Moral Choice in the Harry Potter Novels

Discussion for Moral Choice in the Harry Potter Novels (http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/editorials/edit-vwoeste01.shtml) by Victoria Saker Woeste.

how right you are . great editorial

You are a professor of what???

Your knowledge and extrapolation are incredible!

I agree that Snape is the most interesting character with the most surprises ahead in book 7.

Woo, refreshingly good editorial. Loved the different parts, about Harry's freedom of choice and the "Snape loves Lily" theory, and how they were brought together. Not too sure about that last part though. "Mudblood" isn't a term that's used lightly in the wizarding world, and I don't know if someone who loved another (even if they were embarrassed by them) would use it. I guess we'll see though!

In conclusion, kudos to you.

Brava! I've been waiting for someone to do a serious theological analysis of HP.

I was especially struck by your point that Harry has not really been tempted. It is true that Harry has been given no reason to join Voldemort's side, no reason not to hate the Death Eaters. Anakin Skywalker is tempted, and falls victim to the Dark Side through his own pride, envy, and, ironically, his love for Padme and fear for her sake. Sam Gamgee is tempted, and resists the false promises of the Ring through his own humility and reason. Also, Bilbo, Frodo and Sam all refrain from killing Gollum at times when they have the ability and motivation to do so - thus, ironically, making the fulfillment of Frodo's quest possible.

However, there are several minor points of temptation in the books. Harry can't stand Hermione, but when the troll is loose, he knows that finding her and warning her is the right thing to do, even at risk to himself. Dobby causes Harry a great deal of pain and trouble, but Harry finds a way to free him - note that it is sympathy for Dobby that motivates him, and not the desire for revenge on Lucius Malfoy. He even saves his despicable cousin from Dementors. His instinct for protecting others seems so unerring that he comes to rely on it once too often; imagine his devastation when he tries, as he thinks, to rescue Sirius, whom he knows and loves, only to be the indirect cause of his death.

Then, in _Half-Blood Prince_, Harry makes a number of dubious moral choices. It starts with small things; he accepts what could be considered an unfair advantage in Potions and wins the Felix Felicis, which then encourages him to take advantage of Hagrid's grief and Slughorn's greed to get the memory Dumbledore wants. He wins a Quidditch game by distracting the Slytherin Seeker with a taunt. None of these are obviously wrong choices, but they have a gray tinge to them, and at last one of them takes him too far: he uses "Sectumsempra" on Draco, and is horrified by the result. However, his genuine regret is overwhelmed by his resentment of Snape and his desire to hold on to the book from which he learned the spell.

It is encouraging that even in the aftermath of Dumbledore's death Harry can feel some pity for Draco; it remains to be seen whether he can find compassion for Snape, and possibly even for Voldemort.

This is an excellent editorial. There aren't too many of them that succeed in showing me a different perspective to the series. Snape is morally conflicted, whereas Harry really hasn't had to deal with temption yet.

The editorial did not talk about Wormtail, a character that represents what happens when a person chooses what is easy rather than what is right. Sirius would have died for his friends, rather than betray them, the morally correct choice. But Wormtail shows us what kind of power Voldemort has over those who are too weak to resist it.

I wonder if there is time in the seventh book to show Harry facing a similiar choice as Wormtail had to face. We assume that Harry would have acted as Sirius claims he would, rather than Wormtail did, but we haven't really seen it happen yet.

I really enjoyed this--thanks for all your hard work! I agree that Harry has yet to face the degree to which he is responsible for Sirius' death--partly because Dumbledore, who recognizes his own protective love for Harry as a fault, tried to claim total responsibility himself (and he does bear some responsibility). I think it's interesting that we see protective love as both helpful (Lily's self-sacrifice) and harmful (Dumbledore's not telling Harry about the Prophecy). And I think your take on Snape is quite accurate. Yea, you!

You're right that Harry's decisions are formed in large part because of things that happened before he was born. So are Voldemort's, in a sense; while similarities among the childhoods of Harry, Tom Riddle, and Snape abound, Voldemort is the only one who never knew a parent, who has some reason to feel abandoned by his parents. I think it's probably partly due to that that he "forgot" the ancient magic that a loving parent could invoke by dying to save a child.

Forgiveness is not Harry's strong point either. He has forgiven Ron when they've had spats and he was very patient with Sirius in OotP, but he does have a tendency to make his mind up and let it stay that way. It will be interesting to see how that plays out with Snape.

Some minor quibbles: Neville's parents were not tortured about him but about Voldemort; the Lestranges and Barty Crouch Jr. were sent there after Voldemort vanished at Godric's Hollow (as far as they could tell) to try to find out if these Aurors knew anything about what had happened to him. The Lestranges didn't know about the Prophecy (according to JKR's website and "The Pensieve," GoF [pp. 594-5, 602-3 US hardback).

Harry is the only one to survive being hit by an Avada Kedavra; he has twice managed not to be hit, as the editorial points out, but I doubt that he's unique in that respect. There's no magical spell to counter AK, but it can be dodged.

You quote Snape as saying Harry isn't special--but he's talking to a very suspicious Bella who is quite capable of killing him if she doesn't like what she hears (and who will probably be back in V's favor at some point--Lucius is in Azkaban but V's just not speaking to Bella). I'm not sure, therefore, that we can take all that he says at face value. It requires some stretching, for instance to see how his information led to Sirius' death--Snape told the Prophecy, which is why the DEs were at the MoM, and he told Sirius and the Order that Harry was at the MoM, which is why SIrius went there, but in neither case was this "information" intended to harm Sirius.

The editorial says, "But, if Snape loved Lily Evans, then he was honestly motivated to change sides. He deserted Voldemort and joined Dumbledore not because James Potter died, but because Voldemort killed Lily." In "The Pensieve" in GoF Dumbledore testifies that "Severus Snape . . . rejoined our side before Lord Voldemort's downfall and turned spy for us, at great personal risk" (pp. 590-1 US hardback). In "The Seer Overheard" in HBP Dumbledore says, "You have no idea of the remorse Professor Snape felt when he realized how Lord Voldemort had interpreted the prophecy, Harry. I believe it to be the greatest regret of his life and the reason that he returned--" (p. 549 US hardback). It was the interpretation, not the killing, that brought Snape back to Dumbledore. Snape was actually teaching at Hogwarts before the Potters' deaths ("Educational Decree Number Twenty-four," OotP [p. 365 US hardback).

Excellent editorial. Very well researched and stated and I agree most wholeheartedly. The fact that it was posted on the very day in the Catholic calendar that 1Corinthians was read is extremely meaningful. For those unaware of the passage: it is the "love is patient, love is kind.....The greatest of these is love....passage from St Paul. While preparing to read it as a lector, I was struck by the Potteresque signifiacance of one particular verse-
"Love never fails.
If there are prophecies, they will be brought to nothing;
if tongues, they will cease;
if knowledge, it will be brought to nothing.
For we know partially and we prophecy paritially,
but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away."

The prophecy, Harry's connection to Voldemort (his ability to speak parseltongue), Dumbledore's wisdom and knowledge all matter not in the series. It is the perfect, the person who has sacrificed the most, the one who gave up all to save Harry and their world, who will be "fully known" at the end. Severus Snape? Perhaps. One previous editorial suggested Neville Longbottom, an equally interesting theory. But definitely NOT Harry Potter.

Actually, I'm pretty certain JKR is a member of the Church of Scotland, not the Church of England (I don't mean to be nitpicky, but the two are actually very different)

Well thought out editorial. The exposition is impressive.

However, there is a slight flaw in the Harry free will theory. All choice is determined, influenced or directed by the following: Nature, Nurture, Environment, Education, Wisdom, Wit and Perspective. There is never a clear path of free will/choice; obstacles are always part of the journey. What exists in the Harry Potter books is the element of the outcomes of choice. The variety of tangents that exist from one choice are infinite, the outcomes are finite. Using the prophecy as an example: When Dumbledore made the choice to interview Sybil Trelawney, it set in motion numerous tangents that have set in motion the entire Harry Potter story. However, the outcomes are limited to 2...Harry vanquishes Voldemort or Voldemort vanquishes Harry.

It is as Dumbledore states" It is our choices that define us ", because the outcomes will be judged and then the " why " of the choice gets examined.

As for the religous overtones, undertones and all of the tones in the middle: Does it really matter? The great debate is a good puzzle, as is all debate on the subject. But the morality of the books in essence is: Love vs. Hate. Tolerance vs Intolerance. Religion does not own the highgound on those subjects. If the books suggest anything in that regard it is that choosing a dogmatic point of view instantly creates limits to the vision of the world around you.

The examination is truly wonderful.....and obviously well thought out and documented....but let's not make too much of the substance lest we take the fun out of the books and Harry's journey.

Excellent - you brought out points that have floated around in my head but I am unable to bring them out so eloquently.

However, I have to disagree that Harry has not been properly tempted yet. First Harry is tempted to befriend Draco Malfoy. Draco is the first fellow student Harry meets and is given a clear choice by Draco to associate with the "best" (in Draco's view) or with the likes of Ron. He was also tempted by Voldemort himself at the end of SS - Voldemort offers him to join with him. Neither of these instances may seem like much temptation to us but that is because we can see the "goodness" in Harry and see that those are things he does not even desire. It is similar to me in the temptation of Christ. The things Satan tempts Christ to do don't seem to be very enticing - therefore, not very tempting - but that is due to the goodness of the one being tempted.

Though I don't compare Harry to Christ; in my estimation, Dumbledore's actions are more "Christlike" and I would more think of Harry as a disciple.

I do agree wholeheartedly with your thoughts on Snape though.

Hallo Victoria Saker Woeste,


what a great and comprehensive editorial! I read your text with huge interest because you try to link so many usually isolated topics of the Harry Potter books, additionally considering their philosophical and theological implications.

I am especially fascinated by your convincing argument that Harry lacks full responsibility for his actions and therefore cannot act on a free will. You contrast Harry with Snape who you portrait to be more apt than Harry to embody the ultimate moral "lesson" of the Harry Potter series.

However convincingly you argue that Harry's choices are not fully free, I disagree to some extend. You point out that Harry cannot be made responsible for his moral actions since he is so much protected by his parents' death and controlled by his teacher Dumbledore. His fate seems to be set by Trelawney's prophecy and by Voldemort single him out.

This is all true, yet we have to be aware of the following. Lily's protection has been overcome by Voldemort, Dumbledore's expansion of the same protection to Privet Drive will wear off at Harry's upcoming birthday. Trelawney's prophecy does neither predict the exact fate of Harry and Voldemort, nor more importantly, the morality of the actions that will fulfil the prophecy. Harry's interpretation of the prophecy -- that he is to set out to kill Voldemort -- is his own choice. Of course, Dumbledore confirms that "one of [them] has got to kill the other" (OotP, chap. 37). Dumbledore also suggests that Harry should "try and kill" Voldemort (HBP, chap. 23). Nevertheless, he never forces Harry to do so, and after Dumbledore's death certainly less so. On the other hand, Voldemort can be killed, once all his Horcruxes are destroyed, which should provide Harry with the means to do so. Thus Harry ultimately can be be responsible for Voldemort's death. His choice to pursue this death is his free will, only he has to face the consequences, Harry's soul can and would be torn for such murder, something impossible before, when Harry's guardians, parents and teachers, assumed most of his responsibility and therefore reduced Harry's free will.

Although Harry's fate to vanquish Voldemort is determined by others, the means will finally be Harry's to choose. Harry should finally be able to tear his own soul, not only with respect to Voldemort's downfall. Harry and Snape's enmity have caused Harry to already attempt to use Unforgivable Curses on Snape. If J. Rowling follows through, Harry will be able to kill Snape, Voldemort, or any other opponent. Harry can and maybe will make immoral choices in Deathly Hallows, allowing for an inner conflict and for his love to play out more clearly in the Catholic sense you describe in your editorial. In the "absence of evil" there is no "salvation" as you say. Your statement is literally true for baby Harry Potter at Godric's Hollow. Through her sacrifice Lily takes all responsibility from Harry, all his free will. Therefore there is no salvation for Harry, he cannot even die. He remains innocent and alive, but not through his own choices. The same is true for Voldemort who loses his body, his power and his ability to do wrong. Throughout the books Harry gradually retains responsibility for his choices and for his life or soul, left more vulnerable every time, while Voldemort retains his body and power.

The end of HBP leaves protagonist Harry and antagonist Voldemort both powerful and morally responsible, probably mortal again. In other words, Deathly Hallows can show a conflict, if J. Rowling decides so, where both Harry and Voldemort are free to choose and suffer the consequences of their choices.

Kind regards,


N_H

First Harry is tempted to befriend Draco Malfoy. Draco is the first fellow student Harry meets and is given a clear choice by Draco to associate with the "best" (in Draco's view) or with the likes of Ron.

Agreed, but this isn't really that much of a temptation. Draco had already got on the wrong side of Harry in Madame Malkin's by insulting Hagrid (the first person who has shown kindness to Harry since his arrival at the Dursleys') and expressing an opinion that kids from Muggle families didn't belong at Hogwarts. Then, on the train, he insults Ron, who has already befriended Harry. Harry doesn't have a good reason to want to hang out with a skinnier version of Dudley.

Another minor temptation comes from the Sorting Hat, which offers him the chance of "greatness" - but Harry has already formed a prejudice against Slytherin, which keeps him safe in this case. Since he knows so little about the Wizarding world and its politics, he relies on his instincts, which tend to be sound - until the disastrous trip to the Ministry.

Harry doesn't have a good reason to want to hang out with a skinnier version of Dudley.


Since we know Harry, we know this is not really enticing for him - but how many people would choose the power of befriending a known bully rather than setting yourself up for being on the receiving end of the bully's wrath? For the simple fact that Harry was fully aware of the power a bully has (through his association with Dudley), this was a temptation for Harry because he could have jumped in on the "powerful" side immediately. He could have been the one to bully others rather than be bullied himself as he was so accustomed to from Dudley.

Free will is still an important element in the series--Snape's in telling the Prophecy, Voldemort in deciding Harry was the greatest danger, Snape's in "rejoining" the good side; Sirius' in setting up the S-K plan, Peter's in betraying the Potters, Lily and James in being willing to die to protect their loved ones (I realize Lily's death is the one that provides the protection), Dumbledore's to take a special interest in Harry, Voldemort's in making Horcruxes, using Harry's blood to get his body back, and being involved in the deaths of people Harry loves, Sirius' in deciding to go to the MoM against Dumbledore's orders, Snape's to kill Dumbledore. While few of us have such dramatic backstories, our lives are also bounded by the decisions made by others (both personally and nationally) before we were born. Harry at least understands that it his his choice to face Voldemort; he is not forced by the Prophecy.

Hi, everyone,

It took me until now (3:30 p.m. Eastern US) to get registered on the forum--hence my delay in acknowledging all your comments. I will try to answer as many of them as I can, but please be patient if I don't answer right away, or fully. I happily cop to being an academic--pretty obvious from the writing style, I suppose--with a full-time job and 4kids and a spouse. And a looming book deadline, not unlike another more famous, richer author we all know.

Thanks to everyone who has contributed. I enjoy the constructive engagement, and it's exactly what I hoped for when I submitted the editorial to Mugglenet. Although I originally wrote the paper for an academic conference, I wanted to reach a general audience of careful HP readers.

My point about Harry and free will is actually pretty simple. I am arguing that Dumbledore idealizes Harry's ability to act freely, that Dumbledore leaves me with the impression that he is less aware than he should be about the constraints on Harry's freedom (and about Harry's relative lack of maturity). Of course there is no such thing as absolute freedom (at least not in the real world) and I think Rowling makes it clear there isn't in the Wizarding World, either.

There was a comment about my using Snape's characterization of Harry from HBP (in conversation with Bella). True, Snape is acting cagily there. But there are plenty of other examples of Snape's dissing Harry--to his face and to others. See, e.g., POA (overheard conversation between Snape and Fudge).

My reference to JKR's being a member of the Church of England came from the interview I quoted. I'll check the source and if I misattributed her religious affiliation, I'll correct the paper.

