Underlying themes and dual interpretation, Conflicting intepretations in Harry Potter |
 Feb 1 2008, 03:16 PM
Post
#1
|
|
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. |
 |
 
 
|
(I'm teasing) I only repeated the criticism. I didn't make them. And think I made it clear in the first paragraph of the introduction of this threat that I neither want or expect a morality tale from Jo or any other author. The general gist of the thread is not an accusation that Jo does these things, but examining certain criticism.
