Choice (was themes and theories)

[pippin_999]

te:
> Pippin wrote:
> 
> (quote <grin>)
> 
> >"It's not possible to live with the Dursleys and not
> >hate them," said Harry. "I'd like to see you try
> >it." --CoS ch 11.

Amy:
> Hm.  I need a little more backup for that opinion. 
> There's no choice whether to hate or not?  

Pippin:
There's loads of examples in the books but the best proof is 
probably empirical. Snape has his fans and even Voldie has his 
apologists but  do you know any readers who *don't* hate 
Umbridge? Does Rowling leave us any choice?

Amy: 
> I was nodding along with your distinction between the
> emotion, hatred, and acting upon it or declining to .
> . . <snip>
> . . . but you seem to be saying that in fact 

> >But for those whom suffering has made bitter and/or
> >cruel, which is *not* presented as  a choice, 

> I don't follow you here.  It's not presented as a
> choice to either become bitter/cruel or not in
> response to suffering?  Is that what you mean?

Pippin:
I was thinking of Harry at the beginning of OOP. He didn't 
*decide* that he was going to become  unfeeling, but he didn't 
feel sorry when he saw that Hedwig had pecked Ron and 
Hermione either. 


Pippin: 
> >it is no longer  easy to turn away from revenge. 

Amy:
> Right.  Not easy.  But still possible.  Or are you
> really saying that JKR is really saying that once one
> becomes bitter and/or cruel one cannot stop the slide
> into ?  How bitter and/or cruel do you mean?  Harry is
> certainly bitter at times, so we must be talking about
> degrees.

Pippin:
Yes, still possible, but much more difficult. JKR said in one of 
her interviews that she believes children are good unless they 
are 'damaged.' So I think she sees evil as a two step process (at 
least) like an infection in a wound. 

All damaged people don't become evil, but people who aren't 
damaged are much more resistant. I don't think JKR is trying to 
negate individual responsibility but to say that while there is  
individual responsibility for fighting the infection, there is social 
responsibility for healing the wound, as it were, especially if 
society caused it in the first place. Sirius couldn't do anything to 
stop Kreacher hating him, but he never tried to ease his suffering 
and that's where he was at fault.

Amy:
> I don't take Harry's line in CoS very seriously.  Yes,
> he hates the Dursleys, but the line doesn't carry a
> lot of weight as a general statement about free will. 
> It's a defensive reaction to a ridiculous assertion by
> Ernie:  that because Harry hates his foster family, he
> hates Muggles in general.  (Note that in his first
> conversation about Muggles, with Ron on the train in
> PS/SS, he specifically distinguishes between the
> Dursleys and most Muggles.)

Pippin:
What makes it general for me is the "I'd like to see you try it" 
which, IMO, invites the reader to imagine himself in Harry's 
position. It is genuine hate, IMO, in that the Dursleys are far 
away, aren't  hurting  Harry at the moment, and yet he still has 
harsh feelings about them. Harry doesn't hate Muggles in 
general despite what the Dursleys have done to him; he's too 
healthy for that. But he didn't decide to be resilient, he just was.

 I see Umbridge's quill as a metaphor for Harry's resilience. As 
much as the quill hurts Harry, it's only after many, many strokes 
that it scars his hand. One gets the impression that someone 
without Harry's magically protected skin would have been 
wounded much more quickly. In other words, people vary as to 
how suffering affects them, so we can't say just because one 
person wasn't permanently damaged that someone else in the 
same circumstances wouldn't be. That Dobby emerged from the 
Malfoy environment with his free will intact and no hatred of 
wizards generally does not mean that every other House Elf 
could do so.


Pippin