Victoria Woeste

*clap clap clap*
Congratulations, really!
I've been waiting a long time for somebody to finally voice - expertly - my beliefs about Snape and Lily. Most of us already believed that Snape was in love with Lily, but this article has gathered what seems to be ALL the available information to support this, as well as exposing some of the most realistic speculations I've ever read. You have put together many ideas I had in the past but was too lazy to think carefully about them and reach steadfast conclusions. The main idea being the fact of Snape’s silence, that he had never mentioned Lily in Harry’s presence, had never said anything offensive about her, while he has to insert a couple of insults about James every time he meets Harry. I just had an impression about this, but didn’t bother re-reading all the books bearing this fact in mind. But now, there it is. I’m now adamant-convinced that Snape indeed loved Lily, that he had all the reasons a normal man could have to loathe James, that his motives behind his saving Harry neck every now and then were sincere and larger than just a teacher’s worry over students, specially when he takes every opportunity to show how much he despises Harry. Harry’s appearance now proves to be extremely significant to the plot, as it has always been stated to be. I used to think, quite naturally, that it would be what Voldemort thought abut Harry’s appearance that mattered, but it was Snape all the time. Harry’s similarity to his father arouses Snape’s loathing while at the same time his green eyes – his mother’s – reminds Snape of all the love he once felt, the only and true love, the single chance he had in life to redeem, and change, and be happy. He lost all that. He misses all that. He blames James, but never Lily. He feels he owes her, and tries to pay his debt through Harry, despising him as he may.
I’m very glad to have read this insightful article, especially to see my own – our own – ideas so deftly organised. I’ll be back and re-read every now and then to come up with new theories for myself.
Once again, hat’s off for you. Keep up the good work.
Cheers

I

You quote Snape as saying Harry isn't special--but he's talking to a very suspicious Bella who is quite capable of killing him if she doesn't like what she hears (and who will probably be back in V's favor at some point--Lucius is in Azkaban but V's just not speaking to Bella). I'm not sure, therefore, that we can take all that he says at face value. It requires some stretching, for instance to see how his information led to Sirius' death--Snape told the Prophecy, which is why the DEs were at the MoM, and he told Sirius and the Order that Harry was at the MoM, which is why SIrius went there, but in neither case was this "information" intended to harm Sirius.

.

One problem of this editorial is that it is ridiculously long. It took me the most concentration I have used in a long time and was more of an endurance test rather then thought provoking HP talk. The annoying thing being by the time you reach even the middle you've forgotton what went above and therefore struggle to raise your points on it very well and in any choronological order.

Nevertheless. the few posts above have somehow managed to raise most of my points on my mind, espeacially then one quoted.

Another thing is you mention this;

"Snape: “I am sure. I trust Severus Snape completely.” The rest of the Hogwarts staff isn’t as certain. The other side distrusts him, too; witness Bellatrix Lestrange’s interrogation of him in Half-Blood Prince. What proof would Snape have been able to offer Dumbledore to demonstrate that he had indeed turned his back on his evil master?

Sure it is clear the Bellatrix does not trust him, but we have got to remember that regardless of what she thinks would the "being in love with Lilly" thing be enough into hoodwinking Voldermort into thinking that Snape had hoodwinked Dumbledore, and thus that he was still loyal to him?

Some very interesting points, although far too many to recall and then remember to respond to unlesss you can sit here for a month.

A-ha!! You're an academic!! I knew it! No ordinary HP fan could have written such a comprehensive and external references-filled article!! No offence, guys!
Now I’m not jealous of your brains anymore, I just expect I’ll get there one day.
Just saying this because I tend to think I’m always reading the words of some 18-year-old and feel distressed I’m not that smart, seeing that I’m older than this.
But that’s OK. We all aspire to learn and there’s always somebody who knows more than you do, it will never leave me, ****! XD
Anyway, nice job once more!

Dear EvanM,
Do not despair. I could not have written this paper when I was 18!

Apologies to those who found the length onerous. The ms. was 20 double-spaced pages. Rachael did a nice job of formatting it for the webpage. Not every idea can be expressed in a series of bulleted paragraphs. Perhaps it could have been tightened further but one cannot revise indefinitely.

vsw

I am very impressed!
Welcome to another Mom who reads and analyzes Harry Potter as it relates to her take on the world, and more specifically, her raising of her children. At least I assume that is where your spiritual references are directed?!

I agree 100% with your take on the series from a spiritual perspective. I also agree that Dumbledore had a much more convincing reason to trust Snape, a much deeper connection with Harry that Snape could not utter as a lie.

I believe that the "Deathly Hallows" refers to the people Harry has loved, and who have loved Harry. These "Hallowed" people will become "Deathly" by the use of this mutual love to help Harry bring about Voldemort's downfall. Snape and Wormtail will also contribute through their individual duties. Wormtail, who is indebted to Harry, and Snape, who probably also took an "Unbreakable Vow" with Dumbledore relating to Harry's safety. Maybe Aberforth was the bonder . . . ? We'll see?

Thank you for sharing your thoughts and I look forward to more discussion and acknowledgement of the deep connection the Harry Potter series has with our basic human mythology.

Wow, Ms. Woeste - what a thoughtful and informative essay! :tu: :tu:

It is so nice to see a person so well versed in religious and philosophical modes of thinking apply their knowledge to HP. I did not agree entirely with all your conclusions, and I do agree with many of the examples already cited by other posters regarding Harry's relatively free will and morally ambiguous choices to date, but you've certainly given me the vision to be looking for true temptation and less relative free will to be fulfilled in the final book. If Ms. Rowling is able to pull that off, then I think we will be able to for ever after point to her as the highest caliber of writer, period, not a children's author or just an extremely talented author of pop literature, but someone right up there in the ranks of Tolkien and Lewis. Thank you for telling us what we need to be watching for to make this determination. Even if she fails, she will always be among the best storytellers in my estimation, something I do not say lightly. But if she goes above and beyond that calling, I will be extremely proud to have found her works, enjoyed them, and incorporated their lessons into my own moral views on life.

I have a few specific comments on the essay and several, as well, on other posts. I must apologize in advance for the length of this post, but there were so many quality ideas of such depth in the essay, that I found myself not able to choose from among them.


In Left Behind, people are saved only by faith; salvation cannot be earned by anything they do. In Harry Potter, as in Catholic moral teaching, faith alone doesn’t guarantee salvation. Catholics are taught to do good works, to act on the free will that comes as a gift from God, in order to live eternally in heaven...

Voldemort’s own refusal to do so traps Harry in a kill-or-be-killed imperative that he can escape only by committing murder himself.Not necessarily - The Phrophecy says The One will "vanquish" the Dark Lord. Both Dumbledore and Harry may be making a mistake to think it means killing in the literal sense. I've had the suspicion for some time that Harry may not actually have to outright kill Voldemort. It would seem that is the case, given the terms of The Prophecy and Dumbledore's affirmation that either Voldemort or Harry will end up killing the other. But in addition to her morality tale, JKR has also provided many allusions to other genres, including alchemy. JKR herself has said in an interview (or perhpas on her website) that Voldemort is beyond redemption. (Sorry I don't recall the exact source.) However, given your (Ms. Woeste's) view that JKR is underscoring the value of good works, then she would seem to be saying that no human is ever inherently evil, that all may have some chance, no matter how remote, at redemption. I can only imagine that she meant that Voldemort has chosen to always and forever ignore all opportunities to redeem himself, or that it is just the way she wants the story to read. But when one has presented the apparent moral argument JKR has, that good works matter, one has to follow the moral logic - and as shown by this analogy, that says he can be redeemed and/or transformed, even if unlikely. Perhaps there is some way that he may be transformed, by Harry, or Lily's love within Harry, in a way that will allow Voldemort to change his mind on the choice not to be redeemed.


We want to be Harry, to be special like him, to experience his frustrations and triumphs, and, like him, to get away with breaking the rules... Over time, Harry’s habitual rule-breaking becomes a convenient mechanism (sometimes annoyingly so) for him to fulfill our expectations for him as protagonist and hero; indeed, his ability to bend and break rules reinforces the moral order of the Wizarding world. Harry’s own specialness makes him a law unto himself.Unfortunately, I saw more than just the world of fiction in these words. In many schools certain types of students tend to "get away with" even serious breaking of the rules, especially if they the children of wealthy parents or, more often, are star athletes needed for a school team to stay on top. (This particular situation continues right on up through college and professional sports, as well.) On the flip side, those students considered "cagey" or "losers" are often the first ones to be labeled as suspect whenever a major rule-breaking incident occurs. I'm not talking about how the other students see them - I'm talking about how teachers and the school administration views and treats them. Of course this is wrong, but it does happen - the star athlete's favored status and treatment does reinforce the moral order of our world and, unfortunately, does sometimes make them a law unto themselves. And all right in front of their entire impressionable young fellows. I mention this simply to point out that JKR's use of that mechanism is not just a convenient literary tool - it is also illustrative of real life.


A fixation with blood purity abounds in Wizarding world, even for those who profess not to care about it, because it shapes their social relations and gives them a familiar—and hierarchical—social structure. The male Weasley children, for example, buy into the enslavement of house elves and the racial assumptions on which it rests.I found this quote somewhat disturbing, and only partially correct, imo. Of course the very existence of sanctioned slavery in the books, and the lack of concern almost all wizards seem to have about it, is even more disturbing. It is one of the things I most fervently hope JKR will fully address in Book 7. If she does not, the seeming focus on good works and choices you've pointed out will fall flat in arguably the biggest manner possible.

However, I do not feel that every aspect of wizarding social structure and relations in the Potterverse is based on blood purity, especially in the case of the Weasleys. (That is, they do not merely "profess" to not care about it.) Arthur is not only famous, but is ridiculed by some, for his love of all things Muggle. While his may be an extreme example of rejecting the pureblood agenda, it is by far not the only one. Many wizards and witches, including purebloods, interact with Muggles regularly, notably James Potter and others who married Muggleborns, or even Muggles.

Rather, I feel a good portion of the social structure and relations in the wizarding world may be attributable to the clan-like structure of their relations. (Please note, readers, I did NOT mean "Klan" structure, as a real world pureblood extremist would have.) The interactions and interdependence of various family members and extended family members within a clan-based society are much tighter than in the modern Western "nuclear family" model we know today. One good example of clan-based societies is ancient - and not-so ancient - Scotland, where JKR has lived for many years now. In such societies, it is not the purity of the blood, but that the blood ties even exist. Fairly often, individuals from outside the clan would marry into it. They would be seen as always having ties of the heart to the clan of their birth, but would be expected to support their new clan if push came to shove. I imagine this more often happened to women, but may also have happened if a man married into a clan politically stronger than his own. Yes, there were blood feuds at times. But these were based on either real or perceived insults to a clan's honor, which were never based, to the best of my recollection, on any clan accepting a true outsider, i.e. a "foreigner," or Muggle, into their ranks by marriage.

Certainly in HP, with Bill and Fleur set to marry, it is obvious that the Weasleys do not have a problem with Fleur because of her not-entirely human, partial Veela ancestry, but because she is the female version of a boor. Nothing has ever been said of her being a poor choice as a mate because of her heritage. One would expect this if the Weasleys were only paying lip service to being against pureblood elitism. The acceptance of a new family member from a very different heritage will often "out" the true feelings of those only professing to believe in equality. Also, I would not be surprised to see any other member of the Weasley clan marry outside the wizarding community, should they ever have the opportunity to meet a good number of Muggles. But their insular nature that may preclude such a meeting is not, imo, due to prejudice against Muggles, but based in the fact that they are all magical and their society has placed a ban on allowing Muggles to know about magic.


After all, if the hero can take a hike instead of seeing the challenge all the way through to the end, the dramatic tension would leave the books in a rapid exhalation of disappointment. [emphasis added]Did you mean, perhaps, to say "if the hero does take a hike," rather than can take a hike? It seems to me, unless I'm missing your point, that a hero who can take a hike but chooses to stay anyway would indeed be creating dramatic tension, by showing a determination that may or may not be sustained. It would also show exactly the sort of "true" free will you felt is lacking to date in HP. To me, it's not if the hero can take a hike, but whether he chooses to... or not.


It’s a measure of Rowling’s success and skill in crafting [Snape's] morally ambiguous position that no one at Hogwarts really knows what side Snape is really on or whether his renunciation of the Dark Lord was sincere.DD knew, or thought he knew. If he turns out to have been right, then it will confirm the view I've held that Dumbledore was the God-figure, rather than Harry, because only God truly knows what's in a person's heart, including Snape's true affiliation. I still see shades in whether DD was more in line with an image of God the Father, while Harry does seem to have some Christ-like qualities. But my point is that DD being right will indeed mean that Snape will likely be redeemed by Book 7's end. What is the use of having someone so disliked, so mistrusted by all but the God-figure, if he cannot illustrate to us that God knows good which we cannot see, and that we, being imperfect mortals, must trust in his judgement. Luckily, JKR has underscored the concept that DD, while so unique in his lack of peers, was still a flawed human being. Otherwise she might have come under even more specific fire for making DD too God-like.


The moral fulcrum of the books, I am convinced, is Snape, the greasy-haired, hook-nosed, nasty Potions master who is hateful, unsympathetic, and a “little oddball who was up to his eyes in the Dark Arts.” Finally, I must say that your article in general, and this passage in particular, has convinced me of something I've been suspecting from a literary standpoint, but not really wanting to admit from a personal, emotional standpoint: Snape MUST be on the side of good. For the one character who can really choose to go either way, who had little love as a child but still (apparently) chose love as an adult, who has been tempted and has fallen, to not turn his life around would negate the saving quality of choice that Rowling has so strongly voiced throughout all the books. I'd had that suspicion, but your essay, Ms. Woeste, has put a voice as to why it is likely the outcome we will see in Book 7.


And now, a few words about other posts, after which I shall cease my endless commentary. :blush: BTW, Ms. Woeste, I hope you do not see my comments as criticism. Your essay was extraordinarily well thought out and well written and, I'm sure, will be cited in future arguments made to deflate the senseless rhetoric of the "both wrong and silly" critics. Rather, I simply hoped to join in a supremely satisfying discussion on some of the book's deepest and most profound aspects. For that opportunity, I'm grateful for your efforts.


T_Brightwater, I very much liked the canon examples of temptation you mentioned in Post 5.

Shewoman, thank you for the clarification in Post 7 about Snape turning spy for the Order before the Potters were killed. It would have been relatively easy to understand a turnaround on his part after the most heinous outcome possible had already occured, but that he did so before that act came to fruition is just one more detail leading to the apparent conclusion that he has more substance to him than would seem to be the case from his overt actions.


in Post 10:
As for the religous overtones, undertones and all of the tones in the middle: Does it really matter? The great debate is a good puzzle, as is all debate on the subject. But the morality of the books in essence is: Love vs. Hate. Tolerance vs Intolerance. Religion does not own the highgound on those subjects. If the books suggest anything in that regard it is that choosing a dogmatic point of view instantly creates limits to the vision of the world around you.Well said, Darktimes, well said!!


in Post 11:
Neither of these instances may seem like much temptation to us but that is because we can see the "goodness" in Harry and see that those are things he does not even desire. It is similar to me in the temptation of Christ. The things Satan tempts Christ to do don't seem to be very enticing - therefore, not very tempting - but that is due to the goodness of the one being tempted.Thank you for this, muggles_rock. I was wondering how to say the same thing without it sounding offensive. You mananged that very well. :cool:


in Post 12:
Harry ultimately can be be responsible for Voldemort's death. His choice to pursue this death is his free will, only he has to face the consequences, Harry's soul can and would be torn for such murder, something impossible before, when Harry's guardians, parents and teachers, assumed most of his responsibility and therefore reduced Harry's free will. In one minor, but I feel significant, way, Harry has faced the consequences of what an act of murder on his part will mean. After his discussion with Dumbledore about the contents and meaning of The Prophecy, Harry spends several hours, until it gets dark, beside the lake. Before he gets up to go back into the castle, he dries his eyes on the sleeves of his robes. He had spent all that time crying. No doubt some of that was due to the enormity of the entire situation which he has been caught up in and the pressure he will be under. But I tend to think that at least some portion of it is from the prospect of becoming a killer, even if he feels he has little real choice in the matter. In PoA, when he spared Wormtail in the Shrieking Shack although he did want to see Wormtail have to endure the dementors at Azkaban, he did also sincerely want to save his father's friends from becoming killers. I think he probably feels the same way for himself, too.


in Post 20:
Apologies to those who found the length onerous. The ms. was 20 double-spaced pages. Rachael did a nice job of formatting it for the webpage. Not every idea can be expressed in a series of bulleted paragraphs. Perhaps it could have been tightened further but one cannot revise indefinitely.Yes, the essay was long. So what? It flowed well and everything that was said had merit. I noted the young age of one complainent on the length, although youth itself is no guarantee of such a view. I am left to think in this particular case that the young man in question may be presented with a rude surprise should he attend university soon. If he doesn't like to read a great deal, merited subject matter or not, I doubt he'll care much for college-level academia.


And finally...in Post 6, SusanBones111 mentions the lack attention to Wormtail and his choices in this essay. Ms. Woest, if your family and professional responsibilities do not make it completely impossible, would you please consider writing an essay about Wormtail and Sirius and their inter-related choices? I feel that the more quality essays on morality in the books that we have to cite, the better prepared we will be whenever the far right detractors may come at us with guns blazing, so to speak. Calmly delivered and quotable reason in the face of such situations is always most welcome.

Thanks again, for such a deep and thought provoking read. It gave me many things to ponder and added a great deal to my daily :relax:.

But in the real world, people who think they love can be controlling and manipulative; people can do bad things in the name of love. We will need clarification from Rowling on this matter.
Indeed.

Great essay, vsw!

I'll just reiterate Shewoman's point that Snape turned prior to the Potters' deaths, when he learned how Voldemort had interpreted the prophecy. Because JKR has been quoted as saying that the Potters were already in hiding or about to go into hiding at the time of Harry's christening, it seems likely that the Potters attempted to hide sans Fidelius Charm for quite some time.

