On Harry Potter and His World

[aneeshm]

What's stopping these people from simply taking a dagger, apparating behind each policeman, and knifing every single one? They can do it fast enough that they won't be fired on. With a wand, it becomes even easier.

Or they could use a boggart. The police would be scared shitless.

[Kuciwalker]

If apparition in combat were that easy wizards would use it all the time when fighting other wizards.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
If apparition in combat were that easy wizards would use it all the time when fighting other wizards.

IIRC, the good ones do use it. Remember the fight between Dumbledore and Voldemort? They used apparation quite a bit.

[Sandman]

There is very definitely a Persian-type caste system here.

Gryffindor>Ravenclaw>Hufflepuff>Slytherin

Slytherin and Ravenclaw are in no way 'inferior' to Gryffindor, that is abundantly clear from the books.

The whole concept of the house system used in some British schools is that each house is theoretically equal, and has to compete on its own merits. How you can so utterly misread the situation is beyond me.

Furthermore, your entire genes/mutation argument makes no sense whatsoever in a magical world where people can turn into animals, or travel in time, or teleport.

You might as well ask what percentage of Mordor's economy is devoted to military spending, and then write an essay explaining why it would collapse due to lack of productive investment.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by aneeshm
IIRC, the good ones do use it. Remember the fight between Dumbledore and Voldemort? They used apparation quite a bit.

So the greatest wizards in the wizarding world approach the tactics you describe.

[BeBMan]

6)The consequences of having an entire generation wean themselves on this as an introduction to literature
- The view of literature as escapism
- No real expectation of realism in literature
- An inability to comprehend reality
- An unwillingness to tackle anything harder (than light fantasy)
- A belief in revelatory rescues at the last moment

I applaud you for enlightening us about the evilness of Harry Potter books or fantasy in general. Your next essay could be about children betrayed by their dads in red clothes who give the kids the idea that there is a real Santa and not just guys in red clothes. The consequences for entire generations:

- The view that there is a real Santa
- An inability to comprehend reality, since they'll never figure out the truth
- A belief that everything would be given to them as a gift
- Therefore the complete inability of these kids to work for their own good

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by BeBro


I applaud you for enlightening us about the evilness of Harry Potter books or fantasy in general. Your next essay could be about children betrayed by their dads in red clothes who give the kids the idea that there is a real Santa and not just guys in red clothes. The consequences for entire generations:

- The view that there is a real Santa
- An inability to comprehend reality, since they'll never figure out the truth
- A belief that everything would be given to them as a gift
- Therefore the complete inability of these kids to work for their own good

All is not as it appears. I think I warned my readers that that outline was meant only for me, and to give a (very rough, and mostly inaccurate idea) of how the essay would be structured.

The two controversial points I included which you rightly point out as ridiculous are not what they seem to mean.

It'll become clearer when I post the part relating to that bit.

[aneeshm]

The next part of the essay is up!

2) Voldemort


The Dark Lord has been shown to be the epitome of evil in the books. He has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Even the seat of his consciousness, his soul, is shown to have been mutilated by him himself beyond all hope of redemption. What is ignored is that he fits the stereotype of an old-school hero perfectly. Whether this is deliberate or not is unknown, but a trend towards universal values seems to be indicated by the nature of the rest of the books (which is mostly a positive).

Completely self-made

One striking feature of the Dark Lord is his complete self-sufficiency and independence. We can contrast this with Harry, who is utterly and completely dependent on his mentors and guides for almost the entire series, but that is for a later time. Whatever he does, he does it alone, and does not have any associate of his as a single point of failure. It was only under the most extreme of circumstances that he even considered entrusting himself to Wormtail.

Since childhood, the Dark Lord has always been portrayed as an independent and self-sufficient person. His knowledge of the dark arts was acquired with great effort on his own part. He did not depend on any single source. He always had multiple plans. These are the traits of a self-made man, of a leader, of someone capable of changing the world. And these are positive traits in and of themselves.

The objection here is that these traits are shown to be somehow negative.

