| 1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users) |
|
Underlying themes and dual interpretation, Conflicting intepretations in Harry Potter |
|
|
|
 Feb 1 2008, 03:16 PM
|
Being Chosen by a Wand at Ollivander's
Posts: 2,977
Joined: 12:37pm April 28, 2007
|
Let me preface this discussion by saying that I do not consider Harry Potter a morality tale, and believe we will find ourselves continually disappointed if we expect Jo Rowling to come up with solutions to the world problems. And although I will fight with all my might to support anyone's right to discuss, their opinion, idealism, I also support and defend my and any other's posters right to disagree with those opinions within the unwritten and written rules of this site, common curtesy and public debate.
This thread is designed to discuss how the Harry Potter books, like other literary works, especially fiction, works to send out underlying messages that even the author unaware of. For example, there are dicussion in the LOTR fandom who feel certain passages in LOTR support ideals linked to Aryan purity. Many film critics were disturbed by Jar-Jar-Binks speech patterns, or even the Ewoks as primitive but cute and lovable edition that suggest a racist point of view of some cultures.
There are many themes in Harry Potter I possibly did not notice or didn't list to keep this opening post somewhat legible. However, I welcome any additions to these matters in this thread, including religious and philosophical. I am listing four that stand out for me.
Please feel free to add your own. The only thing I would ask of fellow posters is rather than make this a shipping/canon discussion of any sort, (except canon used to illustrate a particular theme) we try stick to literary themes found in Harry Potter and how they can be interpreted in positive/negative ways or the possibilities that could be exploited by certain political, religious, or philosophical factions. If any one would like to add the discussion the question as to whether or not seven fantasy books designed for young people can or will not have any influence on how young people regard real world institutions of events, I would consider that topical in this thread as well.
1. Snape finding Lily the only the Muggleborn person worthy of sacrifice and change. On a individual basis, this is a story of one man redemption of a sorts. And on a personal basis it works. But idealistically--that is the individual reaction to something like terrorism or national policy of genocide-- it can get a little troublesome.
Dumbledore is able to use Slughorn and Snape because they found Lily attractive and loved her. The three high profile Slytherins who do the right thing are Regulus, because Voldemort maltreated his servant, not because he disagreed with Voldemort's policy of genocide; Slughorn does not agree with Voldemort's policies, but he prefers hiding to fighting, and is only called upon to do the right thing--and this is after two students are nearly killed, (one in his presence) -- by Harry playing on his affection for Lily, and Snape only goes to Dumbledore to save the woman he loved.
There are many things not said here: Is the possibility of attraction the only path to redemption for those who find themselves on either side of a totalitarian crisis or struggle. Should: Slughorn's (I don't imagine anyone who met her wouldn't have liked her..Very brave..Very funny... only have referred to Lily or should it have embraced each and every Muggle born, half-blood, or pure-blood person victimized by the war?
Of course, one method of creating interest in the actions of fascist or totalitarian regime to disaffected outsiders is to focus on the loss of something that community would find valuable. However, would an disaffected public join the fight against injustice if the testimony came from someone ordinary in intellect, experience, or appearance? (A little note--I recall one of the photographer's in the first part of the hunger crisis in Ethiopia in the seventies, saying he used to black and white photos because the people, even starving, were so beautiful, that outsiders would be moved by the photographs as art, not as information.)
2) [iMarietta's facial scars and the definition of betrayal as it crosses cultural lines. [/i] Magic does make some thing possible which would not be tolerated in real life except as outright abuse. However, it difficult, if not impossible, for anyone to claim that facial mutilation in the real world is anything but a form of torture, but the lines are blurred in a magical world. But we are still left the image with a young woman made to bear the scars of her small group's verdict of betrayal. In real life this is no minor thing.
3 Kreacher and Dobby's fates. Harry sees the elves' after the battle. He saw Kreacher lead them against wizards and giants and dragons. When he thinks of Kreacher coming to him, it is to make him a sandwich, not as friend, but as a servant. It is not to give Kreacher his freedom and offer him a place in his household, as his service proves invaluable. I'm pretty certain Jo did not mean to imply that if the master is kind, one should not desire freedom, but what are readers to draw from this? I have no problem with the idea of service as a vocation, or the ancient tradition of viewing a Master as a teacher. But other than explaining what Regulus wanted to do, Harry does not serve as a teacher to Dobby or Kreacher. Dobby does not long for freedom but an end to abuse, and once again he is place into a situation when even the wages he demands are a token wage--not a living wage. He shows no desire to make a home or family of his own. Jo is English with a love for images found in the works of her own countrymen: We could read Dobby's death, or Regulus sacrifice as a reflection of Kipling sentiments :
QUOTE 'E carried me away
To where a dooli lay,
An' a bullet come an' drilled the beggar clean.
