Further Notes on Literary Uses of Magic and Anti-Globalization in Harry Pott

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 168217

> >>Betsy wrote:
> > So you're saying that branding the face of a teenage girl for
> > listening to her family rather than the popular kids is *always* a
> > good idea, and perfectly civilized too. 
> > <snip>

> >>dan:
> I said neither "always"...

Betsy Hp:
Eep, no you didn't.  I'm um, not really sure why I threw the "always" 
in there. Heh, I even emphasized it for some odd reason.  Sorry about 
that. <g>

> >>dan:
> nor did I separate the act of marking Marietta from her real and   
> actual betrayal. It's not theoretical. No act is theoretical, ever. 
> It's an act or it's a theory. Rowling abhors the theoretical, I'd   
> say. Did Harry theorize about saving the others in the lake, in the 
> second task? He did not theorize, he just did it, instinctively,    
> cause he's got good heart and wants to help people. No system of    
> beliefs is going to create that in and/or for him, or anyone else, 
> and the act is more important than a library of instructive or
> moralistic literature.

Betsy Hp:
Okay.  Except Hermione doesn't intinctively brand Marietta with a 
rather long lasting mark.  She researches, plans and lies to have the 
mark occur.  So while there *is* an action there's thinking or 
theorizing as well.

And I do disagree with the dismissal you seem to be giving to the act 
of thinking or theorizing.  While action is important I think the 
action of thinkers is far more powerful and probably more likely to 
be positive than the knee-jerk or instinctual actions of non-thinking 
folks.  (Though of course this isn't always the case.)

I'd like to think that if Hermione had discussed the hidden trap she 
was put into the DA sign up sheet, Ron and Harry may have talked her 
out of it.  (Or they might not have.  Sometimes both boys are a bit 
too comfortable with cruelty, IMO.)

> >>dan: 
> To be clear, I am trying to explicate what Rowling is saying, not
> judge her for her ethical understanding, though I suspect she is
> pretty much right on, in my opinion. Rowling's ethic is another
> discussion, which, while it may be the majority of some threads, is
> entirely irrelevant to what I am interested in in terms of the
> literary use of magic. 
> <snip>
> ...in Rowling, of course, magic is to be taken quite literally -   
> all the normal problems of adolescence and marriage, of society in 
> general, are dealt with by magic - she turns magic into an         
> instrument, a machine, so the humdrum can be dispensed with, and
> just the exciting, important parts of life can be discussed -      
> starting with politics. 

Betsy Hp:
Hmm, while I agree that magic in literature can (and most often does) 
stand in for a lot of different things, can help children codify and 
comprehend some major life concepts (death, fear, sexuality, puberty, 
etc.), I do have a hard time seeing the magic in Potterverse doing 
such things.  Maybe because, despite the setting, Potterverse seems 
to *lack* a great deal of magic to me.  It's such a bleak and brutal 
world, and not in a fairytale kind of way.  I personally see more 
magic in "The Secret Garden" where in a literal way no actual magic 
exists.

On a different note, it's very hard for me to seperate ethics from 
politics. <g>  I cannot determine whether a political philosophy is 
viable for me unless I can determine its ethical stand, both 
theoretically and practically.  So for me personally, I cannot try 
and grasp JKR's political message (if there is one) unless I also 
grapple with the ethics involved.

> >>dan:
> I don't think Rowling is writing a critic of pure technique, or
> anything like that at all. She's writing a series of books where our
> hero only proceeds by breaking rules, challenging authority, forcing
> the issue at every turn, being confrontational, taking big risks, in
> the face of complacency by the ministry, agents of darkness in
> positions of power close to him and his friends (some of the DA
> teachers, for example), state ordered repression and quite possibly
> assasination attempts on his life (Umbridge), well-meaning but
> impotent adult mentor figures (the Order).

Betsy Hp:
But the problem is that I also see JKR writing a series of books 
where the hero defines himself by and is dependent upon one the most 
powerful authority figures in the books.  Where the hero uses 
stereotyping, elitism and cronyism to determine whether people 
are "with him" or "against him".  And where the rights of those who 
are "against him" are dismissed as non-existent. 

> >>dan:
> He does this by stepping outside the bounds of this or that theory, 
> this or that instruction.

Betsy Hp:
Well, I'm not going to argue that Harry is a thinking man. <g>

> >>dan:
> Courage, love, friendship, says Rowling, courage most of all. It was
> even courage let him follow the thoughts of Voldemort, and save
> Arthur, in spite of all the advice to ignore such things.

Betsy Hp:
And it was courage that lead Harry and his friends into the hands of 
adult DeathEaters, where most of his friends were injured, one was 
tortured, and his Godfather was killed.  The flip side of 
the "courage" coin, and the danger of not thinking things through.

JKR is actually pretty consistent in giving with one hand, and taking 
with the other.

> >>Betsy:
> > I would *never* betray my family.  Never.

> >>dan:
> But heroes do, in literature, very definitely betray their families,
> sometimes - Faramir, for example, or Sirius, even Seamus, and some
> hope Draco. 

Betsy Hp:
Huh?  Faramir *betrayed* his family?  (I could well be mis-
remembering here.  I'm not nearly as knowledgable about the LotR 
series as others on this list.  I'll be interested to hear if this is 
correct.)

But on to Potterverse characters... <g>  Sirius does betray his 
family.  And he and his family all end in death and destruction.  The 
story of the house of Black is a tragic tale.  As is the story about 
the house of Crouch for that matter.  Another tragic end to a family 
where son betrays his father (and mother for that matter).

I honestly hope Draco *doesn't* take that particular path.  I have a 
feeling that if he has to turn his back on his family (especially 
after all the hell he went through to *protect* his family) the 
Malfoy house will end tragically as well.  I'd prefer to think Draco 
will continue his appointed role of family saviour and perhaps bring 
his family out of Voldemort's grasp and onto a better path.

Oh, and Seamus doesn't betray his mother.  He *disagrees* with her, 
and IIRC, persuades her to change her mind.  But he doesn't betray 
her.

Betsy Hp