Dark Magic / Choices for eleven year olds/ Lily knew about werewolf or not

[julie]

No: HPFGUIDX 176643

Alla wrote:
Alla:
> We keep talking about how horrible it is to show that the eleven 
> year olds are horrible, etc, but are we sure that this is what JKR 
> meant to show? Ugh, bear with me please. There is a great Russian 
> fantasy/ sf writer Sergey Lukianenko ( he wrote Night watch book, 
> and the movie was shown in some US theaters too). His early stories 
> were pretty much all about kids. I thought psychologically they 
were 
> fascinating, absolutely fascinating. I mean, he has psychiatrist 
> background, so he knows his stuff. Anyways, you would be amazed at 
> the horrible things some kids do in his stories. They often take 
> place during some sort of galactic wars or other extreme 
situations –
>  betrayal, murder, etc, etc. And guess what, they often do die for 
> that or have other bad things happened to them
> 
> So, I sincerely doubt that Lukianenko meant to show that those kids 
> have no salvation, you know? I think he writes stories where kids 
> are sort of meant to be looked as adults, you know?

Julie:
I do understand what you're saying, and his stories stem
from a reality in many societies, especially third world 
societies, where children *are* looked at and treated as
adults. Childhood isn't a guarantee in societies broken
by strife and war. Just look at the boy soldiers in Africa
who were unwillingly conscripted but who for the most part
took easily to rape and murder as it meant their survival.
(In which they are no different than the many apparently 
"decent" German adults were able to dismiss any conscience
and take part in the Nazi regime, except that as children
they are more vulnerable to indoctrination.)

And certainly there are 11 year olds who are already "evil,"
who like Tom Riddle are sociopathic and without conscience
(whether that comes from genetics, non-nurturing environment,
or more likely some incalculable interaction between both, 
I don't know). It's not unheard of for adoptive parents of
non-babies to want to "return" the child based on the 
contention that the child is unsalvagable, even because
they fear the child, even at 7 or 8, will harm or kill them.

But it can't be that fully a quarter of the children in a
society are in this group, and clearly they are not. Tom
Riddle was hopeless, but both Snape and Regulus were able
to change, and we saw them change as adults. And I have
to wonder, if it was possible for them at that point, how
much *more* possible would it have been for them as young
children, and how much more could they--and society--have
gained by that early change, if someone--anyone had given
them the opportunity or encouragement to make that change?

The fact is, it's really not about the children for me.
Sure some of them will be lost causes. But many of them
are not, and it seems like it should be incumbent on the
adults around them to make some effort to "save" them.
And I know some say it is the family that is primarily
responsible, but in a boarding school isn't the *school*
the family? Aren't the teachers and headmaster in effect
the substitute parents, responsible for their charges'
welfare, not only the physical welfare but the emotional
welfare? Aren't they in effect the ones who now have the
primary task of shaping these children's futures? 

This is probably the main reason I can't see Dumbledore
as the epitome of goodness. Mother Teresa, or even the
late Princess Diana, are far closer to that in their 
willingness to intervene, in their genuine desire to
help any and all children they can, regardless of said
child's sterlingness of character or lack thereof, and
regardless of their own catalogue of human faults. It
is intent as well as action that indicates a person's
"goodness" to me, and I don't think in intent or in 
action Dumbledore was really all that good (and he even
admits Harry is a better man than he is).

In the end, the HP books reflect much more of JKR's
political than moral beliefs, I think. Dumbledore (i.e.,
JKR I'm assuming) believes in what is basically a 
Liberatarian style of government and schooling (sorry,
I don't know the equivalent British term, though some
have also suggested something akin to anarchy). It is all
incumbent on the individual, in this case adult or child,
to make his/her choices, and society has no responsibility
at all. WW society provides no resources that we see for
public assistance. There are no counselling services, not
even at school, no assistance for the destitute or the
abused, etc, etc. The most we see is warehousing for those
who cannot function meaningfully as part of society, and
are either incarcerated at Azkaban, or in the St Mungo's
ward for the Insane. (I admit I find this position a bit
ironic for JKR, who after all wrote the first book that
would eventually make her one of the richest women in the
world while ON public assistance.)

Sorry, I realize I've gone off on a tangent. And I will
state here that I hold very Democratic views (referring
again to the American political system), and I believe
society does have some responsibility toward its citizens--
all of them--and that it takes a "village" to raise a 
child, if one wants that child to be a productive member
of society. Leaving each person to their own "choices"
no matter how much those choices may be limited by their
genetics or their upbringing, seems to be ultimately
detrimental to society. But that is only my opinion!

In closing I guess what I wanted to see was some sort of
realization, if not within the WW as a whole at least at
Hogwarts, that the marginalization of Slytherin House 
and the complete lack of effort toward any reconciliation
was *part* of the problem. And it seemed to me that this
WAS being very clearly shown in the earlier books as part 
of the problem, so I was taken aback when it was a total
non-issue in DH. Either I saw what wasn't there, or it was
there and JKR didn't see it herself as she wrote it (I.e.,
she actually believes it is all about getting rid of the
evil cancer in society rather than making an effort to
fix it, which is really just putting it into remission--
and she did make that comment about having to put up with
the bad people in society. I.e., forget the adage "We will
never let the Holocaust happen again" because there will
always be another Hitler around the corner, and we can't--
thus shouldn't--even try to prevent it).


Julie, who again notes that all of the above is personal
interpretation and opinion...