Co-operation is emphasised over competition. The idea of a group of friends being “in it together” is shown to be nobler than someone going it alone. Though such ideas are comforting, they are unfortunately (or fortunately) untrue. A true hero is usually self-reliant, and does not need his friends or associates to aid him in his worst hour. Help never hurts, but should never be made as central as it has been.

Passionately curious

The Dark Lord can be accused of many things, but a lack of curiosity is not among them. In the magical world, there is an almost religious taboo about the exploration of the darker aspects of magical power. Information about Dark magic is restricted to a few people. In the true spirit of an explorer and a scientist, the Dark Lord is not afraid to attempt to find out all that he can. He is not bound by the quasi-religious taboos and conservatisms relating to Dark magic.

These taboos are reminiscent of how blind superstition stifled scientific inquiry in India and Europe during each continent's dark ages. The magical world is afflicted with a similar malady. Information is not readily available to the interested magic user. The consequence is best illustrated by an excellent quote: “If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.” The result of such a policy is that the people on the good side unnecessarily cripple themselves, whereas access to such information is easy for the Dark Lord and his cohorts.

Curiosity is a virtue, not a vice, and it has been responsible for all human progress. This is not to say that the Dark Lord is in any way contributing to the progress of the magical community – in fact, the facts support probably the opposite interpretation (that his use of Dark magic will ensure that it is a taboo subject for a long time after he is gone) – but that his defiance of norms in this case is a positive thing. The way he acquires and uses his knowledge is, of course, condemnable.

Immensely resourceful and hard-working, to escape his background

The Dark Lord has shown an ability to be extremely patient, resourceful, and hard-working in the pursuit of his goals. In refusing all employment offers and working at Borgin and Burkes as soon as he completed his schooling, he demonstrates his foresight, and also the fact that he had a coherent plan relating to his future even before he finished his education. The traps he has set around the Horcruxes show us how resourceful he is (it took a team of two people to even approach the Horcrux which was eventually found to be a dud (the locket), the diary Horcrux almost killed Ginny and Harry, and another Horcrux didn't go down without taking Dumbledore's hand with it).

He has made every effort to escape his background. He has (misguidedly) disowned that element of his ancestry which he considered “impure” (his half-bloodedness is a constant source of self-hatred to him), and striven to stress and emulate that aspect which links him to greatness and nobility (the fact of his being the heir of Slytherin).

These efforts are the struggle of a great (though not in any way good) man trying to break out of a past filled with horror and alienation. Which brings us to our next point.

Shown to be an inevitable product of his circumstances; leaving no escape to others similarly situated

There are two ways we can view the Dark Lord. Either he was predestined for infamy, or his circumstances made him that way. Both ways do not lead to a positive conclusion.

If he was predestined for infamy (given his ancestry (of his descent from the “evil” Slytherin)), then it contradicts one of the fundamental tenets of the series, as expressed by Dumbledore, about how it is a person's choices which make them what they are. Indeed, it seems all too convenient that anything connected with Slytherin is almost inevitably evil, and if not outright evil then at least somehow disreputable.

The one good Slytherin in the series, Slughorn, is no paragon of virtue. He shows blatant favouritism, he has no regard for the instructions given by Dumbledore regarding the revelation of the secret of Horcruxes to students, and he tries to cover up his role in revealing the secret. He is portrayed as a person who is not man enough to admit to his mistakes, and is in general not a pleasant character if you're not among his favoured lot. He is a person who goes totally contrary to the egalitarian ethic the books seek to promote, and he is shown as the best Slytherin can offer.

Slytherin and the traits and ethics of that entire house are shown to be in complete contradiction to the system of morality the books promote and promulgate. Roughly a fourth of the magical community are thus shown to be predisposed to evil (as defined by the books).

the Dark Lord's selection in that house, combined with his exceptional skill and power, all but guarantee the nature of his future. It can be argued that given his ancestry, power, and house (all these being things we have previously examined and concluded not to be in the control of the individual), he was predestined for infamy. But convincing though that argument is, its consequences are not reassuring. It means that Dumbledore was wrong in his statement that it is our choices which make us – ancestry, power or skill, and the house you get selected into apparently have a bigger effect, and we are not truly in control of our destiny.
This view is borne out the by concept of “prophecies” as laid out in the books. When a true seer makes a prediction, there is nothing that is capable of averting it. It comes to pass, irrespective of the wills of the actors involved. This completes the argument for predestination and against free will, and thus against the statement made by Dumbledore.