We're told that Dumbledore was certain someone in the Potters' circle of friends was keeping Voldemort informed of their "movements," which seems to indicate that there may have been some near misses which were likely misses only because Snape was passing on warnings to Dumbledore, thus keeping the Potters one step ahead of Voldemort. We know from Sirius that Peter was passing secrets to Voldemort for a year prior to the Potters' deaths. Their luck couldn't hold out indefinitely and eventually they resorted to the Fidelius Charm, unfortunately naming the traitor as secretkeeper. I know some have issues with this interpretation, but it seems quite likely to me that Voldemort targeted Harry shortly after his birth and Snape turned immediately, therefore he was working for Dumbledore for over a year prior to their actual deaths, and had begun his employment at Hogwarts the month prior. Which is a huge difference from him waiting until they were dead to become remorseful, though apparently that is what Harry believes at the end of HBP.

Great essay! We only have less than a year to wait to find out just how correct you are.

You have convinced me that Snape is on the good side and that he loved Lily. I believe that he will redeem himself in Book 7. He did kill Dumbledore, even if it was for the cause. He will need to make amends for that. By sacrificing his own life, he will be redeemed in the eyes of the wizarding world and in Harry's eyes. This is how we readers will be able to forgive Snape. If he lives, I think we will have a hard time swallowing all the mean things he has said to Harry, we might not feel sympathy for the former Death Eater turned spy, and ultimately Dumbledore's killer. After all, we love Dumbledore.

Don't worry the essay wasn't too long. I could have kept reading as long as you were writing. The essay held my attention quite nicely and also had no flaws as far as my high-school-English-teacherism is concerned. Keep writing. What is your book about? And by the way thanks for the great effort you have put forth. I truly aspire to an essay this noteworthy! But alas, I have not yet written one.

This was an interesting essay, even though I was disappointed to find "Morality" reduced to Religion. It was still a good read with many interesting ideas.

I have to say that since the very first book I have suspected Snape loved Lily. Perhaps because Snape never spoke of her, but more because of the apparent depth of his hatred for James. While it seems impossible that Harry could ever forgive Snape, perhaps he will manage/ be forced to see him through "LIly's eyes".

I think it is intersting the way JKR has played with the notion of temptation. The Invisibility cloak is a clever allusion in to Gyges' Ring. Gyges' Ring, in granting Invisibility, makes the wearer apparently unaccountable for his actions. Harry has a chance to use it over the holidays, Dumbledore learns his heart from the Mirror of Erisad, and then Dumbledore lets Harry know that the Cloak does not put him beyond Dumbledore's knowledge of his actions. And so the device which classically lead to the corruption of its bearer is tamed and made safe for civil life. Harry still uses the Cloak, sometimes for personal pleasure (his surreptious trips to Hogsmeade), but as often as not for the pursuit of the Good. Harry was given a test, shown to be non-corrupt, and then not allowed to become corrupted by his power. With Dumbledore gone, could Gygess' fate await Harry? Unlikely.

The wizarding world has its share of predjudice and injustice. JKR has made a point from the beginning of not making magic a panacea, nor the key to Utopia. But I think her point includes the idea many decent and moral people often just don't think critically about the traditions they live with, and whether they are morally defensible. The question is, whether the issue is elves rights, or slavery, or racism or gay rights, how does someone react once confronted with a new idea? Will criticism of a norm be tolerated, even considered, or will it be silenced, or even smashed? The Deatheaters, like the White Citizen's Councils, and the Ku Klux Klan, will not tolerate criticism. Harry succeeds at freeing Dobby, and Dumbledore is willing to pay him a wage. But like any attempt to overturn a longstanding convention, it will take time to change the minds of a society. The fact that the Magical society seems to have a less well developed sense of Justice than we like to believe we have can only lengthen a shift in attitudes based upon an appeal to Justice. In this case Harry has the advantage of not having been raised a wizard. As Oscar Hammerstein said, "they have to be carefuly taught," for children to learn predjudice. And so Harry is an innocent when it comes to Dobby, and so he ultimately treats him as a person rather than a thing.

I do think you overstate the significance of his "toeing the line", and understate the potential for significant moral choice in Book 7. First, the fact that he is a youth and will come of age seems significant to JKR. While Harry's choices up till now have made him "Great" as Dobby would assert, it seems to me the choices he makes as an adult are what is supposed to matter. Hence, we see Snape taking the opposite view, that every petty fault and infraction of his father's youth is supposed to impress Harry, despite the fact that the last thing James did as a Man was to die trying to save Harry and Lily. And so Snape's continual, and apparently pointless returning to the subject of James being less than perfect as a student comes across (to me at least) as petty and juvenile. Despite their behaviour as students, as adults both James and Sirius acted heroically (in sharp contrast with Pettigrew). Snape has apparently never read "Henry V".

Secondly, in spite of the prophacy, and in line with Dumbledore's suggestion that it is our choices not our abilities which matter most, I think Harry will face some tough choices in the end. Many have argued that Harry must kill Voldemort, Dumbledore even said as much. But Dumbledore needs Harry to be able and ready to kill Voldemort, both for Harry's own safety, but also as to allow him a choice. I think that Harry will face a choice of how to vanquish Voldemort, one deadly, and one not. If he were not prepared to kill Voldemort, to spare him would not truely be a free choice. To freely choose to spare Voldemort, Harry must be able to kill him, but choose to do otherwise. If Dumbledore had led him to anticipate this option, he might never be prepared to make the choice, but rather simply do the easy thing.

Further, I would not be surprised if circumstances are not arranged so that Harry has to use the lessons he has learned from the last two books. That is, to be heroic is to do what needs to be done (as in following Dumbledore's orders regarding the potion) as opposed that which seems heroic (as in going off to rescue Sirius, with disasterous results.) Voldemort has played on this weakness before, and might again by putting someone Harry loves in harm's way to distract Harry from Voldemort. I can imagine the scene being set up in ways which allow a depth of ethical analysis, without there even being a clearly correct answer, from a moral standpoint. Alternatively, the "right" answer might be clear, but hard. The question remains as to whether such a test of character, if passed, would allow any suspense to remain for the final choice of means of vanquishing Voldemort. The best bet would be to allow the means of the choice to be unknown till the last possible moment.

uh? :hmm:

Don't worry the essay wasn't too long. I could have kept reading as long as you were writing. The essay held my attention quite nicely and also had no flaws as far as my high-school-English-teacherism is concerned. Keep writing. What is your book about? And by the way thanks for the great effort you have put forth. I truly aspire to an essay this noteworthy! But alas, I have not yet written one.

Forgive me for disagreeing once again. The editorial almost matched the length of the philoshphers stone itself. And to say it had no flaws is beyond exaggeration. Some points raised by others in response have yet to be answered by the author as far as I can see.

That was a very thoughtful essay, although as with many people, I dont agree with a lot of it. I want to say something though that has been on my mind for a while now that is a long the same lines.
What bothers me about the religious right (and not ALL of them because I usually consider myself part of that category) is that they are quick to discredit and ignore things that they have a problem with, instead of relying on education to deal with the issue. For example, in the HP case, they would ratherget rid of HP all together, rather than relying on education to teach children about the differences between fact and fiction or even to teach children to read in between the lines of stories. The same issues are often raised in sexual education as well.
Oddly enough, I just finished reading OOTP again and noticed that a major underlying theme was the danger of adults keeping information from children because they don't believe they are old enough to handle the information. Specifically Dumbledore realizes this mistake too late. In one quote (I dont have my book so ill just sum it up for ya...) Dumbledore says something along the lines of how you cant blame someone young for not knowing how adults think, but it is a shame when adults forget how young people think.
Anyway, I feel like Im rambling on so i'll quite now. Ive just been thinking about that lately.

Your thoery fits Snape so well,

Snape could not protect his mother from his abusive father nor could he protect Lilly Potter an other women who he loved from the dark lord! It all fits Snape so well!

I also agree that the main trouble with Harry Potter books is every choice seems to be very biological based as well as character based.

For instance Tom Riddles violent and unstable Gaunt relatives and a mother who wanted to escape them by giving in to her desires for Riddle's snobby posh muggle father.

For example Harry's muggle born mother full of love and Harry's interested loving father.

Rowling by giving both Harry and Tom these relatives she some how removes some of their ability to make completely free choice's and actions!

A well written and worded piece of writting.

Dear EvanM,
Apologies to those who found the length onerous. The ms. was 20 double-spaced pages. Rachael did a nice job of formatting it for the webpage. Not every idea can be expressed in a series of bulleted paragraphs. Perhaps it could have been tightened further but one cannot revise indefinitely.


I found it a little long, but still interesting. Funny thing, though. I was curious to see how much you'd tightened it up, so I copied the text into Word, and double-spaced. Result: 20 pages! :lol: It went down to 18 pages when I changed the margins to 1 inch, but still, that's not a lot of tightening, is it?

Wow, nice editorial Victoria!!

The parts about Snape make the most sense overall but you did a very good job on the overall editoral.

in Post 27:
...we see Snape taking the... view, that every petty fault and infraction of his father's youth is supposed to impress Harry, despite the fact that the last thing James did as a Man was to die trying to save Harry and Lily. And so Snape's continual, and apparently pointless returning to the subject of James being less than perfect as a student comes across (to me at least) as petty and juvenile.Perhaps Snape's "continual return to the subject" also reflects his feelings about that fact that is was James, and not himself, who had the opportunity - and took it - to be a Man and save Lily. To see James as capable and willing to do something he could or would not do, must be unbelievably difficult for Snape to accept.


Secondly, in spite of the prophacy, and in line with Dumbledore's suggestion that it is our choices not our abilities which matter most, I think Harry will face some tough choices in the end. Many have argued that Harry must kill Voldemort, Dumbledore even said as much. But Dumbledore needs Harry to be able and ready to kill Voldemort, both for Harry's own safety, but also as to allow him a choice. I think that Harry will face a choice of how to vanquish Voldemort, one deadly, and one not. If he were not prepared to kill Voldemort, to spare him would not truely be a free choice. To freely choose to spare Voldemort, Harry must be able to kill him, but choose to do otherwise. If Dumbledore had [not?] led him to anticipate this option, he might never be prepared to make the choice, but rather simply do the easy thing.I assume you left out the word "not" in the last sentence? The other points I've put in bold are extremely well reasoned and are also actually in keeping with Ms. Woeste's hypothesis. It's surprising she did not seem to consider them. She may have, but the essay was chock full of ideas, and I may just be forgetting this one.

An excellent post overall, Phil_Stone!



in Post 29:
Don't worry the essay wasn't too long. I could have kept reading as long as you were writing. The essay held my attention quite nicely and also had no flaws as far as my high-school-English-teacherism is concerned. Keep writing. What is your book about? And by the way thanks for the great effort you have put forth. I truly aspire to an essay this noteworthy! But alas, I have not yet written one.Forgive me for disagreeing once again. The editorial almost matched the length of the philoshphers stone itself. And to say it had no flaws is beyond exaggeration. Some points raised by others in response have yet to be answered by the author as far as I can see.You may disagree about whether the article was too long, but saying it almost matched the length of The Philosopher's Stone seems to me to be a bit of hyperbole. Whether it had flaws or not is not a factual condition, but a subjective one, I think. One of you feels it had flaws; the other feels it did not. You do not note any factual errors, Boromir. If you can find none, your sense of there being flaws must, therefore, be subjective. There's nothing wrong with that; everyone has the right to that opinion. But it does leave open the possibility for others to have the opposite, if still subjective, sense that it does not have flaws.

I, too, hope to see Ms. Woeste address more of the points raised by posters, but I can see how a job, husband, and four kids can keep a person very busy.



in Post 30:
What bothers me about the religious right (and not ALL of them because I usually consider myself part of that category) is that they are quick to discredit and ignore things that they have a problem with, instead of relying on education to deal with the issue.Well, that is the usual wont of less intelligent extremists. (I use the term "extremists" because you refer to the "far" right, and not the right in general.) Unfotunately for most of the rest of the world, the most recent crop of extremists is also intelligent, but uses their intelligence to learn the necessary steps to carry out terrorist acts rather than investigate why their ideological opponents think and feel as they do. Instead, they rely on their own culturally induced assumptions as to why.

...to teach children to read in between the lines of stories. The same issues are often raised in sexual education as well.The problem, from the extremist's point of view, with teaching children to read between the lines in other works, is that it will enable them to quite possibly start reading between the lines in the Bible, Torah, or Qu'uran, and therefore possibly start questioning it, its source, and/or its meaning. Since no questioning, or precious little, is considered acceptable by the far right, they can't very well teach their children to do things that might lead to it.

The problem with ignoring sex education, or basing it on abstinence alone, is that this point of view ignores very strong, very natural urges, ones that may not stand up to dogmatic instruction to listen to one's heart instead of one's libido. This does not, imo, make young people errant sinners, but merely natural beings with natural drives who are too young to entirely resist the urge to act. This is underscored by the fact that many adults are also unable to resist the urge, even if they do indeed have the life experience to be able to resist temptation.


Oddly enough, I just finished reading OOTP again and noticed that a major underlying theme was the danger of adults keeping information from children because they don't believe they are old enough to handle the information. Specifically Dumbledore realizes this mistake too late. In one quote (I dont have my book so ill just sum it up for ya...) Dumbledore says something along the lines of how you cant blame someone young for not knowing how adults think, but it is a shame when adults forget how young people think.JKR has said she believes many people (implying the far right in particular) do not give children enough credit to be able to tell the difference between fantasy and reality, that kids are much more savvy than that. I tend to agree. It's the natural tendency of a brain to fill in blanks it sees with the most logical answer possible based on known facts. This is the basic mental imperative in humans, regardless of age. If all the facts are not known, though, the resulting answer will not be completely sound.

You make a good connection using Dumbledore's words to support your view. I think that he says that it's more than just "a shame," though. I think he says there's no excuse for it or it's a tragedy, something stronger than "a shame," anyway. Could have that wrong.


Anyway, I feel like Im rambling on so i'll quite now. Ive just been thinking about that lately.You think you're rambling? Have you ever read any of my posts? :lol: Besides, you said some very intelligent things that are closely related to the author's subject. I liked 'em. :)

Thanks, Emerald63. You are correct to insert the "not". I agree with the author about the importance of free choice, but the editorial seemed to bemoan a lack of them in Harry's pre-adult days, and dismiss the possibility of many in the final book. My point was to suggest that JKR (in contrast with Snape) seems to put far more moral importance upon the choices of an adult, and that she probably had a few in mind for Harry to face.

As for Snape, I can think of several reasons for his returning to the same tune. First, it is possible that one or more of his own parents belittled the other to him as a child. Secondly, if he truly was in love with Lily, he might find it hard to ever see the man he hated to be worthy of her. Had they lived, it might have been different, though it might well have been worse. It would be interesting to hear how Snape would analyze James behaviour that night in Goderic's Hollow, whether he would consider it merely James trying to save his own life.

Thirdly, it occured to me a while back that Snape's animosity for James may be part of his defense against Voldemort. A smoke screen of hate might do a better job of concealing his true feelings for Lily from Voldemort than any attempt to block him out. Snape may revisit the most painful of his memories of James to" keep the kettle on the boil." And he cannot just turn it on and off, as if it were an act, because an act would not be good enough to fool Voldemort. He cannot "grow up" and let go of feuds from school because they keep him, and possibly Harry, alive.

JKR's Official Site; FAQ section
Some of you, who have been convinced that the prophecy marked Neville, in some mystical fashion, for a fate intertwined with Harry's, may find this answer rather dull. Yet I was making what I felt was a significant point about Harry and Voldemort, and about prophecies themselves, in showing Neville as the also-ran. If neither boy was 'pre-ordained' before Voldemort's attack to become his possible vanquisher, then the prophecy (like the one the witches make to Macbeth, if anyone has read the play of the same name) becomes the catalyst for a situation that would never have occurred if it had not been made. Harry is propelled into a terrifying position he might never have sought, while Neville remains the tantalising 'might-have-been'. Destiny is a name often given in retrospect to choices that had dramatic consequences. bold added by me

I agree with the people who think that Harry has more choices than the editorial seems to indicate. Yes, he has been singled out by Voldemort. Yes, Voldemort will continue to pursue Harry until he succeeds in killing him, supposedly. But there are many ways for Harry to handle an impending attack without losing his moral compass. He has made a choice to pursue Voldemort. His motives are honorable, no different than a law enforcement officer's motives would be. He has to destroy the horcruxes, a morally ambigious activity. Once the horcruxes are destroyed, Voldemort becomes mortal. In the Muggle world, a law enforcement officer would arrest Voldemort, he would be put on trial, and he would be punished according to the laws of the land. We cannot assume that Harry's actions in dealing with Voldemort will break a moral code. There are many scenarios in which Harry could defeat Voldemort and have it be considered self-defense. I believe that most religions and societies consider self-defense to be a morally acceptable action.

