"Morality" and "tolerance" in the HP books (Was: a sandwich)

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 178840

a_svirn wrote:
> Actually, she does not seem to recognize it [that House-Elves can't
realistically be freed]. Or rather, she does not acknowledge it. She
still insists that slavery is a bad thing, that Hermione was right
back in her fourth year when she tried to change things, and that the
HP books are about morality and tolerance. But the only thing they
teach to tolerate is inequality in its most extreme forms.
>
Carol responds:

To be fair to JKR, even though I'm not happy with her for a variety of
reasons at the moment, perhaps her *intended* message of "tolerance"
relates to human characters rather than House-Elves (not that I have
any faith at all in the validity of authorial intention as a basis for
literary analysis). Just to be clear, I'm only interested in what
others think here. For me, what JKR says the books are about is no
more relevant than what the Pope (if he's read them) says they're
about. And, IMO, even if the books are "about" "tolerance" or
"morality" as JKR defines those terms, IOW, even if a reader can find
those motifs clearly depicted and derive a clear and consistent
message from those depictions, that's not all the books are about.
Self-sacrifice, love, courage, death, and "the greater good" all seem
to me to be at least as significant, if not more so, whatever JKR says
to the contrary.

As for the books being about "morality," I don't recall her using that
word. Was it in one of the books about the Christian motifs (love and
self-sacrifice), and, if so, could you provide a  link? Maybe, for
her, morality and "tolerance" are not synonymous, as they seem to be
for some posters on this list? (Just to inject my own view here,
"morality" seems like a broader concept than tolerance, including
attitudes toward killing or otherwise harming others, not merely
viewing them as equals and avoiding terms that might offend the other
group. Opposition to slavery--and what enlightened person doesn't
oppose it?--is included, but again, morality is the larger term. I
won't even bring in sexual mores, which differ from person to person
or group to group, but they would also be included under "morality,"
in my view.)

Instead of being upset about her depiction of imaginary creatures, the
nonexistence of which any child old enough to understand the concept
of slavery will recognize, perhaps we should look at her depiction of
human beings. Clearly, race and sex (not "gender," which is a
grammatical term) make no difference in magical ability. Neither does
"blood" however much emphasis various characters may place on it.
(I've discussed the problems with the seeming helplessness of the
Muggle-borns in DH with regard to the message of the other books
elsewhere, so I won't go into that here.) I think, however, that most
kids will see Muggle-born Hermione as magically superior to
Pure-bloods Ron, Neville, and Draco (though Draco is no slouch
magically) and to the Half-Blood Harry (except for his skill in
casting a Patronus and her ineptitude in dealing with Boggarts, which
we can trace back to Lupin's one class on the subject if we so
desire). Lily joins Hermione as an example of a magically powerful
witch in OoP and HBP (by reputation), and in DH we see that she has
much more control of her magic at nine or ten than Harry did at that
age. So the message that "blood doesn't matter," along with the use of
the term "Mudblood" as a mark of blood prejudice (equated by many
readers with racism and certainly indicative of unjustified
prejudice), will, IMO, come across to most readers regardless of age.

Muggles are perhaps another matter. Hermione's parents and Lily's
parents seem decent enough people, "happy to have a witch in the
family" to use Petunia's words regarding her own parents, but we see
almost nothing of them in the books. Other Muggles, such as the
Robertson family in GoF, are depicted chiefly as victims (or overly
curious and observant Muggles who need to be frequently Obliviated, in
Mr. R's case). The Dursleys, somewhere between negligent and abusive
in their treatment of Harry and dangerously indulgent in their
treatment of Dudley, and Dudders and his friends, bullies all, are
unfavorably depicted (unless we count Dudley's mild transformation in
DH), as are the off-page Muggle boys who beat up Ariana in the 1880s
for her accidental magic. This unfavorable depiction is balanced--or
contradicted, as you prefer, by Kingsley Shacklebolt's statements in
DH about Muggles having the same right to life as Wizards and the duty
of Wizards to protect them (this idea strikes me as Gryffindor
chivalry as Godric Gryffindor intended it--the strong protecting the
weak. Then, again, if the Muggles knew what they were facing, perhaps
they wouldn't be quite so helpless as the Wizards think).

I would say that until the last book, in which the emphasis is on
Muggle-borns as victims, the message that prejudice against
Muggle-borns is wrong comes through loud and clear. (IMO, JKR is
facing the same conflicting desires as feminist writers made in the
1990s--the desire to "empower" the group that has traditionally been
discriminated against [women or Muggle-borns] by showing them as equal
or superior to those who try to keep them down and the desire to
depict them as victims of their oppressors. You can't have it both
ways without contradicting yourself.) The message that prejudice
against Muggles, and particularly Muggle-baiting, is wrong is, IMO, 
much more garbled thanks to the Twins' actions against Dudley and the
depiction of the most important Muggle characters in the books as
bullies. The victimization of Muggles is shown, and criticized by
Hermione and Mr. Weasley, but the equality of Muggles and their right
not to have their memories Obliviated or otherwise altered is not even
considered. (Admittedly, Obliviate is also used against Wizards, but
not on principle as a means of maintaining the Statute of Secrecy,
itself problematic in ways that JKR probably didn't consider when she
invented it.)

At any rate, *if* we're going to look at messages of "tolerance" in
the books (and, IMO, that theme or motif or "message" is receiving far
more attention than it perhaps merits thanks to JKR's own
contradictory statements), perhaps we should look at the human
characters and not at imaginary beings analogous to no species, human
or animal, in the RW.

As an aside, someone mentioned the treatment of Gnomes in the books.
While I didn't like the "Gnome abuse," either, I think it's clear from
the books, if we include FB, that Gnomes (like the Doxies that infest
the curtains at 12 GP) are considered "beasts" rather than "beings"
like House-Elves and Goblins. Animals in general are rather callously
treated throughout the books--Vanishing kittens, for example, or
Transfiguring hedgehogs into pincushions, some of which squeal when
pins are inserted in them. The only justification I can find is that
the books are fantasy; children aren't being encouraged to Stun Gnomes
and turn them into Christmas angels or abuse any creature, real or
imaginary. If the good characters were shown kicking dogs or drowning
kittens, I'd be concerned. (Aunt Marge speaks of drowning runty
puppies, but she's a bad guy.)

Carol, sure that JKR, whatever her faults as a writer or interviewee,
is not advocating slavery or prejudice or any other abuse of human
beings or animals in the RW