The second way of looking of the Dark Lord is as a product of his circumstances. It could be argued that because of his early realisation of his magical abilities, and his sense of complete alienation and neglect due to this realisation, he was cursed to be a misfit, prone to being abused. It could be further argued that his spectacularly inability to deal with other magical as well as non-magical people is a result of this initial abuse, which stunted him, and left him unable to relate to other humans the way a normal human would.

The only relationships he understands are those of power and hierarchy. He relationship with his own most trusted inner circle are those of fear (and sometimes loathing). The concept of love, of a relationship between equals based on mutual respect, is alien to him, as he has seen first-hand the instability of such relationships, and the inevitability of their failure in reality, due to the nature of the relationships he had as a child.

If we take this view, then people are no more than the product of their circumstances, and can never raise themselves above them. This is truly tragic, and contradicts the statement made by Dumbledore regarding choices making the man.

No matter how you look at it, the Dark Lord seems a tragic figure, whose fate was decided either by his birth or by his circumstances. This, of course, does not absolve him of the crimes he has committed, it merely makes them inevitable and unavoidable. He is to be judged as guilty as he would be had we known nothing about him, but with this knowledge, we can understand him better. What is more, we can also understand his world better, and it is his world that is also to be blamed for having a nature such that the emergence of a Dark Lord was inevitable.


Possesses all the characteristics of a true hero

Had the Dark Lord not fallen, he would have made an excellent hero – neglected and crushed by the world, alienated by his consciousness of his powers, stunted by the cruelty of the world into someone intensely aware of the world's cruelty, intensely aware of the nature of his ancestry and trying to come to terms with his family's fall from grace and its eventual extinction, and yet, struggling on, and eventually overcoming himself, to redeem, not himself, but his world in his own eyes. This would have been the “difficult” route.

Instead, the “easy” route was chosen, where, due to all the things mentioned above, he slips and fails his world and himself.

If the message of the books was one of primarily hope, the hero should have been a redeeming Dark Lord. That, however, would have had neither the emotive appeal nor the reader identification Harry offers, and would have been extremely difficult to execute properly. This flaw is pardonable. But then, why is the Dark Lord given so many characteristics of a hero?


All the above points relating to the Dark Lord are in no way meant to serve as a defence of the Dark Lord. What he became, and what he did, and what he chose, is beyond all doubt deplorable, and completely indefensible. This examination is not meant to deal so much with the Dark Lord as it is with the world that made him possible and, as stated above, inevitable.

[aneeshm]

Is nobody interested in the next part? Is it too non-controversial?

[LDiCesare]

This is fundamentally unjust, because in reality, skills and abilities are acquired and honed by practice and exercise.

Yeah, if I train enough with my 1.63m height I can become a champion in vaulting or beat heavyweight boxers. Hermione is a good witch because (in part?) she works hard. Work, practice and exercise are useful in HP books (e.g.the self defense lessons Harry gave helped his team quite a bit).

Now you want controversy?

This is fundamentally unjust, because in reality, skills and abilities are acquired and honed by practice and exercise.

So the Pandava aren't true heroes, are they?

Voldemort would indeed have made a good hero. He is not, however, a product of the circumstances. He chose not to open himself to Dumbledore, who offered him his friendship and would have been his mentor. Voldemort, however, considered that love or friendship were weaknesses and not strengths, and refused to have anything to do with these. It was a choice, and the author is making this into a very important point: The one thing that makes Harry different from Voldemort is that Harry loves while Voldemort does not. Some people whose parents didn't love one another manage to get strong relationships, so upbringing/circumstances cannot be used as an excuse for refusing love. Consider how much love Harry got as a child, he could have become the same kind of character as Voldemort, hence the hat's hesitation, but HP chose his side.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Is nobody interested in the next part? Is it too non-controversial?