What a lot of people have missed is this:
The reason Laura Mallory and other christian conservatives have constantly failed to have the books banned is this: FREEDOM OF RELIGION!
America is a country of many faiths, all of which are protected EQUALLY by the Constitution.
AMERICA IS NOT A CHRISTIAN STATE!.
And, the American Constitution also guarantees FREEDOM OF SPEECH. J K Rowling's can publish anything she wants here.
AMERICA IS NOT A POLICE STATE!
It wouldn't matter if J K Rowling wrote "Worship Goats" in bold letters on every single page of the Harry Potter books, she is free to write and believe whatever she wants.
Laura Mallory and the other christian conservatives have forgotten these two undeniable and unchangeable facts. If they disagree with the Harry Potter books, they should simply tell their own kids not to read them!

I agree with the people who think that Harry has more choices than the editorial seems to indicate. Yes, he has been singled out by Voldemort. Yes, Voldemort will continue to pursue Harry until he succeeds in killing him, supposedly. But there are many ways for Harry to handle an impending attack without losing his moral compass.It would seem that Harry is not as backed into a corner as Ms. Woeste feels he is. Are there factors strongly influencing his choices? Yes. But are they really forcing him to do anything, are they making his choices for him? No. Outside factors can be likely to influence someone, but in most cases that's far short of forcing anyone's hand entirely.


He has made a choice to pursue Voldemort. His motives are honorable, no different than a law enforcement officer's motives would be. He has to destroy the horcruxes, a morally ambigious activity. Once the horcruxes are destroyed, Voldemort becomes mortal. In the Muggle world, a law enforcement officer would arrest Voldemort, he would be put on trial, and he would be punished according to the laws of the land.There is another scenario that sometimes plays out in the Muggle world - the criminal who will not let himself be "taken alive." In those cases it can be nearly impossible to apprehend a criminal. A recent name for this is "suicide by cop," where the criminal purposefully takes actions that will, indeed, force the hand of the police, such as coming at them with his own guns blazing. He knows full well that, out in the open and acting that way, he is sure to be shot down and likely killed.

I don't believe Voldemort would want "suicide by cop" but I can also see him never doing anything to allow himself to be captured (if that's even possible). I mention this scenario because its moral implications are in line with the current discussion, which leads to...

We cannot assume that Harry's actions in dealing with Voldemort will break a moral code. There are many scenarios in which Harry could defeat Voldemort and have it be considered self-defense. I believe that most religions and societies consider self-defense to be a morally acceptable action.Obviously a police officer, confronted by someone determined to force the hand of the officer, would not be considered a murderer. I think most people would even hesitate to call him a killer. While technically true - he killed someone - the word "killer" has an onerous reputation in our society. Usually such cases are ruled by police boards to have been justified, even heroic if the criminal was intent on taking the life of an innocent bystander as part of his means to force the cops' hand.

But such a killing still leaves most officers with a very deep emotional scar. Despite their really not having had more than a token choice, which could have resulted in their own or an innocent person's death, they still are sometimes so traumatized by having to kill that they leave police work altogether and sometimes need many years of therapy. Sadly, some even commit suicide themselves. This doesn't happen in every case, but it does happen.

This whole scenario is another reason I wonder if Harry may seemingly have his hand forced, but will find a way other than outright killing Voldemort. We all know that on occasion justified killing is almost impossible to avoid, but to sanction that in a series originally aimed at children will no doubt cause doubts on the part of many readers as to the books' final overall value to society. While having Harry find some other way to vanquish Voldemort would both save him the anguish of later guilt and save JKR the recrimination for seeming to sanction killing, it might also gain her criticism for proposing an "unrealstic" outcome.

But you know... this is fiction. And in fiction we can all try out ideas we'd love to have work in real life but probably never would. However, that does not mean we can't still cull valuable insights from them that can be applied to real life.

Brilliant Essay!

I thoroughly enjoyed it. Yes, there were some instances I didn't necessarily agree with, but it was very well written and proposed a new way of looking at familiar facts. And to that point, imo, your essay was spot on; by examining the larger picture of morality in the Potterverse, we can possibly get a glimpse of where the end of the saga will take us. And honestly, that's why I enjoy reading these editorials. Because as someone else said in a different post I read quite a while ago, it is only NOW that we can enjoy this speculation and guesswork. Once DH is out, there won't be anything further to obsess over or ruminate about. Noone writes editorials about how Lord of the Rings will end because it's already been set down. But RIGHT NOW, we can revel in, what was it Dumbledore said, the "thickets of wild guesswork". So i greatly appreciate anyone who takes the time to research and assemble such a thought provoking essay. Thank you.

And I completely agree with the assertion relating to Snape. I feel he was smitten with Lily, and that much of his anger towards James/Harry stems from this open and oozing emotional sore spot. Perhaps Lily gave Snape, no matter how fleetingly, a feeling of acceptance and normalcy.

And btw, it was NOT too long. It was exactly as long as it needed to be.

Emerald63- I would add, that by introducing Harry to Tom Riddle through the Diary in CoS, and having Dumbledore show him Riddle's youth, JKR has purposefully forced HArry to think of Voldemort as more than a cartoon villian, as more than just pure evil, but as an evil person. Dumbledore asks him if what he has seen has perhaps not made him feel sorry for Voldemort. Whatever he does, Harry cannot treat Voldemort merely as a thing, or as some people treat animals. I think this is to underline that whatever he chooses will be a moral choice, not merely a practical choice. That makes it easier to imagine that he will have a choice, as well as the Power of Love possibly influencing his choice.

While there are sometimes no choices left but to use deadly force, I think the notion that there are often choices which are ignored receives far less exposure, to our detriment. I can't quite recall the exact quote, but I believe Dr. M.L. King said something like, "Resorting to violence demonstrates the failure of reason." The fact that members of the Order, including Dumbledore, resist using deadly curses suggests to me that JKR would be more comfortable telling people to" look for an alternative to killing", rather than saying ,"When you feel you have no choice, you are justified in killing another person." You might recall that both Draco upon the Tower, and Wormtail in the Shreaking Shack, insisted they had no choice, only to be challenged on that point. I think JKR may feel that even if it is an excuse, it is one which is frequently abused.

Originally Posted by Boromir
Forgive me for disagreeing once again. The editorial almost matched the length of the philoshphers stone itself. And to say it had no flaws is beyond exaggeration. Some points raised by others in response have yet to be answered by the author as far as I can see.

I believe you are being rather critical Boromir. Yes there were flaws but you appear to have missed the important message of this editorial which I think was about Severus Snape. I agree with everything the author said about SS btw. The only problem I have is that Dumbledore must have another reason(s) to trust Snape other than grief for Lilly because he was hired before Voldemort's downfall (as pointed out in previous posts.) But there are probably a million possibilities for this that we can only guess. And Guessing i suppose isn't a very sound basis for a paper of this calibre.

I'd also like to comment on the good quality of the last few editorials - something we have been starved of, I think, for months. Thank you to the Authors!

Wow. I vote for this editorial for the Most Long Winded and Over Wrought editorial ever posted to mugglenet.


The author's understanding of Free Will is essentially flawed and is not based on actual Catholic teaching. She makes a good effort in quoting Augustine, but he was on one of the extreme ends in his understanding of Free Will. Though he was a Bishop, a Doctor of the Church and a brilliant man, his writings don't represent Catholic teaching. Next time, try looking in the Catechism. There's a very enlightening section about the morality of human acts that is very straightforward and truly reflects the morality JKR has put into her books.

The author's understanding of Harry seems to me to be heavily compromised by her intense liking of Snape. The author blantantly disregards direct statements made by Dumbledore and JKR in favor of her fancy of Snape. Once and for all, though Snape is very important to the series, he is not the hero and the books are not about him.

All in all, this editorial does not reflect what JKR has told us about the characters.

Wow. I vote for this editorial for the Most Long Winded and Over Wrought editorial ever posted to mugglenet.


The author's understanding of Free Will is essentially flawed and is not based on actual Catholic teaching. She makes a good effort in quoting Augustine, but he was on one of the extreme ends in his understanding of Free Will. Though he was a Bishop, a Doctor of the Church and a brilliant man, his writings don't represent Catholic teaching. Next time, try looking in the Catechism. There's a very enlightening section about the morality of human acts that is very straightforward and truly reflects the morality JKR has put into her books.

The author's understanding of Harry seems to me to be heavily compromised by her intense liking of Snape. The author blantantly disregards direct statements made by Dumbledore and JKR in favor of her fancy of Snape. Once and for all, though Snape is very important to the series, he is not the hero and the books are not about him.

All in all, this editorial does not reflect what JKR has told us about the characters.


Finnaly someone with some commen sense! I second every word! :tu: I salute you Harry_Lives.
There's quite alot of hyperbole around this considerably overated editorial.

Thankyou for a wonderful editorial.

Reading, and re-reading the books, it is Snape who always wriggles his way to the forefront of my attention, and I am sure that not only is he one of the good guys, but one of the best. How will Harry learn to trust him? How can he overcome his understandable prejudice against him? Harry's love is instinctive, and his actions are often without due consideration, but (somehow) he will have to listen first and act later.

My hope is that both survive their journeys.

Well -- not long to wait now! 21st July ...

Thanks to everyone who has taken the time to comment on my piece. Thanks especially for all the kind words--and also for the critiques--all of which I have enjoyed reading. I wish I could respond to each one; I just don't have time. Instead I'll try to address some of the points that have been raised.

I accept the correction that Snape left Voldemort prior to the murder of the Potters. Does the timing matter much for my theory? I don't think so, and I don't think Shewoman's making the argument that it does. In fact, it makes Snape's repentance all the more genuine, because he seems to have acted on his feelings about her, not about how he felt about what happened to her. But yes, a good point.

SusanBones111 raises the case of Wormtail. I didn't pay much attention to him in this piece, in order to focus on Snape, but I agree there's room to speculate there on the nature of choice. I'm one of those who wants to know how Wormtail's debt to Harry will eventually be repaid, if at all. If I could spend more time writing HP papers, believe me, I would!

The Tattler interview (available on Mugglenet) says that JKR is an Episcopalian. There is no mention of either the Church of England or the Church of Scotland. If Hermione57 has more to say about the differences between them, I'd be interested to know more; but this operates at a pretty high level of specificity and I am not sure it matters for me.

On whether Harry has been tempted: sure, in small ways, but nothing that rises to the level of a serious test of his loyalties. Nothing like what Snape or Wormtail had to contemplate. I don't think the paper claims Harry has no freedom to act, only that his freedom to act is more limited than Dumbledore seems to acknowledge. I agree with the great post that makes the point that Harry may experience more freedom once he's come of age (I think I hint at that possibility in the piece). N_H puts it nicely: "The end of HBP leaves protagonist Harry and antagonist Voldemort both powerful and morally responsible, probably mortal again. In other words, Deathly Hallows can show a conflict, if J. Rowling decides so, where both Harry and Voldemort are free to choose and suffer the consequences of their choices."

Without Dumbledore and without the protection of Privet Drive, Harry is going to be more volunerable than he's ever been since his parents' deaths, and that is a great premise for the final novel. I also agree with Phil_Stone that we're going to see a more grown-up Harry, one who is able to act heroically in an authentic sense. Nice observation about how James and Sirius turned themselves around when they got older--the Henry V reference is spot-on. I think that resonates with a lot of us.

Thanks, Emerald63, for your thoughtful and smart posts. I appreciate your more complex description of race relations in the Wizarding World. You're right that the Weasleys are more of a model than I acknowledge (but they do seem to care less about house elves than they should--perhaps this just makes them more understandably human). You're also right that I didn't consider the possibility that you and Phil_Stone mention, that AD was working to get Harry ready for the possibility of killing Voldemort, in case he has to (perhaps he won't--perhaps someone else will do it, or he may die by some other means). "If he were not prepared to kill Voldemort, to spare him would not truely be a free choice. To freely choose to spare Voldemort, Harry must be able to kill him, but choose to do otherwise." Absolutely right, Phil_Stone. But I still think the prophecy forces Harry to engage in the high-noon-like showdown, functionally, because he won't choose to stand idly by, watch others die, or accept death passively himself. Self-defense is a morally acceptable defense to killing, as is the principle of double-effect. It's like a Sophie's choice--a choice where neither alternative is morally satisfactory. But that is real life, and that's why the books work as theology as well as fantasy.

Phil_Stone expresses dismay that in my piece "'morality' reduced to Religion." I guess I am too much of a Catholic--and not enough of a philosopher--to write about morality from a non-religious point of view. I acknowledge the long tradition of twentieth-century work on ethics and justice; I just don't write from it.

I see there are still a few people who are making an issue of the essay's length. A suggestion: If you get tired of reading, stop. Easy enough, no?

Harry_Lives: if you'd care to point out how Augustine's ideas have been repudiated by the official catechism of the Church, I could engage with your objection. As it is, Augustine remains one of the pillars--with St. Thomas Aquinas and others--of Catholic thought. Augustine is assigned reading in seminaries and theology schools. And, for the record, I cite the Catechism in my footnotes. I just don't limit myself to it.

I get the impression that some of the younger posters are surprised that older adults can feel as invested and attached to the HP books as they do. I know lots and lots of people who are. And I am by no means the first academic to write a paper about HP. There was an entire panel on HP at last year's Law, Culture, and Humanities meeting. When my footnotes get posted you'll see more than a few references to scholarly papers. My favorite is William P. MacNeil, “Kidlit as Law and Lit: Harry Potter and the Scales of Justice,” [I]Law and Literature, 14:3 (Autumn, 2002), 545-64. Like many people, I picked up the books as my oldest was finishing them and got completely hooked. I love talking with her about them, and this paper was shaped by our discussions as much as by anything else I read. The other reason I find the problem of free will and the freedom to act in the social world so compelling is because, as a historian, I am constantly trying to figure out why people did the things they did and how they perceived their own freedom as they did so. Usually my sources don't exhibit the degree of self-awareness that would make this task easy, but that's part of the fun. Cenzonico asked what my book is about. The short answer is that it is about a lawsuit from the 1920s. A Jewish lawyer sued Henry Ford for libel after Ford's newspaper published nearly 2 dozen articles attacking him and accusing him of serving as a front for a Jewish conspiracy to dominate world affairs. The book is about the litigation and the politics of Jewish civil rights activism and how Ford manipulated the legal process with the connivance of the people who worked for him.

Regards,
vsw

Hi!

I am confused. I thought that Catholics gained salvation through absolution and that traditional Protestant belief was salvation through actions (and hard work). The fundamental protestants of course are neither group.

Could you clarify for me?

I am off to a Catholic college this Setember, so I should figure this out soon!

Thanks!
Nikki

I see there are still a few people who are making an issue of the essay's length. A suggestion: If you get tired of reading, stop. Easy enough, no?

I have no problem with long editorials. I do not like editorials that take so long to say so little.

Harry_Lives: if you'd care to point out how Augustine's ideas have been repudiated by the official catechism of the Church, I could engage with your objection. As it is, Augustine remains one of the pillars--with St. Thomas Aquinas and others--of Catholic thought. Augustine is assigned reading in seminaries and theology schools. And, for the record, I cite the Catechism in my footnotes. I just don't limit myself to it.


I did not say Augustine's ideas have been repudiated by the Catechism. I merely say they are not representive of the official teaching of the Church. Personally, I tend toward a more Molinist view of Free Will. I am perfectly aware of Augustine's important in the development of Catholic theology, but quite honestly he was only one man and as fallible in his understanding as you or I. I look forward to viewing your footnotes. I would like to read the context of the very short and vague quote which you gave.

Some of the conclusions drawn in this editorial are simply and blatantly anti-canon, anti-Dumbledore, and anti-JKR. They are your personal opinion and are not supported in the least by the books or the author. Dumbledore has told us that Harry can walk away from the prophecy if he chooses, JKR has told us the same thing. Therefore, it is fact and you must accept it. Now, literarily speaking, Harry doesn't actually have this choice because there would be a worldwide riot and people would be calling for JKR's head. But that
has nothing to do with the fact that story wise Harry could run away if he wanted to. He won't because he's not the type of person to do so, but it is still his choice.

Quite honestly, I do not understand how a Catholic can think that one's "identity" is a hamper to one's Free Will, or that circumstances or history can hamper Free Will. Unless someone is pointing a wand at Harry's heart and threatening to AK him if he doesn't fight Voldemort, his choices are his own and Free. You seem to be laboring under the impression that Free Will means being in control of your circumstances. This couldn't be further from the truth. Free Will is not about control. It is about being responsible for your actions. All that identity and history and circumstances do is influence whether or not your action is good or evil.

As far as your contention that Harry has not been sorely tempted, so what? As a Catholic (I'm assuming of course that you are a devout Catholic who submits to Church teaching) you should realize that Jesus himself was not really tempted to sin. He was impeccable and therefore unable to sin. He was, however, tempted to forego the cross. He had that choice, yet because of who he was he never would have actually forsaken it. I see the dilemma of Jesus as similar to Harry's (though I do not believe Harry will fulfill the full Messianic role of self sacrifice). Harry has the choice to fight Voldemort or not. Yet because of who he is, because he is filled with love and has a pure, whole soul, he will not choose to walk away. Still, it is a choice.

Hi!

I am confused. I thought that Catholics gained salvation through absolution and that traditional Protestant belief was salvation through actions (and hard work). The fundamental protestants of course are neither group.