'E put me safe inside,
An' just before 'e died,
"I 'ope you liked your drink", sez Gunga Din.
So I'll meet 'im later on
At the place where 'e is gone --
Where it's always double drill and no canteen;
'E'll be squattin' on the coals
Givin' drink to poor damned souls,
An' I'll get a swig in hell from Gunga Din!
Yes, Din! Din! Din!
You Lazarushian-leather Gunga Din!
Though I've belted you and flayed you,
By the livin' Gawd that made you,
You're a better man than I am, Gunga Din!
http://quotations.about.com/cs/poemlyrics/a/Gunga_Din.htm
But this is a generation of young people for whom certain subjects like War World Two, the Holocaust, the division of the Middle East and the beginnings of the state of Israel, the human rights struggle before and after Second World War and slave narration are not a part of tradition history but delegated to occasions like Black History Month.
And in dealing with the Elves have to keep in mind HP is fantasy, therefore a fantasy representation of slavery, not an accurate one of the institution. Although in much science fiction and fantasy an alternate species or even man made species like robots is used to illustrate the evil of the institution of slavery (not service!), it is stressed that Elves are humanoid not humans, therefore in Jo's world may have no prior conception or history of enslavement or freedom--except Dobby.
However, because Jo's story is so tightly woven around Hermione's realization that slavery is wrong, that is it possible that the elves story could leave the younger reader, with a very different impression of why the Institution of slavery is considered an ethical wrong on a number of levels?
4) Although Squibs --because they are a part of the magical community-- have a chance to play a part in the struggle against evil, there is otherwise, not a decent Muggle or Slytherin in the seven novels. Few Muggle abilities are thought of as worthy, except love, and love is powerless without magic. For example Petunia's acceptance of Harry seals the bond of blood Dumbledore forged, rather than Petunia accepting Harry forging a magical bond of blood that already existed between her sister and herself without Dumbledore's interference.
Feel free to grab any of the subjects and discuss, or bring in one of your own. Please have fun.
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 1 2008, 03:58 PM
|
Flesh-Eating-Slug Catcher
Posts: 159
Joined: 4:27pm September 22, 2005
Location: New Mexico, USA
|
1. Snape finding Lily the only Muggleborn person worthy of sacrifice and change. This personalizes the feelings of love and sacrifice. Certainly there are many muggle borns who have value - Hermione, Dean Thomas, Ted Tonks. They are examples of what you could consider the muggle born superiority when compared to people like the Carrows, Lestranges, or Greyback. Lily is not the only muggle worth loving, but Snapes and Slughorns admiration of her, as well as others such as Lupin, is a testament to both her looks and her personality, her ability to find the good in the least likely people.
2) Marietta's facial scars and the definition of betrayal as it crosses cultural lines. I am not sure exactly what you mean by this, but I was disappointed that nothing more was made out of this. Hermione got off scot free for doing this, and we never find out if the marks go away or if she is scarred for life. There are many things the Trio gets away with, but this is one of the worst examples.