All I saw was: "Dark Lord Dark Lord Dark Lord Dark Lord Dark Lord Dark Lord Dark Lord Dark Lord Dark Lord Dark Lord Dark Lord Dark Lord."

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by aneeshm
They hid because it was the option with the least amount of effort involved. Why bother fighting a race of people so trivial to you that in spite of their best efforts, they can't kill even one of you (witch-burnings not being successful, wizards feeling cool while the fire was raging, etc.)? Much better instead to retreat and get rid of the hassle. These people thought of witch-burnings as we would of a pet humping our furniture - annoying, but nothing to be really concerned about. If it gets to be too much, you can simply sell off the pet (i.e., retreat from the problem).

Here's the problem. I think you are the ONLY one who thinks that a few wizarding folk can defeat the masses of humanity with weapons beyond comprehension.

I agree with Drake in that the only way the wizards win is if they imperius the leaders.

The fact that the government has to tell them what guns are does NOT mean that the wizards think they are so beneath them!!! It's because they've been segregated so long they have no clue what is going on with humanity.. not because they found it was the 'least amount of effort involved' (what a joke... I don't even think that you can find that plausible), but because of fear.

The point remains that the most powerful one is not the chosen one.

So? Rowling saying that technical ability isn't the only determiner in the chosen one? That you need great courage as well to be a wizard? What does this 'prove' exactly.

It isn't like Harry is any slouch in the magic department either, as witnessed by his impressive patronus at the end of PoA.

Of course such a system runs counter to Rowling's goals! That's the whole damn point! I'm saying that in spite of that fact, it still exists. Hufflepuffs are not thought of as highly as the other three houses - they're portrayed as well-meaning and hard-working, but a little light minded. This is a thing that is quite obvious. Try asking any unbiased observer or reader of the books.

As stated before, you are completely mad. There is NO hierarchy in houses, except for those looking for one (ie, you).

And I'll say it again, Cedric Diggory, Cedric Diggory, Cedric Diggory! He's from the "inferior", in your mind, house. Yet, he was the Triwizard challenger. We haven't seen anyone in Ravenclaw who comes close to Diggory in skill.

Seems you completely misunderstood me.

I meant it as an open question - is it wrong?

Um.. YES!! There are probably people out there who consider themselves superior, in every way, to those with down syndrome. We don't allow discrimination even though those *******s, I'm sure, would think since they are superior can trample over them (and for controversy, they are probably correct that they are superior to mentally retarded folk in doing day to day things.. that doesn't make them superior people, FFS!!).

Though such ideas are comforting, they are unfortunately (or fortunately) untrue. A true hero is usually self-reliant, and does not need his friends or associates to aid him in his worst hour. Help never hurts, but should never be made as central as it has been.

Ah... it's a "Voldemort isn't all that bad" type of essay.

Call me when you write about Darth Vader was right and the rebels are communist scum, will you?

I'm done with this drivel.

Oh, but one more for the road:

The one good Slytherin in the series, Slughorn, is no paragon of virtue. He shows blatant favouritism, he has no regard for the instructions given by Dumbledore regarding the revelation of the secret of Horcruxes to students, and he tries to cover up his role in revealing the secret. He is portrayed as a person who is not man enough to admit to his mistakes, and is in general not a pleasant character if you're not among his favoured lot. He is a person who goes totally contrary to the egalitarian ethic the books seek to promote, and he is shown as the best Slytherin can offer.

Dumbledore shows favoritism (tell me he doesn't favor Harry and we can all laugh in your face). Ignores instructions given by the Ministry of Magic (after they fail to believe Voldemort is back). And he makes horrible mistakes because of his ego (why, in trying to get a horcrux does he ONLY go with Harry, when there is an entire Order of the Phoenix to chose from as well?).