Could you clarify for me?

I am off to a Catholic college this Setember, so I should figure this out soon!

Thanks!
Nikki

You are indeed confused! The Catholic Church teaches that salvation is by Grace alone. Meaning, nothing we do can save us, we are completely dependent upon God to give us what we need to be saved. However, God requires certain things of us in order to be saved. One is to truly repent of our sins. That is why there is confession and absolution by a Priest who stands as God's representative. Another is to be Baptized. Still another is to respond to the Grace God gives us with good works, or good actions. And apart from these things, the Catholic Church provides several other avenues through which we can receive God's Grace, these are the sacraments.

I am not very familiar with "traditional" protestant churches. My understanding is that any church which has it's origin in the Reformation (Lutherans, Calvinists, Methodists, Baptists etc) claim to uphold a doctrine called "Sola Fide" which is translated as "Faith Alone". Though every denomination disagrees about what exactly "Faith Alone" means, I think a general definition includes salvation being obtained through faith alone. These protestants tend to reject the idea of good works or anything but faith being necessary for salvation. The Catholic Church does not teach or support in any way the doctrine of "Faith Alone".

The Anglican/Episcopal churches I believe hold a view of salvation very similar to that of the Catholic Church, at least historically.

I hope that clears things up for you.

My, my, this thread is indeed quite the forum for ideas!

Because as someone else said in a different post I read quite a while ago, it is only NOW that we can enjoy this speculation and guesswork. Once DH is out, there won't be anything further to obsess over or ruminate about. Noone writes editorials about how Lord of the Rings will end because it's already been set down. RIGHT NOW, we can revel in, what was it Dumbledore said, the "thickets of wild guesswork".True, guesswork can only occur now, before DH is released this July. But never fear, I doubt the discussion will end once that happens. No, no one writes about how LotR will turn out. But they do write about how it, as a literary work, discusses ethics and responsibility, how it compares to others that do, and, as a result, about those subjects in general. I believe the same will hold true for HP. It will be used as a mirror in which to view ourselves in a new light for quite some time. And that really kicks backside, imo!


About Snape's feelings for Lily:
...this open and oozing emotional sore spot...Quite the accurate - and graphic - description! :tu: :lol:



JKR has purposefully forced HArry to think of Voldemort as more than a cartoon villian, as more than just pure evil, but as an evil person. Dumbledore asks him if what he has seen has perhaps not made him feel sorry for Voldemort. Whatever he does, Harry cannot treat Voldemort merely as a thing... whatever he chooses will be a moral choice, not merely a practical choice. That makes it easier to imagine that he will have a choice, as well as the Power of Love possibly influencing his choice.Well said Phil. I agree entirely. :agree:


While there are sometimes no choices left but to use deadly force, I think the notion that there are often choices which are ignored receives far less exposure, to our detriment.Those other choices do seem to lack the dramatic punch of the "kill or be killed" scenario so common in the popular media. But real life isn't always about drama, and adding invented drama to real life too often causes many more problems than it solves. Children learn by example, and if popular media examples outnumber real life ones, those children may indeed grow up to believe drama is the norm, most definitely to our detriment. But it is not entirely the fault of popular culture purveyors. After all, some number of us must pay enough, and often enough, to make it worth their while. On the other hand those purveyors do still carry a good portion of the responsibility for what's out there, as many people and groups have bemoaned the lack of less than violent, yet not completely sanitized, entertainment. I find HP an excellent example of combining dramatic excitement and less dramatic, but vastly more important, personal reflection. Perhaps that is the key to its success - it gives us much of what we need, as well as much of what we want.


I can't quite recall the exact quote, but I believe Dr. M.L. King said something like, "Resorting to violence demonstrates the failure of reason." The fact that members of the Order, including Dumbledore, resist using deadly curses suggests to me that JKR would be more comfortable telling people to" look for an alternative to killing", rather than saying, "When you feel you have no choice, you are justified in killing another person."I am reminded of one of my favorite quotes by John F. Kennedy, "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable." Even though I admire JFK's sentiments and feel his observation is often the case, I still hope Harry can find a non-violent solution to the wizarding world's current situation. Voldemort has most definitely made "peaceful revolution" impossible and he is in no way going to listen to reason, not as his character profile currently stands. But as both Dr. King and Mahatma Ghandi, among others, have shown us, there are indeed non-violent solutions that do sometimes succeed in opposing even the most ruthless tyrants... just so long as they are not continuously attempting to murder you morning, noon, and night while you're doing your best to be peaceful. Even then, it is astonishing to remember the number of King's Civil Rights supporters who did not "return fire" when set upon with police dogs, fire hoses, and even more violent police billy club beatings. Their forebearance under such circumstances was nothing short of miraculous. Yes, I would say there is lots of room for JKR to find a non-violent outcome.


I think JKR may feel that even if it is an excuse, it is one which is frequently abused.Agreed. :agree:



The only problem I have is that Dumbledore must have another reason(s) to trust Snape other than grief for Lilly because he was hired before Voldemort's downfall (as pointed out in previous posts.) But there are probably a million possibilities for this that we can only guess. And Guessing i suppose isn't a very sound basis for a paper of this calibre.Does the timing matter much for my theory? ...In fact, it makes Snape's repentance all the more genuine, because he seems to have acted on his feelings about her, not about how he felt about what happened to her.I feel it's very likely that Snape did have grief about his actions (revealing The Prophecy to LV), even before Lily's murder. His grief came at realizing what LV intended to do with the information, which was well before the actual murders. I believe DD has told us as much about the reason for Snape's original reaction, the one that sent him to DD to begin with. He would have had an even greater grief over the eventual murder, but that was in essence a compounding of something he'd already been feeling.


I'd also like to comment on the good quality of the last few editorials - something we have been starved of, I think, for months. Thank you to the Authors!Hear, Hear!I second those thoughts!!



The author's understanding of Harry seems to me to be heavily compromised by her intense liking of Snape. The author blantantly disregards direct statements made by Dumbledore and JKR in favor of her fancy of Snape. Once and for all, though Snape is very important to the series, he is not the hero and the books are not about him.I did not share the impression you express in your first two sentences here. And who says the books are only about the hero, or even only him, his supporters, and his foes? They are not about Snape solely, but nor are they about Harry solely, either. JKR's books encompass many ideas, some that are directly related to Harry and some that are not. All seem to be pertinant in some way to the greater overall wizarding community, though, which seems to me to imply that JKR is talking about much more than just Harry - she is presenting a reflection of our own world and making commentary on it couched in fictional terms. Snape is not the centerpoint of the series in its entirety. But his continual and prominant role throughout all the books shows that JKR does mean him to have major importance, as you acknowledge, to both the plot and the broader ideas she's representing. Personally, I find the possible permutations of his exact feelings and motivations to be endlessly fascinating, and they have sparked many of the spirited, ongoing debates on these forums. For that reason alone, he is worthy of continued discussion, imo, both here and in the editorials.

If you disagree with them, Harry_Lives, as VSW so simply said, you don't have to read the editorials you don't like. You have every right to express your dislike, which you have, and you've done so with good reasons as to your opinions. But please understand that some of us do like them and afford us the courtesy of enjoying them and having discussions about them. Your disagreement with them does not make us, or the author "wrong." I don't think you've said that, but it's a general comment I like to make now and then, as a reminder to everyone, most especially younger CoS members. :)



Finnaly someone with some commen sense!Am I to understand that those who disagree with you have no common sense, while those who do agree with you do have common sense? If so, that's a fairly hyperbolic statement in it's own right.


There's quite alot of hyperbole around this considerably overated editorial.Oh... the irony. But enough, I will not address this issue again. My apologies if any feel I have over-visited it already.



Harry's love is instinctive, and his actions are often without due consideration, but (somehow) he will have to listen first and act later.Still in an ironic vein, but one heavily vested in canon backup... What you state Harry needs to do, ginger1, listen first and act later, is exactly what Snape told him he must do at the end of HBP.

My hope is that both survive their journeys.Ditto that!!! :tu: :tu:



If I could spend more time writing HP papers, believe me, I would!I really wish you could, too!


Thanks, Emerald63, for your thoughtful and smart posts. I appreciate your more complex description of race relations in the Wizarding World. You're right that the Weasleys are more of a model than I acknowledge (but they do seem to care less about house elves than they should--perhaps this just makes them more understandably human).You're most welcome. :) I've always had an interest in comparative cultural anthropology. It is indeed a puzzle why the otherwise morally well-grounded Weasleys do not only not directly address the concept of house-elf slavery, but seem passively disinterested, even unaware, of its moral implications. But, as you say, they are only human and I for one love every little human flaw they have. :love:


But I still think the prophecy forces Harry... [emphasis added]While I agree with your premise that Harry is not entirely free to choose any response at all, I am uncomfortable with the word "forces." It is only a single word, and you may have used it in a more general, casual sense than I read it, but sometimes even one word can make a difference. If you are familiar with John Steinbeck's East of Eden, you will remember the long research undertaken by some of its characters to properly translate a single word, because even a slight mistranslation drastically changes the moral implications of the passage in general. I am greatly fond of Steinbeck, his ability to so clearly describe the human condition in all its complexities, and his accute understanding of profound implications in even small actions. I don't usually nit-pick like this over single words, but this case seemed important to me.



It's like a Sophie's choice--a choice where neither alternative is morally satisfactory.The central scene in that movie was one of the most nightmarish, heartwrenching scenes I have ever witnessed. It resulted in my own nightmares for quite some time after I saw it. No, it's not "morally satisfactory," not in any sense. For those of you not familiar with the film, I will spare you - literally - the mental image of Sophie's choice. It is almost more than I can bear to think about, and I don't wish the same for any of you. I do so desperately hope, VSW that Harry is not faced with a similar choice. How I would grieve and weep for him if he is.


I see there are still a few people who are making an issue of the essay's length. A suggestion: If you get tired of reading, stop. Easy enough, no?Luckily, this bit made me laugh a great deal, so it's all good. :)


Cenzonico asked what my book is about. The short answer is that it is about a lawsuit from the 1920s.Sounds fascinating! I hope to have a chance to read it someday. Yup, I'm a history and cultural anthropology geek, alright! :yuhup:



(I'm assuming of course that you are a devout Catholic who submits to Church teaching)Hmmm.... a certain word comes to mind.... what is it again.... "humility"? Is it possible to exhibit that trait oneself while apparantly doubting it in someone else? Luckily for me, my particular faith does not require humility, as I'm sure you can tell. :whistle:

Ok guys we're all entitled to likes and dislikes as long as they're put forward in a constructive way I've no problems :) This was a throught provoking read even if you didn't necessarily agree with what was experssed. Thats VSW for your contribution.

Let's keep it friendly!

There is the concept of doing penance for your sins in order to redeem yourself. I like the example of R.A.B., the rather mysterious character who most likely realized that he had made a mistake in becoming a Death Eater. He was so strongly motivated to "right the wrong" that he had committed when he became a Death Eater that he risked his very life in order to correct his error in judgement. He did more than just try to leave the Death Eaters. He worked to help defeat Voldemort. This act of contrition, if you can call it that, was the real penance, the true attempt to "save his soul". This example of true redemption by R.A.B. would indicate that a character such as Wormtail would have to turn against Voldemort in a way that helps the "good side" in order to do penance for his crimes.

Draco has made the choice to join the dark side. He has already "sinned" by attempting to kill Dumbledore. His only redemption would be by actively helping to defeat Voldemort just as RAB did. Draco would not have been redeemed in the so called "Catholic" viewpoint if he had simply gone into hiding. He could only redeem himself by an act of contrition.

I feel that JK Rowling has already stated how she views moral choice by using these three characters. She has given us RAB to show what a person needs to do to "right the wrongs" they have done. RAB has been redeemed because of his attempt to defeat Voldemort. She has given us Wormtail with his life debt to show us a person who "hopefully" will redeem himself. He has committed more than just the crime of joining the bad guys. He has committed the crime of betrayal, sending his friends to their death by his actions. In many ways, his crime is worse than someone who is clearly a bad guy from the start. JK Rowling created the concept of life debt, which is really a clever way to conceal the concept of penance. Wormtail's life debt will be his penance and his true redemption. Only by an act of penance, fulfilling his life debt, can his wrongs be righted. And then she has given us Draco, a boy we have watched grow up. We know more about Draco than any other bad guy. We know what he should do, turn to the good side, and we hope he is redeemed, no matter how much we may dislike him.

I'm pretty willing to concede that Augustine was a heck of a lot smarter than I am, Harry_Lives. And I'm starting to think he could take you in a 100-yard dash even if he spotted you 50 yards. For one thing, Augustine never said anything nearly as heretical as this:

[QUOTE=Harry_Lives;4325539]
[Y]ou should realize that Jesus himself was not really tempted to sin. He was impeccable and therefore unable to sin. He was, however, tempted to forego the cross. He had that choice, yet because of who he was he never would have actually forsaken it.

To deny Jesus the possibility of sin is to deny his humanity, and to deny his humanity is a heresy in the Catholic Church. And Jesus absolutely experienced temptation--remember those 40 days in the desert? Was that just for show, or did God really mean to test Him?

You then go on to say:

Quite honestly, I do not understand how a Catholic can think that one's "identity" is a hamper to one's Free Will, or that circumstances or history can hamper Free Will.


In fact, this is the essence of the human condition. Circumstance and history have everything to do with who we are and how we perceive our world and how we act in it. As a Catholic, would you condemn people who by dint of history did not encounter Christ? The Church did, for centuries, but it doesn't any longer. It regards them as having been shaped by their place in human history, to no fault of their own.

Regards,
vsw

I did not share the impression you express in your first two sentences here. And who says the books are only about the hero, or even only him, his supporters, and his foes? They are not about Snape solely, but nor are they about Harry solely, either. JKR's books encompass many ideas, some that are directly related to Harry and some that are not. All seem to be pertinant in some way to the greater overall wizarding community, though, which seems to me to imply that JKR is talking about much more than just Harry - she is presenting a reflection of our own world and making commentary on it couched in fictional terms. Snape is not the centerpoint of the series in its entirety. But his continual and prominant role throughout all the books shows that JKR does mean him to have major importance, as you acknowledge, to both the plot and the broader ideas she's representing. Personally, I find the possible permutations of his exact feelings and motivations to be endlessly fascinating, and they have sparked many of the spirited, ongoing debates on these forums. For that reason alone, he is worthy of continued discussion, imo, both here and in the editorials.

I have never, nor will I ever, said that Snape is not worthy of discussion. Believe me, I also maintain a healthy fascination with his character. (Indeed, I think it is difficult for adult readers to find Harry more interesting than Snape.) And I have participated in a fair number of discussions about him. I agree that he is a very important part of the story. (You'll notice in my original post I acknowledged his importance.) However, what I disagree with is arguments or editorials that make it seem like he is more important, more central to the themes of the books than Harry is. The books are about Harry. That's why his name is in the title, that's why we see everything from his point of view. Ultimately, the books are about his conflict, not Snape's. In this kind of story, the importance of the other characters is directly related to how much influence they have in the Hero's journey. Such is Snape. His importance corresponds directly to how he affects Harry. And frankly, I am tired of those who seem to want him to be more important, more central to the story than HArry. This editorial seemed to me to be taking that view since the author spent several paragraphs disparaging Harry and then several more avidly discussing how fascinating and vital Snape is.

If you disagree with them, Harry_Lives, as VSW so simply said, you don't have to read the editorials you don't like. You have every right to express your dislike, which you have, and you've done so with good reasons as to your opinions. But please understand that some of us do like them and afford us the courtesy of enjoying them and having discussions about them. Your disagreement with them does not make us, or the author "wrong." I don't think you've said that, but it's a general comment I like to make now and then, as a reminder to everyone, most especially younger CoS members. :)

Ah well, your solution is quite frankly impossible. For I cannot know that I dislike an editorial until after I have read it. I honestly do not have problems with editorials that present ideas and beliefs different from my own. What bothers me is when those ideas are presented without logical, canon based arguments to back them up or are presented in such a way that completely goes against canon, as this editorial does.



Am I to understand that those who disagree with you have no common sense, while those who do agree with you do have common sense? If so, that's a fairly hyperbolic statement in it's own right.

Well, if the poster considers his own opinions to be common sense (and we can assume he does since if he didn't then why would be hold those opinions?), then by definition anyone who holds the opposite opinion would not have common sense. It seems logical enough to me.



While I agree with your premise that Harry is not entirely free to choose any response at all, I am uncomfortable with the word "forces."

This is the main problem I have with the editorial. This "premise" blatantly disagrees with what we've been told by Dumbledore and by JKR in interviews. So it simply is FACT that Harry is free to choose to walk away from the prophecy. Arguing against established fact does not make an intelligent editorial.



Hmmm.... a certain word comes to mind.... what is it again.... "humility"? Is it possible to exhibit that trait oneself while apparantly doubting it in someone else? Luckily for me, my particular faith does not require humility, as I'm sure you can tell. :whistle:

Humility has nothing to do with it. Quite honestly, some of the author's ideas on Free Will do not seem to agree wholely with established Catholic teaching. Since Catholics who do not feel the need to actually obey the Catholic Church or submit to her teachings are many, I am giving the author the benefit of the doubt and assuming she is not one of that much too high number.