3 Kreacher and Dobby's fates. Lets not forget about Winky. The three elves demonstrate 3 extremes of the condition of slavery. Dobby, abused and desiring freedom. Kreacher, shows great devotion to those who treat him nice, betrays the "good guy" Sirius because he treats him bad and goes to the "bad guys" Cissy and Bella because they treat him nice (but only for their own purposes), and is driven insane by his failure to complete the task left to him by his favorite master. When Harry promises to help him he becomes a different elf. Winky, she is, as far as we can tell, treated nicely in her home and is shamed because she was not able to obey a command and allowed Crouch, Jr. to escape, causing her being set free. As far as Harry thinking about asking Kreacher for a sandwich, he has been up for 36 hours and is not probably thinking very clearly. We are not privy to the conversation he has with Kreacher when he is called on, but I am sure Harry would have some kind words for him. He would probably offer the elf his freedom, but Kreacher would not want it. It is difficult to make comparisons to Elf enslavement (and robots for that matter) to real life because of the nature of elfs and their enchantment. Unfortunately we are not really told much about how they got into that condition. (I do like the Gunga Din quote)
4) Although Squibs have a chance to play a part in the struggle against evil, there is otherwise, not a decent Muggle or Slytherin in the seven novels. I would have liked to have seen more decent Slyterins in the story, other than Snape and Slughorn, just to show that they are not all evil. True to their type, they either fight on LV side or quietly sit in the background and try not to be noticed. This is a wizarding story and there is not really much room for the muggles. Some sympathetic neighbors of the Dursleys, or a little more of the Grangers would have been nice. Aunt Petunia and her family were there strictly for the contrast of nice boy/evil step family as you see in many fairy tales (Snow White, Cinderella, etc.)
One comment on LOTR. I did find it a little disturbing how it portrays the allies of Mordor. It is blatantly a west vs. east story. After I read about Tolkein and some 19th century history, I realized he was mostly a product of his times with the events that surrounded him. The Ottoman Empire had recently fell, conflicts within the territories of the British Empire, etc. that surely influenced him.
This post has been edited by Bombadillo: Feb 1 2008, 04:02 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 1 2008, 04:12 PM
|
Terrortours Travel Agent
Posts: 6,828
Joined: 12:34pm January 24, 2007
|
On Slytherins: For several months before DH came out I supported the fan theory that Snape was loyal to the anti-Voldemort cause becasue he had found out at some point that Voldemort had killed Eileen. Though the specifics turned out to be wrong there was an essential part that was correct in that theory - that Snape was motivated by something very personal rather than by idealism. I think that was an essential part of his character - everything was personal to him. But with your comparison to Slughorn and Regulus - perhaps this is rather common in Slytherin - someone who is really involved in Slytherin culture is not inclined towards abstract ideals, everything is personal. At least initially. Or perhaps it is their learning style. We do not know who were all the 6 boys who were chatting with Slughorn in that memory but the 3 we do know were probably Slytherins, at least one of them from a family pure enough to marry into the Blacks. I wouldn't be surprised if initially the Slug Club was a club of pureblood Slytherin males. Lily didn't match any of these criteria. It isn't clear if she was the first Muggle-born to be accepted into the club, but she certainly wasn't the only one - there was at least also Dirk Cresswell. So even if it took a pretty and likable girl to make Slughorn pay attention, he did overcome his prejudice (at least to some degree). And even Snape forbade Phineas Nigellus to call Hermione a mudblood, so I think at some point even Snape learned something more general . (We had to wait for the epilogue to see that Harry overcame his prejudice against Slytherin.)
Of course, in reality it is not uncommon for people to re-evaluate their position because of something very personal. The question is whether they generalize from the specific case, and whether this happens rather quickly (from 'I just realized this very attractive and decent person is a member of group X' to 'there is no justification to hate someone for being an X') or if it takes years and decades.
Regarding Muggles - we know the decent Muggles are out there, though out of sight. There are all the parents of Muggle-born students who embraced their child's difference and cared about hir happiness. Colin Creevey was sending all those photographs home because his Muggle parents cared about him and what went on in his life. Justin Finch-Fletchley's parents agreed to send him to Hogwarts instead of Eton despite the fact that in their circles they were giving up status, because Hogwarts was a better fit for their son. But I do adore those fanfics where Hermione/Snape/Dumbledore work on reconciling magic with Muggle science, and I think this kind of thing is indeed lacking in the series. The Flamels were around long before the Statute of Secrecy. They remember the days when Muggles were just people. Wouldn't it have been nice to discover that one of Nicholas and Albus' joined projects was about the application of particle physics to alchemy?
To Bombadillo:
Re: elves - They are portrayed very much like the Slytherins - not driven by ideology but by personal ties.
QUOTE Aunt Petunia and her family were there strictly for the contrast of nice boy/evil step family as you see in many fairy tales (Snow White, Cinderella, etc.)
More often than not nice *girl*/evil stepfamily (though there are Cinderboy stories too). The orphan boys generally get families that are decent but of lower social standing than their biological one. I have seen a fan claim that this makes Harry a bit effeminate as a character.