*gasp* Slughorn as well as Dumbledore are HUMAN. They make mistakes. They aren't perfect. To use Slughorn's faults to show his house in a bad light is silly.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Here's the problem. I think you are the ONLY one who thinks that a few wizarding folk can defeat the masses of humanity with weapons beyond comprehension.

I agree with Drake in that the only way the wizards win is if they imperius the leaders.

The fact that the government has to tell them what guns are does NOT mean that the wizards think they are so beneath them!!! It's because they've been segregated so long they have no clue what is going on with humanity.. not because they found it was the 'least amount of effort involved' (what a joke... I don't even think that you can find that plausible), but because of fear.

If they fear the non-magical world so much, why did they keep themselves so aloof from it? If it was such a strong presence, they should be quite knowledgeable about it, given the fact that it affects them so much.

But let's agree to disagree on this point. This debate is going nowhere.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The point remains that the most powerful one is not the chosen one.

So? Rowling saying that technical ability isn't the only determiner in the chosen one? That you need great courage as well to be a wizard? What does this 'prove' exactly.

It isn't like Harry is any slouch in the magic department either, as witnessed by his impressive patronus at the end of PoA.

But Harry was chosen when he was a baby. How could he have displayed any bravery then?

And though I do not wish to disparage his magical ability, he was so utterly confident about his patronus because he knew he'd done it already.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Of course such a system runs counter to Rowling's goals! That's the whole damn point! I'm saying that in spite of that fact, it still exists. Hufflepuffs are not thought of as highly as the other three houses - they're portrayed as well-meaning and hard-working, but a little light minded. This is a thing that is quite obvious. Try asking any unbiased observer or reader of the books.

As stated before, you are completely mad. There is NO hierarchy in houses, except for those looking for one (ie, you).

And I'll say it again, Cedric Diggory, Cedric Diggory, Cedric Diggory! He's from the "inferior", in your mind, house. Yet, he was the Triwizard challenger. We haven't seen anyone in Ravenclaw who comes close to Diggory in skill.

Very well. I agree that there is no explicit hierarchy.

But let me put to you this way - if I asked a child of, say, age eleven, which house he would want to belong to, he would almost instinctively go for Gryffindor. If not that, then Ravenclaw. If not that, then Hufflepuff. Only with extreme reluctance would he go for Slytherin. Why is that? It is because though there is no hierarchy, some houses are simply better than others.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Um.. YES!! There are probably people out there who consider themselves superior, in every way, to those with down syndrome. We don't allow discrimination even though those *******s, I'm sure, would think since they are superior can trample over them (and for controversy, they are probably correct that they are superior to mentally retarded folk in doing day to day things.. that doesn't make them superior people, FFS!!).

That's a bit off. I'm talking about comparing two normal, healthy individuals from two species (not from within the same species), or from the same species with some genetic advantage which confers upon them powers which effectively make them as different as another species. People afflicted with ailments aren't really representative.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Though such ideas are comforting, they are unfortunately (or fortunately) untrue. A true hero is usually self-reliant, and does not need his friends or associates to aid him in his worst hour. Help never hurts, but should never be made as central as it has been.

Ah... it's a "Voldemort isn't all that bad" type of essay.

Call me when you write about Darth Vader was right and the rebels are communist scum, will you?

I'm done with this drivel.

Very definitely NOT!

You'll note that (at the end) I explicitly mentioned that the Dark Lord's actions and choices were completely indefensible and deplorable. I also mentioned that this was not meant to be a defence of the Dark Lord in any way.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Oh, but one more for the road:

The one good Slytherin in the series, Slughorn, is no paragon of virtue. He shows blatant favouritism, he has no regard for the instructions given by Dumbledore regarding the revelation of the secret of Horcruxes to students, and he tries to cover up his role in revealing the secret. He is portrayed as a person who is not man enough to admit to his mistakes, and is in general not a pleasant character if you're not among his favoured lot. He is a person who goes totally contrary to the egalitarian ethic the books seek to promote, and he is shown as the best Slytherin can offer.

