[the_old_crowd] Re: Truth or consequences

[GulPlum]

It's been a while...

I'm replying to Talisman's post with one little point, only as a hook into 
this discussion. After that one point I shall go off at a tangent.

At 08:05 16/04/05 , Talisman wrote:

<snip>

>Early on, we get to see DD suborn perjury. (OoP pp 143-145 )

Surely perjury is by definition "telling a deliberate lie under oath"? No 
oaths were administered during Harry's hearing, so this is over-stating the 
case just a little. The hearing itself was a sham (if not unlawful - we're 
not aware of all the ins and outs of Magical jurisprudence but several 
procedural inadequacies were pointed out), and Dumbledore accorded it 
perhaps more respect than it deserved.

That said, now on to my main points.

JKR portrays a multi-faceted and complicated view of "truth" and "honesty" 
in the series. One thing I noticed quite some time ago is that as far as I 
can tell, both the eventual baddie(s) in each book and those set up as 
potential candidates for the role never actually lie. I'm open to being 
proved wrong on that observation, but Quirrell, Snape, Tom Riddle (and 
Ginny, his tool), Sirius and Peter, the Crouches and Umridge (and the 
authorial voice) all leave us to draw our own conclusions about their 
behaviour, but the unmasking of the evil-doer is never a case of having 
been caught out telling an untruth (which is far from the norm in mystery 
stories).

The only people who ever tell deliberate untruths in the Potterverse are 
the good guys (e.g. Harry pretty continually, Hermione occasionally, and 
Dumbledore rarely but often enough to be noticed), but for us readers there 
is a significant context: we ALWAYS know it's a lie at the moment the 
statement is made. Furthermore, if not always overtly, we are at least 
given some indication as to why in a particular circumstance, honesty isn't 
necessarily the best policy for the character.

I even include Figg's evidence to the hearing and Dumbledore's 
encouragement for her to exaggerate her knowledge and experience, and to 
lie about having seen the Dementors. In PoA, we'd been told that Muggles 
can't see them, and in CoS we're told that Squibs are basically Muggles 
born to Magical parents. So we *know* that she didn't see them, and we can 
assume that Dumbledore knows it (given his interest in and tolerance for 
Muggles and Squibs), while the members of the inquisitorial panel don't. 
But we're also given to understand that without Mrs Figg unambiguously 
identifying the assailants as Dementors, Harry doesn't stand a chance. Yet 
we *know* that two Dementors had been present, so a higher justice is being 
served by her lying.

JKR is a moral relativist, and throughout the story, we're given examples 
of small transgressions preventing larger ones. Whether or not this is an 
ethically sound attitude is for every reader to determine for themselves, 
but within the confines of the story, every lie by the good guys is given 
an excuse, and JKR makes it difficult to argue for absolute honesty in all 
circumstances. Of course, some of Harry's lies (for instance, not telling 
Dumbledore about the "voices" in CoS) are difficult to defend in absolute 
terms, but in the context of a teenager's concerns, are perhaps at least 
understandable.

I'm a big fan of TV drama series about lawyers (my paralegal past probably 
has something to do with it) and something which frequently comes up in one 
US series or another is that police officers and DAs are legally and 
ethically entitled to lie in order to trap suspects into giving themselves 
away (which I assume is a correct statement of real-world procedures). (UK 
law, and its dramatic representation, has a similar attitude except that 
out legal system doesn't include the concept of the DA and suspects are 
only ever interviewed by the police.)

Is it *morally* correct for them to do so? This is an issue which some of 
the better series attempt to raise (usually without actually answering 
either way, but encouraging the viewer to think about it).

Given that we are 5/7ths into the series, I suspect that JKR's 
representation of honesty is unlikely to change, and I for one will feel 
extremely cheated if Dumbledore's character was to hinge on a lie we don't 
yet know about. Of course, there are a few things he has refused to tell 
Harry/us thus far (e.g. what exactly happened at Godric's Hollow, and what 
that infamous "twinkle" was about), but I don't accept the possibility, 
either from within the story or in "meta-thinking" terms, that his 
character will do an about-turn; that everything we've heard from him to 
date is a falsehood.

Dumbledore has three basic roles within the plot, of increasing importance 
to himself: headmaster of Hogwarts (whilst he's an essentially 
inspirational role model for the staff and pupils, let's face it: he's a 
pretty crap administrator), mentor to Harry (one of my major 
disappointments with OotP was that a significant element of the plot hinged 
on the Magical world in general, and Voldemort in particular,  being 
unaware of this, which I find ludicrous) and leader of the Order.

He fulfills the first two roles essentially in order to be able to fulfill 
the third, and that is the basis of every one of his decisions. All his 
statements should therefore be understood through the prism of "what's best 
for the Order?". It's quite clear that his relationship with Harry is a 
means to that end, and although he certainly has a Machiavellian streak 
(which is what makes him a good leader for the Order in the first place!), 
in his relations with Harry, he *appears* to temper this streak with a 
certain affection (as he himself admits at the end of OotP).

On top of that, there is his textual role outside the story as *the 
reader's* guide to what's going on. If his essential personality is 
untruthful, then this purpose is invalidated, and it makes the whole story 
a lie. We can differ in our opinions of how good a writer JKR is and how 
good OotP was, but she has thus far been certainly consistent in her use of 
Dumbledore as the moral compass of the story, for better or worse. Whether 
or not he is 100% truthful in all particular circumstances is only a factor 
of his essential humanity: whilst he may know what's going on, he is 
capable of making mistakes (including some big ones!). Nevertheless, the 
only way for him to carry off all his roles within the story and his role 
as the reader's conscience without, is for him to be essentially honest and 
essentially truthful. The promise he made to Harry at the end of PS/SS was 
also made to us readers: our trust in him is our trust in the author.

Furthermore, discussions of the "big themes" in the series are supported 
and exemplified almost exclusively by Dumbledore quotes. He is not only 
Harry's conscience, he is also the author's. We know that he's got ulterior 
motives for all he does, but the ultimate motive has always been presented 
as the downfall of Voldemort and all he believes in. To introduce a motive 
beyond that at this stage would undermine the very heart of the saga and 
its relevance. And I quite simply don't think JKR is *that* bad a writer.

--
GulPlum AKA Richard, not sure if he's making sense