I'm pretty willing to concede that Augustine was a heck of a lot smarter than I am, Harry_Lives. And I'm starting to think he could take you in a 100-yard dash even if he spotted you 50 yards.

Well, I don't pretend to know anything about Augustine's track ability so I won't disagree with you.


To deny Jesus the possibility of sin is to deny his humanity, and to deny his humanity is a heresy in the Catholic Church. And Jesus absolutely experienced temptation--remember those 40 days in the desert? Was that just for show, or did God really mean to test Him?

Actually, the Catholic Church attests that Jesus was "impeccable", that means "unable to sin". I am not denying his humanity as it is not necessary to sin to be human. As a Catholic I'm sure you believe that Mary never sinned. This did not make her less human in any way. Consider this quote from the Catechism paragraph 475 which is about Jesus' human and divine wills:

They are not opposed to each other, but co-operate in such a way that the Word made flesh willed humanly in obedience to his Father all that he had decided divinely with the Father and the Holy Spirit for our salvation.[110] Christ's human will "does not resist or oppose but rather submits to his divine and almighty will."[111]

The fact is that by insisting he could have sinned, you are denying his divinity. Jesus was fully God and God cannot sin. God is the opposite of sin. Jesus was also fully human, but humans can fully resist sin. The ability to sin is not a prerequisite for humanity.


You then go on to say:

Quite honestly, I do not understand how a Catholic can think that one's "identity" is a hamper to one's Free Will, or that circumstances or history can hamper Free Will.


In fact, this is the essence of the human condition. Circumstance and history have everything to do with who we are and how we perceive our world and how we act in it. As a Catholic, would you condemn people who by dint of history did not encounter Christ? The Church did, for centuries, but it doesn't any longer. It regards them as having been shaped by their place in human history, to no fault of their own.

Regards,
vsw

Circumstance and history and identity have everything to do with whether or not our actions are good or evil. All must be considered before deciding the morality of an action. However, none of these things (unless circumstances includes force i.e. a gun to your head) actually limit Free Will.

Your example does not contradict me. This is the very reason why Jesus speaks of judging people by their actions. People who through no fault of their own have not heard of Jesus are still judged by their actions as Christians are. If they strove to live good lives, obeying natural law, then their good actions will speak for them. However, if they do not lead good lives, if they are murderer etc, they will be judge by their evil actions. Because all of our actions are chosen freely.

Hallo again vsw,


since I have come across an interesting interview with J. Rowling yesterday in which she explains her view on the matter of the "freedom of choices," I would like to introduce the respective quote into our discussion (apologies if it has come up already):

Harry is someone is forced for such a young person to make his own choices. He has very limited access to truly caring adults - and he is guided by his conscience. Now, Harry makes mistakes, repeatedly, erm Harry ha- ... did things like ... he did - he did steal the flying car, that was a very stupid thing to do, he - but it seemed like a great idea at the time, we've all been there - er - but ultimately Harry is guided by his conscience. He is flanked by two friends, they work far better as a team than apart, though Harry tends to be the one who has to shoulder the most of the burden - he is the true hero in that sense --- 1999 "The Connection" (WBUR Radio)

If I am not mistaken J. Rowling's view of the reduced nature of Harry's freedom slightly differs from the one you present in your editorial. While you state that Harry's "freedom to act is entirely shaped by [his parents' murder]" and imply that this crime reduces Harry's freedom, we see from the above quote that Rowling is of the opinion that, on the contrary, Harry has more responsibility than commonly a child of his age would have. Thus, as to Rowling's intention, Harry has to make more choices and, compared to his friends, carries more burden. So Rowling thinks that it is very natural that a child have a reduced freedom of choice since guardians assume most of the responsibility, while Harry only has a memory of such guardians (or in other words the invisible mark of his mother's love) that shields him from death but from little else.

Of course, we have to be careful to fully adopt Rowling's possibly subjective opinion on the matter without any questioning. One can surely disagree. On the other hand, her thought should definitely be considered. I think that the quote shows firstly that she does not consider a forced choice any less valid and free than any other choice, and secondly that she sees Harry as a boy with more freedom than others according to his age.

Kind regards,


N_H

---
UPDATE: With respect to the discussion if Jesus has the ability to sin, I cannot comment on the Catholic point of view, but would like to observe that the ability to sin might be given even when someone remains pure: "Christ was innocent of sin, and yet for our sake God made him one with the sinfulness of men, so that in him we might be made one with the goodness of God himself" (2 Cor. cited from Eliade, ed. "The Encyclopedia of Religion" on "Sin and guilt"). Furthermore, the cited article on "Sin and guilt" says that it "is this very paroxysm [the law makes sin real and sanctionable] that expresses itself in the crucifixion of the just par excellence, its total reversal by the grace of God making Christ's death atone for our sins." Note that from the above quote we know that Rowling understands that a child's choices, responsibilities and thus sins are partly accounted for by the child's guardians. In Harry's case that would be Lily, who dies innocently in a manner analogous to Christ. Following the analogy, this makes Harry "one with the goodness of God," he is granted a protecting love force and strong conscience. Harry's love force might be seen as a devine correction of his uncommon accountability for his choices.

Thanks for the clarification, Harry_Lives!

I am really going to have to take a theology class!

Nikki

While the essay is mistaken in placing Snape's defection to Dumbledore's side AFTER Lily's death rather than BEFORE Voldemort's downfall, I think that isn't the point. I think the point is that Snape loved Lily, maybe even enough to lay down his life for her (and if so, enough to know that Lily would lay down her life for her son), and he knew when Voldemort decided to go after the Potters that Lily would be in danger.

Snape clearly didn't turn spy for Dumbledore because Voldemort had killed Lily (because at the time, Voldemort hadn't), but it is quite likely that he turned spy because Lily's death was the inevitable result of Voldemort's decision.

Good post as always, N_H.

Isn't it remarkable how many fields a discussion of Harry Potter can lead us into? I think it's likely that after we read DH our discussions will be even more theological than they are now. (Couldn't someone organize a Harry Potter Discussion Camp somewhere for this purpose?)

VSW: you're right; I was not saying that the mistake about the timing of Snape's return to Dumbledore invalidated your theory; I was just correcting an error (one that's made by many people, including Harry).

SusanBones 111: Draco did choose to work for Voldemort (although I'm not convinced he's a DE), but he also chose not to kill Dumbledore. I think he will, if he survives, work against Voldemort in DH.

Harry Lives said: "I am not very familiar with "traditional" protestant churches. My understanding is that any church which has it's origin in the Reformation (Lutherans, Calvinists, Methodists, Baptists etc) claim to uphold a doctrine called "Sola Fide" which is translated as "Faith Alone". Though every denomination disagrees about what exactly "Faith Alone" means, I think a general definition includes salvation being obtained through faith alone. These protestants tend to reject the idea of good works or anything but faith being necessary for salvation. The Catholic Church does not teach or support in any way the doctrine of "Faith Alone".

The Anglican/Episcopal churches I believe hold a view of salvation very similar to that of the Catholic Church, at least historically."

Me: It is very difficult to make blanket statements about Protestants (I'm one) aside from "they all require oxygen" (and they seldom use Latin in naming their doctrines outside of Anglicanism/Episcopalianism). The name "Protestant" essentially means "those who protest." It is possible that all Protestants would agree on the statement "Jesus Christ is Lord," but discussion would reveal that they don't agree worldwide on the meanings of the words "Jesus, Christ, Lord"--which leaves us with "is." And since Bill Clinton is Protestant, we wouldn't find agreement on that either.

Protestants in general (note caveat above about how hard it is to be right in such statements) emphasize faith more than works. We mostly get this from Paul, particularly in Romans and Galatians. Salvation through grace is a gift that a) we did not earn and b) we could not have earned if we tried because grace by definition is unmerited. However, sometimes engaging in behavior deemed unChristian will lead Protestants to say that that's evidence that you DIDN'T actually receive grace, that you don't really have faith.

Hebrews 4:14 in the New Testament says (in the NRSV) that "We do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who in every respect has been tested [other translations say 'tempted'] as we are, yet without sin." The passage goes on to say that, because of this, we should therefore "approach the throne of grace with boldness, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need." I think this verse does a good job of showing Christ's commonality with us--experiencing the testing/temptation--as making him a better, more accessible teacher/representer of God to us while specifiying that his response and ours to temptation are not always the same. In my reading, if he was truly tempted "as we are" there had to be something in those temptations that did appeal to him; we are not tempted by that which offers us nothing we want. One of the main subjects of Hebrews is explaining the point of Jesus' being a divine-human hybrid and how that benefits us.

Harry's choices are not as limited as this editorial implies. He was perfectly free to become vengeful, mean, and cruel while he was at the Dursleys. He had virtually no reason to believe in the goodness of people. Dumbledore's "infatuation with Harry's purity of heart" is partially based on the fact that Harry himself remained essentially good, kind, and moral during his years with the Dursleys.

I disagree with your conclusions about Snape saving Harry because I disagree with your premises. I do not believe Snape loved Lily. The evidence that says he did is circumstantial and subjective.

Harry is the center of the novels. His choices are the ones that are the most important, not Snape's. Snape does not owe Harry anything, and he clearly hates Harry personally. If anyone ends up saving Harry, it will be Wormtail. He is the one who owes Harry a life debt. Harry's choice to be merciful in regard to Wormtail will help him later. It was too big of a good choice not to be recognized later

Draco did choose to work for Voldemort (although I'm not convinced he's a DE), but he also chose not to kill Dumbledore. I think he will, if he survives, work against Voldemort in DH. I agree that it is hard to know from the books whether Draco is really a Death Eater or not. He never actually shows the mark. But JK Rowling said something about Draco in her July 17, 2005 interview with Emerson and Melissa that leads me to think that Draco is a Death Eater.
July 17, 2005

MA: I wanted to go back to Draco.
JKR: OK, yeah, let's talk about Draco.
MA: He was utterly fascinating in this book.
JKR: Well, I'm glad you think so, because I enjoyed this one. Draco did a lot of growing up in this book as well. I had an interesting discussion, I thought, with my editor Emma, about Draco. She said to me, "So, Malfoy can do Occlumency," which obviously Harry never mastered and has now pretty much given up on doing, or attempting. And she was querying this and wondering whether he should be as good as it, but I think Draco would be very gifted in Occlumency, unlike Harry. Harry’s problem with it was always that his emotions were too near the surface and that he is in some ways too damaged. But he's also very in touch with his feelings about what's happened to him. He's not repressed, he's quite honest about facing them, and he couldn't suppress them, he couldn't suppress these memories. But I thought of Draco as someone who is very capable of compartmentalizing his life and his emotions, and always has done. So he's shut down his pity, enabling him to bully effectively. He's shut down compassion — how else would you become a Death Eater? So he suppresses virtually all of the good side of himself. But then he's playing with the big boys, as the phrase has it, and suddenly, having talked the talk he's asked to walk it for the first time and it is absolutely terrifying. And I think that that is an accurate depiction of how some people fall into that kind of way of life and they realize what they're in for. I felt sorry for Draco. Well, I’ve always known this was coming for Draco, obviously, however nasty he was.
Harry is correct in believing that Draco would not have killed Dumbledore, which I think is clear when he starts to lower his wand, when the matter is taken out of his hands.

Thanks for the quote, SusanBones. And so sorry about your Aunt Amelia.

Very, Very, Very Well Done!!!! The best theological treatment I have read of Harry Potter since John Granger's book (Looking for God in Harry Potter). I do have a couple of slight issues, though. First: many protestants, even very conservative ones like myself, think the Left Behind novels are deeply flawed theologically. Second, I feel a bit left-out with so much asserting that the messages of the books are "Catholic". They may draw on Augustine, true, but so does a lot of Protestant theology. It is worth a reminder that ALL Christian theology comes through the Catholic Church. An earlier commentor was correct, I believe, that Rowling is not Episcopal (church of England), but Presbyterian (church of Scotland). That, however, does not do anything to make your paper less interesting; on the contrary! Presbyterianism is by definition Calvinist. Calvin not only built a significant amount of his theology on Augustine, but in doing so built a theological system that is as close to complete Determinism as orthodox Christianity can get. So, questions of free will and true moral choice are a very natural direction. So, I think it would be better to refer to the books as "Merely Christian", if you are going to use a religious label at all. Protestants may emphasize Faith over choice, but Faith is still a choice we must make - all other moral choices follow and are informed by it (think about Harry being "Dumbledore's man" here). To be sure, we as a group are still vitally interested in the teaching that our choices matter, that they define us - especially when talking about books for children.

Great editorial. Keep 'em coming!!

Tim Cook (Baptist Minister and HP fan)

Dear Tim--thanks for the kind words. A couple of quick things: I checked the Tattler interview and it does use the term "Episcopal" to describe JKR's religious affiliation. That was not a direct quote from her, however. Her own words ("sometimes my faith is about whether my faith will return") are far more significant and revealing; this is a mature idea of faith, when you can acknowledge doubt in all its power and still hold out for belief. On your feeling "left out" by my riff on the Catholic character of the books: think of it as a trope, a recurring theme, but not one meant to exclude other possibilities. I don't think of the books as written from a Catholic point of view, except in certain dimensions, and then mostly unintentionally. As you say, all Christian theology is rooted in Catholicism, so we can see this as a nice point of convergence of theological origins and ideas.

Regards,
vsw

Nicely done article, and I agree with a lot of what you said, especially in the first half. I do have a couple of objections though.

Snape hated James Potter as a student; we know that never changes. But, if Snape loved Lily Evans, then he was honestly motivated to change sides.

I don't think Snape has to love Lily in order to switch sides. In telling Voldemort about the prophecy he inadvertently, if not blamelessly, put an enemy's life in danger. James appears to have done much the same thing years earlier insofar as he played a part in setting up the werewolf prank. James also realized the danger in time and put his own life at risk to save Snape. Whether or not this created a life debt (I don't think it did), Snape's risking his own life to stop Voldemort attacking the Potter's is morally equivalent, roughly speaking.

As Dumbledore, I'd be far less impressed if it was romantic love that motivated Snape to try and save the Potters, rather than this innate and mature sense of honor, doing right by his enemy the way his enemy did right by him.

Here Rowling’s assumptions about love must be examined further. The ability to love, as Dumbledore tells us, is what gives Harry the only advantage over Voldemort that will matter in the end.[...] Dumbledore is gambling everything that Harry’s capacity to love will save the world. Rowling’s characters who love act selflessly.

I believe Harry's capacity for love has been saving the wizarding world from Voldemort all along, because it is only this and his mother's blood (her Muggle blood, ie Aunt Petunia) that have made him different from the young Tom Riddle. Both were orphaned as infants, but Harry was sent to live with someone who knew about and hated his magical ability; he was punished for it instead of being allowed to exercise power over other kids and instill fear in hapless adults.

He also knows that the reason he had a horrible childhood was because his mother loved him, because she died for him and not in spite of him, because that meant he had to live with her sister. His rage is aimed at Voldemort, not at humanity in general. He also, in having a very similar life to Voldemort, has a better intuitive feel for what it's like to be Voldemort than anyone else, including Dumbledore. He has become Voldemort in his dreams, knows what it feels like to harm someone like that, how easily Voldemort would do it (which is why he so readily believed Voldemort would torture the one person who mattered most to him in OotP). Yet he remains uncorrupted in his choices. He was scarred for life, but the scar was on the outside of his head; he's never let Voldemort into his mind or body; his ability to love is what broke the vicious cycle (the cycle that begins anew as soon as it ends — symbolized, incidentally, by the snake biting its own tail).

I also don't think Harry will need to sacrifice himself in the end. After all, what's the point of telling a coming of age story about a boy who's a wizard who doesn't know he's a wizard, if you're just going to kill him off as soon as he can do magic in the real world?

great article, hard to put down in words, something i clearly wouldnt be able to do, i really liked the reasoning and am amazed that in this article a lot of what i've been trying to put down in writing myself, but i wasnt totally sure how! so fairply, good editorial, covered a lot of good points, and to me reinforces the interpretation that snape truly is on the good side :D nice one!

great article, hard to put down in words, something i clearly wouldnt be able to do, i really liked the reasoning and am amazed that in this article a lot of what i've been trying to put down in writing myself, but i wasnt totally sure how! so fairply, good editorial, covered a lot of good points, and to me reinforces the interpretation that snape truly is on the good side :D nice one!

Tell me why exactly have you been trying to put a heavily flawed editorial like this into words. It would have taken you 5 minutes and 2 paragraphs to say the points raised in this editorial. As the good harry_lives puts it, "I have no problem with long editorials, just the ones that take so long to say very little".

If even you wanted to write an editorial of which the ideas were ;

"some of the conclusions drawn in this editorial are simply and blatantly anti-canon, anti-Dumbledore, and anti-JKR. They are your personal opinion and are not supported in the least by the books or the author. Dumbledore has told us that Harry can walk away from the prophecy if he chooses, JKR has told us the same thing. Therefore, it is fact and you must accept it."

