back for snape
> J.K. Rowling: Yes. She might even have grown to love him           
> romantically (she certainly loved him as a friend) if he had not   
> loved Dark Magic so much, and been drawn to such loathesome people 
> and acts.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
::sigh::  So are supposed to think there's such a thing as "bad" 
magic now?  It'd help if JKR would settle on one thing or another.  
Because first we have Harry feeling like the dark magic loving, half-
blood Prince is his bestest friend.  Then we have him despising Draco 
for his love of the dark arts (never demonstrated on page, IIRC).  
Neither of the two are ever addressed again.  

Then we have Harry being an absolute natural at casting the Imperius 
and being all sorts of triumphant when he successfully casts a 
Crucio.  Oh, and of course there's Dumbledore encouraging, nay, 
*browbeating* Snape into casting an AK.  And there's no discussion of 
those things either.

Oh consistency, how I miss thee. <g>

Betsy Hp