DH reread CH 12

[montavilla47]

No: HPFGUIDX 186451

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> > Montavilla47:
> > 
> > If JKR is trying to subvert the genre, then she needs to 
> > do a better job of letting us know that.  Otherwise, we'll
> > just assume she's following it.
> >
> 
> Pippin:
> She's told us that she's not following it, and doesn't particularly care for it. The work bears that out, IMO.
> 
> I don't think she's subverting the genre. She's re-inventing it to serve her purposes, one of which is to show us that the genre, the consensus fantasy universe, is just wrong about some things. 
> 
> Take the idea that once you step on to the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny. There is no dark path in the Potterverse -- no Force or Ring of Power that compels the person who's made one bad choice to make another. You can rejoin the light any time -- provided you have the courage to realize that you made a mistake. And there doesn't necessarily have to be a bad consequence for you to realize that you made a mistake -- in the real world, people  learn from others' mistakes as well as their own. 

Montavilla47:

But.. the same is true in Star Wars and LotR.  People who make mistakes
in those stories can also choose to return to the Light, or the Hobbits or
the good side whenever they like.  I don't see how she's re-inventing fantasy
to allow free will to her characters.  

I mean, there's no point to even Evil in a story if people don't have a 
choice about committing it.

Moreover, there is a version of the Dark Force in the Potterverse.  It's 
Dark Magic.  But, whether by accident or design, there's no clear sense of
what Dark Magic actually is--except that if the DEs do it, it's bad, and 
if Harry or his compariots do it, it's a necessary or endearing slip.


Pippin:
> The danger, in JKR's world,  is not that doing evil things will erode your conscience until you are like Voldemort. The danger is that you won't realize how much damage you can do *without* being like Voldemort.
> 
> That a character criticizes someone and then does the exact same thing herself happens all the time in canon, no doubt illustrating the concept that it's easier to spot the speck in your neighbor's eye than a two-by-four in your own. 

Montavilla47:
Yes.  I'd say the series illustrates that in spades.

Pippin:
> What McGonagall does is just as foolish and hypocritical as what Harry did, and for the same reason: people are about to die for the right to be governed by laws instead of the whims of one person. What McGonagall's action does is show us *why* that right is worth dying for: because no individual, no matter how well-intentioned and well-behaved they are normally, can be trusted with that kind of power. 
> 
> McGonagall didn't do any great harm by her actions. Amycus and his sister no doubt lived to stand trial for their deeds. But then, no great harm was done by Dumbledore's flirtation with the Dark Arts, until there was. 

Montavilla47:
Right.  No great harm was done by McGonagall's actions, showing that
that power can be wielded by one person as long as they aren't 
homicial maniacs.

I'm all for wizards being governed by laws, rather than by whims of
any one person.  But the books show, over and over again, that 
following the laws is for suckers (like Percy).  Even those, like Arthur, 
who are  tasked with maintaining the law, regularly break or bend them 
to pursue their hobbies or get goodies like QWC tickets.  

And the hero, who breaks rules in every single book, is rewarded
for that behavior with the obvious message that the ends justify
the means.  Whenever Harry defeats Voldemort, his rule-breaking
is rewarded with House points and good luck.