Then the worlds getting crazier by the minute.:err:

Boromir-The editorial is clearly speaking on a different level than JKR. JKR and Dumbledore are stressing that the Prophacy does not have the power to force Harry to do anything. Physically, there are no literal constaints upon him. The editorial, as I read it at least, is talking about totally different types of constraints, psychological, or moral, even behaivioral. To reduce them all to the same thing is to ignore most of what they are saying, and do at least as much injustice to JKR as you are attributing to the editorialist. Oversimplification is (apparently) for radio call-in shows, not Moral Theory.

My apologies to VSW if I have mistated her intent.

Boromir-The editorial is clearly speaking on a different level than JKR. JKR and Dumbledore are stressing that the Prophacy does not have the power to force Harry to do anything. Physically, there are no literal constaints upon him. The editorial, as I read it at least, is talking about totally different types of constraints, psychological, or moral, even behaivioral. To reduce them all to the same thing is to ignore most of what they are saying, and do at least as much injustice to JKR as you are attributing to the editorialist. Oversimplification is (apparently) for radio call-in shows, not Moral Theory.

My apologies to VSW if I have mistated her intent.

I am not "vsw" but I honestly think you have misread her intent. Which is not surprising considering you probably fell asleep half way through and forgot what was said previously.

This editorial is not speaking on a different level, but is claiming that Harry does not what so ever have a choice in doing what he is. Apart from it being anti-canon, anti Dumbledore, and anti-JKR. We all know of the constraints but Dumbledore has said Harry is free to do what he wants as well a JKR so it is a fact. The points raised in the editorial are simply opinions not backed up by the books. Therefore when the whole editorial is based on opinions that are not even backed up by the author forgive me for not taking warmly to it.

No apologies necessary, Phil_Stone. Thank you for your nuanced reading. I have repeatedly said in the essay and here that I am not claiming Harry has *no* freedom to act, just that he is more constrained by identity, history, and circumstance than JKR has Dumbledore acknowledge.

I just picked up Mugglenet.com's new book, What's Going to Happen in Book 7 and darned if there isn't an entire chapter on Snape's love for Lily in it! It's got a lot of opinion in it, however, so it's not for everyone.

Cheers,
vsw

I just picked up Mugglenet.com's new book, What's Going to Happen in Book 7 and darned if there isn't an entire chapter on Snape's love for Lily in it! It's got a lot of opinion in it, however, so it's not for everyone.

Cheers,
vsw

Well as i've already stated, I don't mind opinions, but opinions blatently not backed up by the books and the "Author themselves" I don't like, Especially those that take sooo long to say so little. :err:

Cheers
Boromir :tu: :tu:

Dear Victoria - I must tell you how much I’ve enjoyed reading your editorial. You have breached several topics worthy of discussion and I hardly know where to start.

To start: the distinction that is made between faith and good deeds. I know that this distinction is being made, but personally I find it difficult to comprehend.
Surely, if your heart is in the right place (i.e. ‘have faith’) this will be reflected in your actions. Bullying others (like James and Sirius), or even sitting by and doing nothing (Lupin) is therefore evidence that there is something wrong with your heart. It is, of course, more difficult if somebody is seen to act in the right way, It may be for the right reason, but then it may not be – and I think it matters, why you do something (an example is Lucius Malfoy donating money to charity). Lastly, even if you have the right faith/ heart in right place – there may be circumstances outside your control to prevent you from acting, or to thwart you in another way.
What I mean is – this sounds a good theory, but is very difficult to apply:

And Snape is the ideal candidate for this discussion, because, as you rightly say – we do not know his heart; so we can speculate.
And I would like to extend the discussion about the greatest moral dilemma in the series – on what happened on the Astronomy Tower:
So: According to JKR it is our choices that define us.
What choices did Snape have then?
The unbreakable vow limited his options to two: kill Dumbledore or die himself. The option to fight at Dumbledores side did not exist.
We know how the first option played out.
The second option: he could have chosen to die. For arguments sake - let’s assume he was in the frame of mind of rather dying himself (one never knows with Snape) than killing Dumbledore. Then, Dumbledore might well have been killed as well, Draco and Harry very likely too. And then the Death Eaters would have rejoined the others, who were on the point of loosing – and they would have taken Hogwarts – several hundred teenagers – that night. Fenrir Greyback among them. And I think Snape was able to realise all this in these short moments. He is clever and knows all the players involved.
Grudgingly, I’d have to say, he made the right choice.
And thereby, I have sanctioned murder. I, who have always considered it the greatest sin to take human life.
Some people have therefore called it a sacrificial killing; to make Snape less guilty.

So, I’ll have to go on with my reasoning: in the Muggle world Snape could cold bloodedly have pulled the trigger of a shotgun and performed a ‘human sacrifice’. Not so, with the Avada Kedavra – as we know from Fake Moody’s teaching this curse will only work if there is powerful hatred behind it, or it wouldn’t cause as much as a nosebleed.
And that – indirectly – gives us the insight into Snape’s heart: that at this moment his heart was full enough of hatred to cast an effective killing curse. And thereby I have pronounced judgement: Snape is a murderer.

And this is the real flaw in JKR moral thesis (if it exists). If she wants the Potterverse to support her dogma: It is our choices that show who we truly are - why did she introduce something like the Unbreakable Vow.
Something, that limits and perverts the choices we have; something that leaves Snape the only option to become a murderer in order to prevent a mass slaughter of the Hogwarts students.
Should it turn out to be true – that Snape genuinely switched sides, genuinely was on Dumbledores side, wanted to redeem himself – well, he got a great reward.

dilyss22- Are you forgetting that the Vow requires his assent? It may be argued that he was under some duress to accept the terms offered him, but he seems to have accepted, for whatever reason. We don't know whether his verbal assent is sufficient for the spell to treat the assent as free, but it seems to do so. In any case, it may certainly be claimed that it was Snape's choice to take the Vow, or at least his choice to act as Dumbledore's spy and so put himself at risk for such "forced choices."

To take the issue to another level, part of being human is making mistakes. What differentiates some views of morality is whether we are entitled to make mistakes, or whether we are always obliged to carry them through, even if we have seen our error. Also, what level of compassion and forgiveness such a person is entitled to recieve. If you read the Law of Contracts, you will find a great deal of attention is spent on how to get out of a contract. Other models which place a greater emphasis upon preserving personal honor allow no escape from mistakes, even if it is offered.

The Unbreakable Vow seems to be of the latter type. It forces one to comply with choices one may see were mistakes, perhaps even as the result of deception. There might be unforseen obstacles which completely eliminate any chance of fulfilling the Vow, satisfaction no longer dependent in any way upon a person's choice. For those reasons it might well be said to be a Dark Spell.

But notice that even the Unbreakable Spell is breakable. When Ron explains it, it seems clear that it doesn't force, a la the Imperious, what in Contracts they would call "Specific Performance." Rather, ultimately, the person who made the Vow does have a choice, to fulfill the Vow and live, or to die.

No, I had not forgotten that he had a choice about making the vow.
I only kept it out, to keep the text within reasonable length.

My issue was more with JKR 'moral choices'. If this theme truely seems to be the thesis around which JKR wants to work her novel - then why introduce something that takes options/choices away? We will never know what Snape would have done had there been no unbreakable vow in place! And as you rightly say - the unbreakable vow is an instrument of fiction. In real life there's always a way to get out of contracts. The way she has constructed the story it turns out that committing murder is the preferable choice over rather giving your life than killing yourself. And that's what's so horrible.


Of course you are quite right - he had a choice; he could have refused to make the vow in the first instance. As an apology or - as a 'way out of the contract' - Snape couldn't know that Narcissa was asking him to kill Dumbledore outright; he might have expected her to ask him to protect Draco, and also of course, had he refused, he would have outed himself as a traitor immediately.
Then, his usefulness for the Order would be zero.


That now leads on to the next interesting 'moral dilemma':
If Snape wants to be an efficient double agent, he has to play dirty to maintain his cover; to work for the final goal of bringing Voldemort down.
[always assuming that this is his goal, I concede we will only know that after the last book]
To quote an example - in the famous Spinners End chapter - he claims responsibility (or part-responsibility) for the deaths of Emmeline Vance and Sirius Black.
If he is indeed responsible for these deaths (although we don't know how he works it out) then he has heaped more sins on his soul - all for the better final goal, i.e. the downfall of a psychopathic mass murderer.

And that's where I find the motto of 'our choices show who we truely are' absolutely useless.
It may well turn out to be the case that the good side ('white') needs a 'not quite-black, but certainly dark grey' character on the other side in order to win in the end. And then to turn round and accuse this person of being just that - dark grey - is utter hypocrisy.

And this is the real flaw in JKR moral thesis (if it exists). If she wants the Potterverse to support her dogma: It is our choices that show who we truly are - why did she introduce something like the Unbreakable Vow.
Something, that limits and perverts the choices we have; something that leaves Snape the only option to become a murderer in order to prevent a mass slaughter of the Hogwarts students.
Should it turn out to be true – that Snape genuinely switched sides, genuinely was on Dumbledores side, wanted to redeem himself – well, he got a great reward.

...

My issue was more with JKR 'moral choices'. If this theme truely seems to be the thesis around which JKR wants to work her novel - then why introduce something that takes options/choices away?

But that's life, though, isn't it? We are always in a situation or context that limits our ability to make choices, and sometimes these are very restrictive. Still, whether you have an infinite range of choices or you have to chose between A or B (both of which may be equally distasteful), as long as you're making a conscious choice, it's a 'moral choice,' right?

Anyway, Jo said somewhere (can't find the exact quote) that she never sets out to teach a moral lesson, that the books wind up being more an embodiment of her principles. I don't think there is much dogma involved, she tends to be a hard-nosed realist.

To start: the distinction that is made between faith and good deeds. I know that this distinction is being made, but personally I find it difficult to comprehend.
Surely, if your heart is in the right place (i.e. ‘have faith’) this will be reflected in your actions. Bullying others (like James and Sirius), or even sitting by and doing nothing (Lupin) is therefore evidence that there is something wrong with your heart. It is, of course, more difficult if somebody is seen to act in the right way, It may be for the right reason, but then it may not be – and I think it matters, why you do something (an example is Lucius Malfoy donating money to charity). Lastly, even if you have the right faith/ heart in right place – there may be circumstances outside your control to prevent you from acting, or to thwart you in another way.
What I mean is – this sounds a good theory, but is very difficult to apply:It is interesting that you brought up the "Snape's Worst Memory" scene when discussing moral choice. Here we have three people, supposedly good, making what is considered bad moral choices. Sirius and James attacking a innocent person is wrong. Lupin remaining quiet, is also wrong. Wormtail's enjoyment of the situation is also wrong. Only Lily seems to act in a moral way. She does her best to stop it and to reprimand the wrongdoers. Clearly, we see James being "bad", a simple, one word description.

But we know that James stopped being bad. We know he saved Snape. We know he joined the Order and worked closely with Dumbledore. We know he defied Voldemort 3 times. We know he tried to save his wife and son, and died bravely in the attempt.
So we know he was "good".

But James made a choice to change and ultimately took a path that was considered good. And that is a very good example of moral choice in the story. Some of the other characters, such as Wormtail, haven't finished their story yet. We don't know where Wormtail will end up, so we don't know if he will take a moral path or not.

No, I had not forgotten that he had a choice about making the vow.
I only kept it out, to keep the text within reasonable length.


:lol: pity someone else didn't do that.

Anyway, Jo said somewhere (can't find the exact quote) that she never sets out to teach a moral lesson, that the books wind up being more an embodiment of her principles. I don't think there is much dogma involved, she tends to be a hard-nosed realist.

Did she really say that - I wasn't aware of that. Well, it would fit with the gist of this discussion.

Great editorial.

I have always found it peculiar that the Religous Right is so against this series. They judge the book by the cover and do not even bother to read the book before they tell their followers what's in it. I am a Christian and I teach Sunday School at my church. I beleive in my faith but I believe that what most conservatives don't know is tolerance. No matter how much you think your religion is right, there are a million other religions that have the same amount of rights in this great country as you do. The religous conservatives think that just because they think the books offend their religion, it should not be allowed for anybody. I wonder what nonchristians thought about the Left Behind series? Tolerance is the key to peace.

Dilys22-About Emmaline Vance, there is a bigger picture and it involves Dumbledore. If one chooses to runn a double agent, one expects that part of the price is occaisonally letting the other side have something apparently good in exchange for your agents credibility. Dumbledore accepts this in running Snape. But several things are possible in the Vance case.

First, Snape may not have really informed upon her. Secondly, Dumbledore may have told him to do so. Thirdly, Vance may have been the person Dumbledore was alluding to when he told Draco that the apparently dead are no longer in danger. Finally, it has occured to me that Dumbledore has decided that the price for running Snape is getting too high, whatever really happened with Vance. This may be why Snape has finally got the DADA job.

Much of the choices as I see them here are off page. We don't know what really happened, and who might have had a choice. Vance may have even volunteered for the job.

I read the second book today. I was interrested with the Duel between Snape and Lockhart. Snape screams "Expeliarmus !!" but this is not the curse he throws. He's cheating all the time. He pretends he doesn't like Potter's Mum and call her "mudblood".
He's been hating Harry for his dad. Will he help him for her mum? He's been lying all the time, does he in reality care a bit of Harry, the only person who cared a bit for him died to save Harry.
Maybe what he says ("I'm not a coward") at the end of the book means:
"Everyone wasn't born as free and loved and cared as you, I never haved the chance you had, etc, etc...". Could we judge Snape's credibility for his morality/imorality/amorality while life was deeply unfair with him?

VSW, I enjoyed your editorial immensely! I read it a few times and I found your exploration of Harry's less-than-free will to pursue his destiny with Voldemort a compelling juxtaposition with that of JKR's depiction of Snape's free will. I did not find your article anti-Harry, anti-Dumbledore, or anti-canon in the least. If anything, your Derridean and/or post-structural view of Snape is necessary until we have DH in our hands: it's what ISN'T and HASN'T been on page that is significant about Snape as well as what we do get to read. (And don't think that JKR is not manipulating those specific, significant moments of Snape's personal life for us to gnaw on and struggle with amongst ourselves until DH is released.)
Rereading and listening yet again to HBP, I was struck by these words of Dumbledore to Harry about vanquishing (which is a striking word in terms of the meanings it signifies, not just AK or killing/soul ripping) Voldemort in light of your editorial:
"Got to?" said Dumbledore. "Of course you've got to! But not because of the prophecy! Because you, yourself, will never rest until you've tried! We both know it! Imagine, please, just for a moment, that you had never heard that prophecy! How would you feel about Voldemort now? Think!"
Harry watched Dumbledore striding up and down in front of him, and thought. He thought of his mother, his father, and Sirius. He thought of Cedric Diggory. . . . A flame seemed to leap inside his chest, searing his throat.
"I'd want him finished," said Harry quietly. "And I'd want to do it." (511-12 American hardcover edition)
Dumbledore's comments to Harry support VSW's thesis that Harry's free will is encapsulated or influenced by his history, experiences, relationships, etc. And I don't think that these "limitations" or VSW's editorial limits the immense draw of Harry's character or purpose in the novels, as a number of people have pointed out: Harry's name appears in the titles. Harry's important. We get it.
However, it does create an opportunity to explore the contested territory of free will through the character of Severus Snape: a much darker and less delineated (at least by any character other than Harry) entity. Also, book six is titled Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince: Harry Potter and Severus Snape. This suggests that Snape is an important character in this series and in Harry's life just as the Prisoner of Azkaban, Sirius Black, is as well.
(Ooo! The tension! The father-figure-mentor Harry has cared about so much, and the teacher-anti-mentor Harry hates so much both named in the books' titles! Coincidence? I think NOT! The third book! The sixth book! Six is divisible by three! Three is such a symbolic number! Ohh, I digress and go nowhere.)
And as books one through six have taught us: any character who looks too good, too insignificant, or too bad to be true inevitably is. I believe this is the case with Snape; although, the numerous on page and "on blog" discussions that argue for his goodness help.
Unfortunately, I also think that Snape's free will, his role as a double agent, and JKR's adherence to literary tropes and archetypes will require the ultimate sacrifice from Severus in order for Harry to vanquish the Dark Lord. "'No Unforgivable Curses from you, Potter'" (602)! However, the same cannot be said for the Half-Blood Prince, whose final words to Harry are, "'DON'T CALL ME COWARD'" (604)! I think this underscores-- for those who haven't figured it out yet-- how much Snape reviles being seen as weak, hesitant, or fearful (boggart anybody?), and he will show, in the final, high-noon-style showdown between Harry and Voldemort that he is not a coward and will show that he, too, is and always was Dumbledore's man, through and through.
If there are a few more editorials like VSW's and its ensuing discussion, the wait for DH is slightly more bearable.:relax:

Unfortunately, I also think that Snape's free will, his role as a double agent, and JKR's adherence to literary tropes and archetypes will require the ultimate sacrifice from Severus in order for Harry to vanquish the Dark Lord. "'No Unforgivable Curses from you, Potter'" (602)! However, the same cannot be said for the Half-Blood Prince, whose final words to Harry are, "'DON'T CALL ME COWARD'" (604)! I think this underscores-- for those who haven't figured it out yet-- how much Snape reviles being seen as weak, hesitant, or fearful (boggart anybody?), and he will show, in the final, high-noon-style showdown between Harry and Voldemort that he is not a coward and will show that he, too, is and always was Dumbledore's man, through and through.
If there are a few more editorials like VSW's and its ensuing discussion, the wait for DH is slightly more bearable.:relax: I really enjoyed your post. You made some very good points. I also foresee the ultimate sacrifice from Snape as being his only way of redemption. I like your observation of Snape's reaction to being called a coward. Do you feel that the reason he agreed to the unbreakable vow was because he did not want to seem hesitant or weak to Bellatrix?