Dumbledore shows favoritism (tell me he doesn't favor Harry and we can all laugh in your face). Ignores instructions given by the Ministry of Magic (after they fail to believe Voldemort is back). And he makes horrible mistakes because of his ego (why, in trying to get a horcrux does he ONLY go with Harry, when there is an entire Order of the Phoenix to chose from as well?).

*gasp* Slughorn as well as Dumbledore are HUMAN. They make mistakes. They aren't perfect. To use Slughorn's faults to show his house in a bad light is silly.

That's all right.

But Dumbledore is shown favouring the "good guys", whereas Slughorn favours people who can get him stuff, or sometimes even the "bad guys". That is why their favouritism cannot be compared, and if compared, still paints Slughorn in a negative light and Dumbledore in a positive one.

[TCO]

I advise you to change the thesis of your essay to be only the first section. It is plenty rich enough for an essay, unless you choose to write an entire opus on HP's world. I get the impression also that it is the portion that interests you most.

To prove the thesis, you should include more direct qoutes (short ones). They are the most powerful form of evidence. Literary criticism is not pretty writing, but a form of logical argument. Portions of the text itself are the most telling evidence. A good rule of thumb is at least one quote per paragraph and to have at least two, but no more then five points of evidence per paragraph.

On the argument itself, I disagree with you a bit (only). I think that there is a strong "blood tells" theme in HP, but that it is not 100% in that direction. Also, I don't agree with your thesis either that (implicitly) in the real world, blood does not tell either (that all is nurture, none is nature).

I actually think that you don't have to posit the truthfullness of your view of blood in the real world, to write an interesting essay on JKR HP and how it differs from the commonly held liberal view.

Regardless, I want you to make your argument in the most powerful, logical manner. I'm not trying to change you from your liberal beliefs. But try making the argument with more sophistication, less assumption of correctness.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by TCO

I advise you to change the thesis of your essay to be only the first section. It is plenty rich enough for an essay, unless you choose to write an entire opus on HP's world. I get the impression also that it is the portion that interests you most.

I'm trying to write the essay in such a manner that each unit is a self-sufficient whole, but that when put in the right order, the larger essay becomes more than the sum of its parts.

That way, each can be commented upon and discussed separately, yet the whole essay also serves to drive home a larger point.

And it is the first, fourth, fifth, and sixth parts of the essay which interest me most. The treatment of Voldemort and Harry is necessary to fully bring out the points given in these four sections.

Originally posted by TCO

To prove the thesis, you should include more direct qoutes (short ones). They are the most powerful form of evidence. Literary criticism is not pretty writing, but a form of logical argument. Portions of the text itself are the most telling evidence. A good rule of thumb is at least one quote per paragraph and to have at least two, but no more then five points of evidence per paragraph.

I'll include them once I'm done writing the meat of the essay. And to be honest, I don't intend this to be literary criticism, it's just my thoughts.

Originally posted by TCO

On the argument itself, I disagree with you a bit (only). I think that there is a strong "blood tells" theme in HP, but that it is not 100% in that direction.

Of course. I'm trying to create a coherent theory of how blood intermixes with magic, which I will include in the extra material section, and I'll give my personal views on the HP books in the Author's Note at the end.

Originally posted by TCO

Also, I don't agree with your thesis either that (implicitly) in the real world, blood does not tell either (that all is nurture, none is nature).

I'm saying that if placed in exactly the same circumstances (past and present are exactly the same), groups of humans tend to react the same way. It's a very general thing, which cannot be made specific to individuals.

Originally posted by TCO

I actually think that you don't have to posit the truthfullness of your view of blood in the real world, to write an interesting essay on JKR HP and how it differs from the commonly held liberal view.

I'm not really a "liberal" in the modern sense (though I most definitely am one in the conventional sense), though that may be the overwhelming impression if you read the essay. In fact, I disagree with then on many issues (the same way I disagree with conservatives on many issues). The conservative side may come out better with the treatment of the later parts.

Originally posted by TCO

Regardless, I want you to make your argument in the most powerful, logical manner. I'm not trying to change you from your liberal beliefs. But try making the argument with more sophistication, less assumption of correctness.

I thank you for that.