[the_old_crowd] Re: lit. crit. and Potter

[Sean Dwyer]

On Sat, Feb 12, 2005 at 01:50:13PM -0000, mooseming wrote:

> HP however is set in a Post Modern world where morality has, for 
> some, become entirely divorced from other concerns.  This separation 
> is expressed in the magical/muggle divide. The magical world 
> represent the moral sphere whereas the muggle world represents the 
> political sphere. The muggle world is grey, conformist, material and 
> without substance. Although in the books magic is an inherited trait 
> it is not dependent on who your parents are and JKR is giving the 
> reader the choice of which world he/she wishes to inhabit or 
> identify with. She is essentially saying morality is a choice take 
> it or leave it. 

Yes, I think HP thoroughly postmodern. It has that bright patchwork of goodies
the bowerbird collects, as much for contrast as a reminder that the past is
not truly always behind us. But if the WW represents anything, probably more
as a world with real meaning; the kind of world that makes more sense to a
child, although it has rapidly taken on aspects of the world left behind as
the series has continued, and that is deliberate, and is meant to be sad in
some ways. I also think it more likely that the WW would think its morality
superior to Muggles; Voldemort is the exception that proves the rule. Given
the Muggle propensity to blow up anything and anyone they don't agree with,
wizards are laid back by comparison, but it doesn't make them any more
ethical.

> We have two major signalled, but not elaborated on, events. The 
> Hogwarts founders fallout and the events at Godric's Hollow.

Neither of which are fully or satisfiably explained. The Hogwarts Founders
Fallout is the more vexing, it would be expected to be baseline knowledge to
the students. But we are meant to believe that Harry has no head for history,
which becomes less and less convenient.

> Resolution of the former was achieved by the banishment but not 
> destruction of the bad (Salazar Slytherin). The outcome was 
> persistent internalised conflict, represented by the division of the 
> school houses and a legacy of  suppressed expression as represented 
> by the chamber of secrets. Resolution of the later was achieved by 
> the partial but not complete destruction of the bad (Voldemort). The 
> outcome was more unresolved animosity (on both sides) and the 
> continued subversion of `dark' magic. Some (not mainstream) 
> speculation has proposed that additional complications were created 
> at that time. The present conflict should therefore have a different 
> strategy in order to provoke a different, and hopefully more 
> positive, outcome.

If memory serves, Salazar was not banished, but 'went solo'. We aren't told
what happened afterwards anyway, but this seems more destablizing than a
hearty 'get thee hence' from the surviving bandmembers. Another thing for book
6 to hopefully resolve. Given the need for symmetry, perhaps Slytherin amassed
sundry forces of darkness and the WW had it's first major split along these
same lines, until DD's antecedent temporarily resolved the problem. It begins
to make some theories more viable in this case.

> Hogwarts is the home of pluralism. Its ethos is cooperation, 
> communication, forgiveness, trust, tolerance and redemption. It is 
> the place for second chances. The house to which you are assigned 
> does not determine your moral choices, those are individual. 
> Subscribe to the school philosophy and all will be well. 

Sounds nice, but it's not so pluralistic for Winky is it? Otherwise Hogwarts
seems to exemplify the source of the WW middle class. House elves are
themselves almost anachronistic within the WW, is it not strange that Hogwarts
does not gently retrain the elves to be free? Isn't that what they should
want? You see what gentle and not-so-gentle jabs JKR can make and have
Hermione take the heat for it.

> Even those unable to coexist within the school because of 
> temperament or individual needs have a space of their own, the 
> Forbidden Forest, outside the school itself but within the grounds:
> 
> Dragons scorch you
> Spiders thrive
> Unicorns fix you
> You might survive
> 
> Home to the dispossessed, the discarded and the downright dangerous 
> it is anarchical but not amoral. I like to think of it as Hogwarts 
> equivalent to Australia (joke).

I'm afraid Fudge is in charge down here; Umbridge is running the detention
centres. But I liked the Dorothy Parker filk :) And technically the Forbidden
Forest is a kind of approved sanctuary, but don't tell the centaurs I said
that! JKR very carefully wrote _Fantastic Beasts & Where To Find Them_ and
there's important backstory from it relevant to the Forest.

> Hogwarts is ailing however, the first conflict left its poison. An 
> inability to effectively teach DADA, inter house conflict and 
> individual  vendettas which spill out into the greater magical 
> world. The second conflict is, at least in part, a result of the 
> poison from the first, it did not resolve any of the long term 
> issues indeed it may have exacerbated these. From this perspective 
> our saga will be complete only when the poison is flushed from the 
> Hogwarts system. The moral world must learn from past mistakes, 
> balance must be restored.

My view is that JKR is as likely to leave the bigger picture unresolved if it
allows Harry's to be finalized. Unexplained vistas are useful to the world's
realism as Tolkien once said. Didn't fool anyone though.

> What though of the magical/muggle divide? Will this also be 
> addressed? Does JKR truly believe that muggles are essentially 
> laughable, pitiable but mostly harmless. Is the balance of existence 
> ok if morality operates separately from the mundane?

I once rather unfairly made Harry responsible for solving this dilemma. It is
after all a conceit of the WW that Muggles be seen that way, but the more
intelligent wizards remember the witchhunts. Remember that the worlds are
carefully kept seperate, on both sides, for good reasons like witchhunts and
extremests. The Fudges of both sides eagerly trample their own people to avoid
any fateful meeting. It's questions like these that make me wonder how JKR
will ever meet such expectations.

> I am rationally amoral but by nature morally inclined. I would 
> dearly love JKR to address the above because I, for one, could do 
> with some guidance.

Amen to that.


-- 
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."