Phil Stone
About Emmaline Vance, there is a bigger picture and it involves Dumbledore. If one chooses to runn a double agent, one expects that part of the price is occaisonally letting the other side have something apparently good in exchange for your agents credibility. Dumbledore accepts this in running Snape.

Good idea. That way Dumbledore takes ultimate responsibility for his spy.
I know that we don't know what really happened, but I'm after the principle. If you have a double agent this type of things will have to happen.

I am struggling with this website; have to make 2 posts in one go.

He thought of Cedric Diggory. . . . A flame seemed to leap inside his chest, searing his throat.
"I'd want him finished," said Harry quietly. "And I'd want to do it." (511-12 American hardcover edition)
Dumbledore's comments to Harry support VSW's thesis that Harry's free will is encapsulated or influenced by his history, experiences, relationships, etc.

I'm not sure that is exactly the point. All our decisions are influenced by our personality and our past experiences. That is exactly what is meant by saying when you say 'your choices show what / who you are.' Yes, of course - all Harry's history will lead him to that decision.

The real issue here is the following: obviously, the alternative would be for Harry to decline to fight, to turn away. We know that's not his choice, but if it were, could it take it?
And I don't think he could! Voldemort is after him. It would be about the same as in the Graveyard scene: Voldemort about to shout AK - and does Harry really have the option to say: 'No I don't want to fight???'
The relevant quote (haven't got my books)- but it's in the same chapter -
about the difference between being dragged into the arena and entering it with his head held high.
Harry and Dumbledore think it's all the difference in the world; but they haven't convinced me of that yet.

And about Snape. I think we need to leave off this 'black and white' painting for a bit. People are not good or bad, they are usually a mixture of both.
If you accept that James and Sirius were bullies as teenagers, but still did good work for the order; then it is only fair to assume that Snape is a mixture of good and bad as well. Maybe more bad than good; but we shall certainly see this summer.

SusanBones111: Do you feel that the reason he agreed to the unbreakable vow was because he did not want to seem hesitant or weak to Bellatrix?

Nora (me): That's one of those 64-thousand dollar questions, isn't it? (My apologies about not citing your question properly; I do not know the ins and outs, yet, of putting quotes from others within my reply.)

My thoughts about Snape's choice to make the Unbreakable Vow seem to change each time I reread "Spinner's End," "The Lightening-Struck Tower," and "Flight of the Prince." How's that for a good duck and weave?

I have really enjoyed the theory of DIATSSASE that was started quite a while back. Therefore, when I view Snape making the Unbreakable Vow using DIATSSASE, I see Snapledore doing all he can to protect a child's life, albeit a child who seems unworthy of such mercy and protection. As Dumbledore reminds Draco on the Astronomy Tower, "'It is my mercy, and not yours, that matters now'" (592). The issues and choices that revolve around mercy and redemption are latent themes in the series, and Dumbledore has extended offers of help, protection, and mercy to those who will ask. This is one reason I see DIATSSASE as a compelling theory when considering the Unbreakable Vow.

On the other hand, when I read the Unbreakable Vow with Snape as himself, I wonder about Snape's "blank, unreadable" (35) expression and that "Snape's hand twitched within hers, but he did not draw away" (36). Snape's inscrutable expression and twitch call for the reader's attention, I think. If Snape is Dumbledore's man, I think the choice to make the Unbreakable Vow is made more to show Snape's determination to help bring down Voldemort for reasons-yet-to-be-revealed in DH. However, I think that Snape is motivated, at times cripplingly so, by his appearance in the eyes of certain others, and I think he would feel a significant amount of triumph/satisfaction/vindication while making the UV under Bella's "astonished," "eyes wide," and "astounded" face. The short version of this paragraph is I don't think Snape made the UV in order to avoid appearing weak in front of Bella. I do think Snape made the UV in front of Bella because of a previous plan/mission that is related to Dumbledore, but he also makes the UV because he is so determined to be a "not-coward" (which is a shade different, to me, than showing courage) and he certainly appears to be a "not-coward" in the eyes of Narcissa and Bella.
I hope this makes some sense. I've only had one cup of coffee, and I'm trying to interact with my 1 and 4 year old daughters between sentences. Perhaps I should have just answered your question with "sort of." :) I think the question you pose is a complicated one and has probably been bandied about in numerous threads. Drawing a connection back to the original editorial, I think that Snape's UV must be related to issues of mercy and redemption somewhere down the line, not just for Draco (or possible Lucius) but for Snape as well. I think Snape acting in a "not-coward" way is integral to choosing mercy or achieving redemption. And I think that Harry's role in this will be quite interesting when we have all of the pieces JKR only kept alluding to throughout HPB.

From dilys22: I'm not sure that is exactly the point.

Sorry about that. I shouldn't have used the word thesis. "One of the points made by VSW" would have been better. I was just trying to add or reiterate how VSW contrasts Harry's freewill with Snape's.

From dilys22: And about Snape. I think we need to leave off this 'black and white' painting for a bit.

If I appeared to be painting Snape as all white or all black that was not my intention. I find him to be a very "gray" character, which is why he is such a compelling figure in the series and why I like VSW's editorial so much. I absolutely agree with you that people are a mixture of both good and bad, which is what makes books like the HP series so much fun to read, reread, and discuss!

And about Snape. I think we need to leave off this 'black and white' painting for a bit. People are not good or bad, they are usually a mixture of both.
If you accept that James and Sirius were bullies as teenagers, but still did good work for the order; then it is only fair to assume that Snape is a mixture of good and bad as well. Maybe more bad than good; but we shall certainly see this summer.I agree with you wholeheartedly. So much of the disagreement that occurs when talking about Snape comes from the attempt to peg him as one or the other, as good or as bad. The reader has seen him doing both things, bad as well as good.

However, I think that Snape is motivated, at times cripplingly so, by his appearance in the eyes of certain others, and I think he would feel a significant amount of triumph/satisfaction/vindication while making the UV under Bella's "astonished," "eyes wide," and "astounded" face. I hadn't thought about this, but I believe you may be right about this. I think this also ties into the "Snape's Worst Memory" scene. He hated the way James made him appear before the other students, as weak and helpless. And that feeling may have been something he never wanted to encounter again.

I've always thought that the word 'Coward' must have a history with Snape and the Marauders. Remember when Snape and Sirius are at each others throats at Grimmauld Palace and Sirius says - 'are you calling me a coward' - and Snape says 'yes'. There is a backstory to that, I'm sure.

I definitely agree there is a significant amount of backstory connected to the word "coward" with Snape and the Marauders as well as "Snape's Worst Memory." Mulling over your last comments, dilys22, reenforced my belief that much of the tension and difficulty I will have reading DH[I] will be the missed opportunities and miscommunications that will inevitably occur around Snape and Harry as Harry hunts for horcruxes, Voldemort, and Snape, while the reader is constantly beleagured with the question, "Is Snape for the Order/LV/or himself?" (I will definitely have to invest in some sort of nail renewal treatment for the beating my cuticles are going to take in July.)

And as I was thinking about this, another comment of Dumbledore's popped into my mind from [I]OotP. He's talking about Kreacher, but I think it may work well with some of the bits and pieces we've received about Snape: "'[Sirius] regarded [Kreacher] as a servant unworthy of much interest or notice. Indifference and neglect often do much more damage than outright dislike . . .'" (833-34 US hardcover). In HBP Lupin tells Harry, "'I neither like nor dislike Severus'" (332). And in your post #69 you noted the contents of Snape's worst memory and Lupin's ambivalence while Sirius and James taunted Snape. I think Severus has been the recipient of neglectful and ambivalent treatment by his family and at school, as a student and a professor. (Consider inserting the word "student" or "teacher" instead of "servant" in Dumbledore's comment and you create a potential recipe with disturbing results when used with the proper personality(ies).)

Another thing I started thinking about as a result of your comments, was how VSW's editorial concretized for me some of the comparisons that can be made between Snape and Harry that I am hoping will be exposed in DH. I think the ambivalence and neglect that Harry experiences with the Dursley's may have corresponding echoes with Snape's home life. Harry's boggart is a dementor because he is afraid of fear itself and Harry feels foolish and fearful of being perceived cowardly about his responses to the boggart/dementors. Snape is afraid of appearing foolish or cowardly, which makes me curious if his boggart might assume the shape of someone who ridiculed and/or neglected Snape--like his father, perhaps. Additionally, Harry and Snape are capable of doing advanced/powerful magic early in their careers at Hogwarts and neither are super-popular, everybody-wants-to-be-their-friend type of guys, always surrounded by a huge crowd of admirers/friends. (Harry is renowned for being the boy who lived/the chosen one, but it isn't like everybody at Hogwarts is trying to pick him first for teams/carry his lunch box/copy his hair cut/whatever other cliched popular clique move you want to use.)
Snape is obviously a nasty fellow compared to Harry (and many other characters for that matter), but it's the choice to be nasty: why? Was it the easier choice rather than the right choice that Severus made as an adolescent? Which, admittedly, is what numerous adolescents and adults do. Compare this with Harry's choice to be kind in spite of such hardhips. It is comments like those from you, dilys22 and SusanBones111 and Phil_Stone and others, that make the ideas of this editorial so much fun to play with and think about.
And, of course, I wonder what it was that made Dumbledore trust Snape and what Snape went through to make the very difficult, but right, choice to change sides. Dumbledore said, "'I believe it [telling the prophecy] to be the greatest regret of his life and the reason that he returned--'" (549). But what inner calculus did Snape go through to decide to make such a choice, one that appears to mean eventual if not immediate death? Then there's also the chance that had Dumbledore been allowed to finish the sentence maybe some different information would have been revealed rather than the expected "returned to our side."

Nora Belle - comparison between Harry and Snape

This is a very interesting topic - and it could touch something very fundamental in the Potterverse.
You see, I think, that any child with an upbringing like Harrys would not, on no account have turned out the way Harry did. Harry is not being beaten, but he suffers every kind of neglect, emotional abuse and psychological trauma with the Dursleys. In real life, when you treat a child like that for ten years - you will end up with a dysfunctional, aggressive, violent teenager who will almost certainly be a petty criminal and juvenile delinquent.
He will not be nice, caring, stanging up for his friends, disliking bullies. He'd be the biggest bully. That's were JKR is writing a story - fiction!
With Snape, we only have a short glimpse into his childhood - but's let's assume that's all true, he was equally abused; well he did turn into a bitter, nasty person full of hatred of himself and others.
So you say it's about choices - Harry and Snape make different choices.
Maybe. Personally I'm not sure.
Because JKR has constructed another major difference between Snape and Harry - and that is their mothers.
Harry's mother is sacrificing her own life for her child to live. Lily is also described as courageous.
Snapes mother is too weak to defend herself and her child from an abusive husband and father. She probably says she loves him, but her love is joined with weakness.
In the novels Harry turns out to be the good person he is because his mothers sacrifice (and her love) are in his blood.
Snape does not have this and turns into the person, we know him to be.
For Snape love equates weakness and he wants none of that.
We know from a certain prophecy that Harry's ability to 'love' is expected to vanquish Voldemort.
So I would summarize that JKR is building a novel around the motto that children are what their mothers make of them and that in the end Lily's combination of courage and love will win.

[And I haven't mentioned Merope, but she would nicely complement the picture.}

So I would summarize that JKR is building a novel around the motto that children are what their mothers make of them I disagree. There are several mothers depicted in the books. Sirius' mother is a good example. She appears to be a pretty mean mother. She had two sons. One became an Order member and one became a Death Eater. Your theory does not explain how one mother makes two such different children. Another one is Narcissa. She spoils Draco by sending him treats. She also risks Voldemort's rath by going to Spinner's End. She would do anything for him. Draco is now a Death Eater. Neville's grandmother is very critical. She constantly compares him to his father, and finds that he comes up short. Neville goes on to fight the Death Eaters. He is one of Harry's most faithful followers.

SusanBones111
Very good. Maybe I've been overgeneralising with my theory, but I still stick to my interpretation of why Harry became the type of person he is. There is no real-life explanation for it.

Sirius and Regulus are excellent examples, I agree. Although the last isn't said about Regulus. He did regret becoming a Death Eater. He must have joined young. Still, that would show that both sons turned out better than their mother.

Draco and Narcissa are a difficult issue. Yes, Narcissa loves him. Yet she also teaches him to despise muggleborns. More importantly is Dracos father. I think Draco wants to earn his fathers respect. To me Lucius is the type of dad who always criticises and never praises. Draco wants to save his parents and earn his father's regard. He's only coming round to realise what he let himself in for with Voldemort. I imagine Regulus a bit the same, joined very young - and mostly wishing to please his parents.

And Neville - that's another difficult issue. I think his parents somehow represent the core of his 'weakness', the fact that he misses his mothers love and loves his parents. He cannot talk about how much he misses them, it's that bad. It's interesting to see how he changed in OOTP, when he heard Bellatrix was on the loose. And his grandmother - is dutiful, but loving, caring? She is constantly telling him how great his dad was and what a disappointment Neville is. I don't think she's very sensitive about what this does to Neville.
In the Hospital scene she made a rather disparaging remark about her daughter in law - quite in contrast to how she talks about her son; which I found quite revealing! With Neville I always get the feeling that he is an incomplete person - that the lack of his mother has translated into lack of self confidence. Well, anyway, he is quite courageous, which all the more astonishing because he knows that he isn't the greatest of wizards.

So, what. Well, maybe I have overgeneralised with my theory. Human beings are not usually that easily put into drawers. But it would still fit very well with Lily/Harry, Eileen/Snape and Merope/Voldemort.

SusanBones111
Very good. Maybe I've been overgeneralising with my theory, but I still stick to my interpretation of why Harry became the type of person he is. There is no real-life explanation for it.
I agree that Harry is almost too good to be true when you think of what kind of childhood he had. I have always had trouble believing that a kid who had been raised like that would have formed strong bonds with friends and turned out so compassionate and loving. But then, this is fiction.

If I may jump in with a small observation. It might be that Harry had 'hope'.
When Petunia cut his hair mercilessly, It grew back the next morning.
When Dudley and his sidekicks ganged up on him, he found himself safe on the roof.
And the incident at the zoo when Dudley was put in his place.
These are examples that can be explained by the fact that Harry was a Wizard, but he certainly didn't know this at the time. He just knew that good things could happened even though the situation looked pretty bleak, and kept plugging on.
I suppose I'm saying that Harry's spirit was never crushed completely. Which can cause irrevocable psychological damage. He had a stout heart and kept a positive view (although he didn't realize he was doing this). This positive outlook allowed for good things to happen and somehow things worked out.

But Tom Riddle didn't find a hook to hang on to some hope. He came to believe that he needed to have complete control of his situation and people to stay safe. And he used nasty means to achieve this control.

It could be.
The boy Tom terrorised his playmates using his magic. I don't think he knew what it was; he knew he was special. But he used it to hurt people and to control them.
Harry never went that way. His magic helped him to escape, but he never used it against others.

If I may jump in with a small observation. It might be that Harry had 'hope'.

I like this idea. It resonates with the notion of faith and with the psychological idea that Harry, unlike Tom, had a sense of self that was fundamentally sound. He could, as Dylis says, protect himself without hurting anyone (though releasing the python in the zoo might easily have led to injury without Harry's intending it to). Still, I share in the sense of skepticism that has been expressed here as to how unlikely it is that Harry would emerge from his horrible childhood as he has--with the undiminished capacity to love unselfishly. It is a difficult challenge in fiction to construct characters that appear to have it both ways without coming off as completely unrealistic. That's why Harry's emergence in OOTP as an angry young man not only makes sense but in fact was necessary for his moral development. Where he ends up on this arc, and how believable that journey is for us, are the big questions for DH.

vsw

Do you think his childhood was so horrible? It was strict, but wasn't that horrible...

Strict? That's hardly the word to describe it; try abusive, rather. The Dursleys pointedly declined to celebrate Harry's birthdays. They engaged in differential treatment for Dudley that was designed to make Harry feel bad and mistreated. The Dursleys permitted Ripper (Marge's dog) to terrorize Harry. Harry was malnourished throughout his childhood. He was shown no love, no physical affection, and no nurturing. Children treated like this are likely to torture animals and abuse other people even before they reach adulthood. There are many aspects of Harry's character that I find realistic and believable, but the impact of his pathetic upbringing on his character is not one of them.

vsw