This post has been edited by Oryx: Feb 1 2008, 04:20 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 1 2008, 04:51 PM
|
Being Chosen by a Wand at Ollivander's
Posts: 2,977
Joined: 12:37pm April 28, 2007
|
QUOTE It is difficult to make comparisons to Elf enslavement (and robots for that matter) to real life because of the nature of elfs and their enchantment. Unfortunately we are not really told much about how they got into that condition. (I do like the Gunga Din quote) Thanks. It is what I immediately thought of when I read that chapter.
QUOTE This personalizes the feelings of love and sacrifice. Certainly there are many muggle borns who have value - Hermione, Dean Thomas, Ted Tonks. I agree, this was Jo's intent. Howwever, about the fate of those who do not seem to have any particular value, the nameless, faceless people? Is there any indication that redemption is offered to someone like Nott for instance, as there is no pretty Muggleborn to turn his head towrad decency, and we never know what he felt aobut Death Eater's abandoning his father? And rather than put ourselves in Snape's shoes, let us put ourselves in the shoes of Mary McDonald whom is rather forgettable, I imagine. We know that Lily, James, Sirius, Lupin and other members of the Order were willing to put their lives on the line to protect these nameless people.
From what we see, there was nothing about these people that was able to reach through Snape. He didn't find them attractive, therefore they were not valuable. He accepted the Dark Lord's sentence of torture and death for these people and is not moved by their misery. Contrast this with Schindler who was moved when he saw first hand the misery of persons thrown in the labor camps/death Camps. What does Snape's tragic story of love betrayed-- and he betrayed it--about our own involvement against injustice? Are we as human beings only moved to act or indignation when we care for or find attractive or value according to our own culture. Does this affect how quickly we move to act on injustice? If this is the case, have we learned nothing from our experience with small and great acts of injustice, genocide, our demolition of cultures and societies alien to our own?
QUOTE I am not sure exactly what you mean by this, but I was disappointed that nothing more was made out of this. Hermione got off scot free for doing this, and we never find out if the marks go away or if she is scarred for life. There are many things the Trio gets away with, but this is one of the worst examples. It doesn't matter what I meant, you captured the spirit of what kind of discussion I hoped for with your response. I was not so much dissapointed that the trio gets away with it, but more because nothing more is made of this. Other than Cho, we do not see any of the "Good" guys feeling any sort of mercy towards Marietta in books where mercy, forgiveness, atonement, repentence are discussed. I wish I could have seen more of this behavior in the younger characters of the book as the book is designed for the younger audience.
QUOTE Of course, in reality it is not uncommon for people to re-evaluate their position because of something very personal. The question is whether they generalize from the specific case, and whether this happens rather quickly (from 'I just realized this very attractive and decent person is a member of group X' to 'there is no justification to hate someone for being an X') or if it takes years and decades. Yes, that is the question Snape's story raises, because of his actions. There is nothing to indicate he ever changed his mind about Muggle-borns or Muggles until the end of his life. Do we work to save lives or protect the rights of persons only because of personal feelings or that they offer something valuable? Who determines what is not valuable, who is worthy to survive. Do we like Sirius, toss everything into the garbage because it belongs to a certain society we disliked?
I have to leave, but I wanted to say I found the first two responses to this thread very encourging if this is the direction the thread is going in. Thank you both for fine, thoughtful post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 1 2008, 05:53 PM
|
Flesh-Eating-Slug Catcher
Posts: 151
Joined: 9:30am December 6, 2007
Location: Feet on the ground; head in the clouds.
|
Yes, that is the question Snape's story raises, because of his actions. There is nothing to indicate he ever changed his mind about Muggle-borns or Muggles until the end of his life.
I think there is a moment in his memories where he chastises someone for using the phrase mudblood. I'm not that I agree with your characterization of Snape or Regulus. I think both men are attracted to Voldemort as an abstract not a reality. Snape is the high school loser who is bullied, teased and never gets the girl. The death eaters offer him acceptance and power. When he takes the prophecy to VM, he doesn't know whom it references. He sees only a chance to prove himself worthy, make himself more valuable. Snape is appalled once the abstract becomes reality. No longer is VM attacking the faceless or meaningless; now he is attacking Snape's former best friend (and unrequited love). Yes, his immediate reaction is to try to save Lily and allow his hated enemy (James) to die. DD has to push Snape to think and grow more. Sure, Snape loves Lily but I don't know that we can read that as the only reason he joins the Order. It serves as an initial motivation but Snape continues in the Order for seventeen years. I'm not sure that he could sacrifice and place himself in mortal danger (Let's be real, if VM catches him a traitor, it won't be a quick or painless death.) if he didn't truly belive in the cause.
