Also, HP sets up the opposition between good and evil so firmly at the beginning of the story - with an innocent child and an evil monster - that it’s hard to accept that it’s actually bent on breaking it down.
Is it bent on breaking it down, though? Meaning (I think) to show that sometimes it's hard to define what is evil and what is good. The way I interpret the series, "good" is supposed to be easily identified and followed, or as ginevra_nyx defined it, "instinctual".
Which is why shaky moral moments, like Hermione wiping her parents' memory, or Harry throwing a torture curse in anger, don't get explored. They happen, they're not questioned or revisited, and the feeling I get anyway, is the story thinks only stuffy old stick in the muds would even see the behavior as questionable. (Not that any such creatures raise their hands: the questionable behavior remains unquestioned.)
I'd have an easier time thinking these moments were purposefully set up to be questionable moral moments if someone within the story did any questioning. But, IIRC, no one does.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-07-05 12:06 am (UTC)Is it bent on breaking it down, though? Meaning (I think) to show that sometimes it's hard to define what is evil and what is good. The way I interpret the series, "good" is supposed to be easily identified and followed, or as
Which is why shaky moral moments, like Hermione wiping her parents' memory, or Harry throwing a torture curse in anger, don't get explored. They happen, they're not questioned or revisited, and the feeling I get anyway, is the story thinks only stuffy old stick in the muds would even see the behavior as questionable. (Not that any such creatures raise their hands: the questionable behavior remains unquestioned.)
I'd have an easier time thinking these moments were purposefully set up to be questionable moral moments if someone within the story did any questioning. But, IIRC, no one does.