lit. crit. and Potter

[mooseming]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, Sean Dwyer <ewe2 at a...> wrote:

> > 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.
> 
I think you have misunderstood me (my bad I'm sure!). I take post-
modern to be a rejection of absolutes including morality, there is 
no definable good/bad or right/wrong. Everything depends on 
perspective. By isolating the WW from the real world JKR can explore 
the moral dimension without addressing the more gnarly contemporary 
debates surrounding power, equality and responsibility whilst *at 
the same time* not denying those debates.

The WW itself is modern not post-modern. Good and bad do exist as 
identifiable attainable concepts. Our ability to be good is a 
function of our desire to be so and our comprehension of the choices 
available. The plurality of the WW is an attempt to re-create 
paradise and assumes there is such a thing to be attained. 
> 
> 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.

This is exactly the problem post-modernists have. No matter how hard 
you try you can't please everyone! What is good for some is not good 
for others. The house elves are a useful case, are we to believe 
Dobby or Winky? If we do what is right for one will we harm the 
other, who has the right to choose? DD's behaviour is another 
example, he encourages students to engage in dangerous tasks, 
children have died in the triwizard tournament and yet freedom and 
risk are, in certain circumstances good, overprotection, bad.

The pluralistic model also depends on the existence of the FF. It 
assumes you can do something right for those destructive to the 
majority. Take that option away and your paradise begins to unravel. 
What rights for Aragog then?

> 

> 
> > 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.
> 
Ah but those witch hunts weren't dangerous, the flames simply 
tickled. The separation maybe provident for the WW but is that true 
of the muggle world. Are moralists apart? Damn the infidels and all 
that.  Can muggles be seen as mostly harmless and expendable? In 
which case doesn't that make Salazar right?

Regards
Jo