Resolutions/Ron's Cloak/Slytherins are Bad

[montavilla47]

No: HPFGUIDX 183516

> > Montavilla47:
> > That only works if we recognize that the image of the hero isn't a 
> > hero.  I'm not sure that most people actually do realize it.  
> 
> Pippin:
> If they don't realize it, then why would they have some mythical
> standard of behavior for him? They'd have to judge him against the
> heroes and heroines of the real world.

Montavilla47:
I'm not really sure what you are saying here.  I think in general people
are willing to cut a fictional hero some slack--as long as he keeps
a few key principles and wins the day.  Especially if what you are 
looking for in the story is primarily entertainment.

Now, again, I can see that JKR sets Harry up to be hero who 
doesn't match the image of the hero.  After all, she does set up
this ill-defined concept of Dark Arts, which apparently serve 
as a litmus test for good and evil.  If you are attracted to Dark
Arts, then you key towards evil.  If you "hate" the Dark Arts, then
you are essentially good, and your impulses towards coercion,
torture, and murder are merely high spirits.

Then, in DH, JKR subverts all that by having Harry use two of the 
three Unforgivable curses--the Darkest of the Dark.   And, if 
her ultimate goal is to screw with her heads, then she's being
quite successful, because I feel thoroughly screwed--down
to Hermione blythely casting "Muffliato" around their tent, when
she refused to allow Harry to cast the curse around her a year
earlier.

But if that were the case, then I think a little commentary by
the author might be helpful.  I'm an adult, and I'm not stupid.
I find this all utterly confusing, which frustrates me as a reader,
and leads me to dislike the book.

It's not like JKR *won't* provide commentary when it suits 
her purpose.  After all, she has Harry remark that Narcissa
is only lying because she wants to get back into the castle 
quickly to look for Draco.  Logically, there is no way for Harry
to know why Narcissa is doing anything.  The only reason for
Harry to give Narcissa *any* motive is so that the author can
assure us that Narcissa Malfoy isn't acting out of altruistic 
motives--or even because she's sick of having Voldemort 
push her around.  She's acting out of the most immediate,
selfish reason handy.


Pippin:
> In the real world, the images of slave owners are on our money and our
> monuments. Schools and cities  and beloved children are named after
> them. Not *because* they were slave owners, of course, at least I hope
> not. But it's something we have to deal with. If all  that is acting
> subconsciously to make us okay with slavery, it's a problem that goes
> *way* beyond Harry Potter. 

Montavilla47:
That's the crux of the problem we had with slavery.  Nobody really 
liked it, not even Jefferson or Washington, who both, if I recall correctly,
manumitted their slaves.  (I think Washington's were actually freed,
but Jefferson still had debts and only some of his were freed?)

But, collectively, we didn't have the will to end slavery when we should
have and that problem built until it became a major cause of our civil 
war.  The repercussions of slavery are still very much present in our
culture.  

Yes, I'm sure that it helped make people "okay" with slavery that 
leading citizens, including the Father of the Country, owned slaves.
Quite a lot of people were okay with owning slaves, or if not 
owning slaves themselves, with other people owning them.  And
they probably had this image in their heads of the slaves being 
happy in their jobs and lack of clothing.  


> Montavilla:
> > 
> > Whether by accident or design, we are left in the last book
> > with no conscience at all. 
> 
> Pippin:
> No conscience but our own, you mean. We're in big trouble if we can't
> tell the difference between right and wrong without an editorial from
> JK Rowling. Certainly we can't be inherently good. 

Montavilla47:
We're not in trouble if we are reading critically.  But I don't think 
the majority of people who read the books do read critically--
especially not children.  

I mean, I never questioned that whole "Son of Adam" thing when
I was a kid and read the Chronicles of Narnia.  As an adult, 
I might have been likely to question why the humans are supposed
to run everything.


> Montavilla:
>  And there's nothing in the book
> > to prevent us from cheering along with everyone else
> > when Harry tortures Amycus.  Indeed, many readers have
> > stated that they did.
> 
> Pippin:
> Who is the everyone else? Nobody cheers in canon, IIRC.
> 
> McGonagall doesn't cheer. She's surprised, and then says it was
> "gallant." That's an equivocal word. It can be used as a synonym for
> "chivalrous" but unlike that word, it can also imply falseness or
> foppishness. Since McGongall follows up by casting a triple patronus
> and then using a curse herself, it's clear she was perfectly capable
> of defending her own honor. Which would make Harry's assumption that
> she needed him to avenge her as much an insult as the spitting. 