Regulus also is attracted to notion of VM as representing an elite members-only type of club. VM's callous treatment of Kreacher along with his disregard for Kreacher's life shocks Regulus into seeing the reality of VM. Regulus is further appalled by his own hand in mistreating Kreacher, his own racism, hatred, etc. He tries to thwart VM and sacrifices himself in doing so. (Atonement?)I don't read either man as superficial or unchanging. I read two immature, misguided people who do grow and change exactly as you have hoped they would.
--------------------
I'm forever blowing bubbles, pretty bubbles in the air. On you Irons!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Feb 2 2008, 03:26 PM
|
Official Singer of the Sorting Hat Song
Posts: 6,306
Joined: 3:12pm July 22, 2005
Location: Lost in Hermione's beaded bag
|
Perhaps I'm just slow this morning, but who is Alice and why does she need saving and what do her looks have to do with it?
More than a few film critics were offended by Jar-Jar Binks. It wasn't that he was there for low, slapstick comic relief, but that he was so obviously Stepin Fetchit in alien disguise.
1. Snape finding Lily the only Muggleborn person worthy of sacrifice and change.
Well, the Snape/Lily story is a little more complicated than "sacrifice and change". She's not simply the only Muggle-born Snape's cared about, she's the first friend he has and the first witch of his own age that he's met and the only person he ever really confided in. It isn't simply that he tried to save her, it's that he was the one who betrayed her. And he didn't change so much as found himself isolated for life. He doesn't become a nicer person. He remains torn and conflicted, never wholly in Dumbledore's camp and double agent in the Death Eaters. During her American tour in October, JKR's comments about Snape began with saying he wasn't a hero, then to he's an anti-hero, and finally to he's kind of a hero. What Snape did feel was remorse and he spent his life regretting his choice to follow Voldemort.
2) Marietta's facial scars and the definition of betrayal as it crosses cultural lines. I don't understand this either. Marietta's betrayal deserved what she got. If one is looking for poetic justice, wasn't the sacking of Dumbledore and the torture of the DA punishment enough for Marietta's scars? Or is one defending established authority under all circumstances? Are we all to become "good Germans" complicit in larger crimes simply because we did not defy the lawful authority?
3 Kreacher and Dobby's fates. Well, I don't see eye to eye with you on the fate of house elves. And Harry wonders if Kreacher might bring him a sandwich, which is hardly a commanding thought. House elves are enslaved and it's a perfect analogy. However, forced emancipation of someone old and fixated as Kreacher would be willful cruelty. House elves are slaves in the Classical style, so there is an obligation held by the master/employer to provide for their old age. And I'm not sure how a young reader would misunderstand why slavery is wrong from the story of house elves. I don't follow that line of argument.
4) Although Squibs have a chance to play a part in the struggle against evil, there is otherwise, not a decent Muggle or Slytherin in the seven novels. Hmmm. Well, I disagree. Hermione's parents, Frank Bryce and to some extent even the Muggle Prime Minister are all decent folk. I'm not sure how Muggles are meant to enter the picture if they can't see the Wizarding World. As for Slytherin, Phineas Nigellus and Slughorn are decent wizards. And we only know a half dozen or so wizarding families who are Death Eaters. Regulus does not simply turn on Voldemort because of the incident with Kreacher, although that is the turning point. There is an elapse of time where he must have reconsidered the Death Eater philosophy.
This post has been edited by davidenglish: Feb 2 2008, 03:33 PM
--------------------
Come the words that bubble
Up through broken laughter,
Sweeter than spring-water,
"Gods, I am so happy!"
|
|
|
|
  Similar Topics
 Similar Topics
|
Sorting is now open for our Prisoner of Azkaban reading groups! Click here to sort!
Shopping at The Cauldron Shop supports this forum!
|