Montavilla47:
Interesting reading, but that's not way I interpreted that moment.  I
interpreted it as McGonagall being taken aback initially by Harry's 
use of the curse, then assigning it its true value as a "gallant" action,
and following that up by using an Unforgivable herself which 
puts approval on his action and implicitly giving Harry his place 
as a leader whose actions should be emulated.

This, despite my own feeling that the use of the curse was 
gratuitous, and my own respect for McGonagall as a character.  She
is upheld throughout the series as the "stern, but fair" teacher.
In the absence of Snape (who would have sneered at Harry at that
moment, I hope), she is the least likely person to cut Harry slack for
doing something unbecoming.  Yet, she gives him approval.

Pippin:
> It reminds me a bit of SWM, where James feels virtuous about not using
> "mudblood" while at the same time he's unconsciously insulting Lily by
> implying that her company is for sale. 
> 
> If readers felt good about what Harry did, then they're not opposed to
> torture under any circumstances, despite what they may have thought.
> If you really want to end torture, that's the reality you have to deal
> with. Denial won't get us anywhere, I'm afraid. 

Montavilla47:
The problem I keep running into is that people tend to excuse 
Harry's behavior here because he's under duress, or because Amycus
deserved it.  Like they excuse Marietta's punishment or Umbridge's.
It's all so entertaining.  It feels churlish to keep bringing up that
it's wrong to do these things.

And believe me, not so much on this forum, but on other forums
I have been pointing this out for a couple of years with other posters
vehemently arguing that Marietta, Umbridge, Amycus (and Rita
Skeeter, who is kidnapped and blackmailed) deserved it.  

This is why I don't think a lot of readers "get" that this idea that
JKR is subverting Harry's heroic image.


> > Montavilla47:
> > Where in the book are we asked to forgive the good characters?
> > Other than Dumbledore, who is dead anyway?
> 
> Pippin:
> James,  a hero famous for something he didn't do; Sirius,  for abusing
> Kreacher; Ron, for making cruel jokes; Hermione, for her violent
> temper and her general know-it-all obtuseness. Do I have to go on?

Montavilla47:
I don't get the feeling that JKR thinks James has anything to forgive.
Sirius was mean to Kreacher, but I'm not sure he actually abused 
Kreacher--he just didn't see Kreacher as someone he needed to be
nice to.  As far as Harry's concerned, Sirius's treatment of Kreacher,
while tragically wrong-headed, was never in need of forgiveness.  

All these things you talk about forgiving the characters about are 
outside of the books--something we readers might or might not
pick up on.  Within the books, Ron's cruel jokes are only a problem
in that they interfere with his relationship to Hermone (and that's 
only a problem when they are directed toward Hermione).  They
are less cruel than the jokes of Ginny or the Twins--which are 
never problems at all.  (I can't think of any joke of Ron's that
resulted in bodily harm or required long stays in the hospital 
wing.)

As for Hermione's violent temper and general know-it-allness...
Again, her temper is only a problem in her relationship with 
Ron and only when directed *at* Ron.  And her know-it-allness
is the saving grace of the Trio.  If it wasn't for Hermione knowing
everything, they'd have no idea how to destroy a Horcux, or 
how to escape the wedding, or how to ward their tent, or how to
disguise themselves.  They would have starved for sure without
her mushroom stews.

> > Montavilla47:
> > Exactly, Pippin.  That's who she was talking about and probably what
> > she meant.  But isn't part of her story that given half a chance
> people will do what good they can?
> > 
> > The problem I have with Draco's story is that it's left so ambiguous 
> > that you can easily say that Draco tries to do good and can't, or
> tries to do bad while being pathetically incompetent, or doesn't try
> to do anything at all.
> > 
> > I'm sure that was JKR's intention.  So, I'm going to be unfair and 
> > say I didn't like her authorial choice.
> 
> Pippin:
> Once you've chosen to forgive, what does it matter whether you're
> forgiving Draco for trying to be bad, or for failing at being good, or
> for not trying at all? What does it matter whether Draco himself knows?

Montavilla47:
I'm sorry.  I must have missed the part where Harry chooses to 
forgive Draco.