While not presenting us with a neat morality HP does suggest something to help us negotiate the labyrinth - choose love not power.
My problem with this is I didn't really see love represented. Harry didn't defeat Voldemort through love; he defeated him through power. Harry had the bigger wand (because of a lucky plot twist) and therefore Harry won.
The reason I think we're supposed to see the Potter series as uplifting or moral tale of good overcoming evil, is we're supposed to unquestionably accept that Harry and his friends are the good guys. Despite acts of dubious morality that the characters (and the book) skate right over. And the reason I say the book prefers us to not question, is that when you do question, it seems that Harry beating Voldemort didn't really accomplish much of anything. The downtrodden are still downtrodden; the golden are still golden.
I think it also helps in coming to terms with HP if we recognise that Harry’s goal is emphatically not to save the wizarding world and open up the Kingdom of Heaven for it. It’s a lot less grand than that, it’s to understand (ie.vanquish Voldemort) and live.
I agree the book becomes very tiny in the end. Will Harry achieve his vengeance and kill the man who killed his parents? Yes, he will. And that's it. All of the issues raised, that the series chose to raise (slavery, inequality of various magical species, the abuse of muggles, the inequality of various wizard families), get shunted off to the side. Inequality is a fact of life (and actually, the way things should be as our heroes are sitting rather pretty at the top of the ladder), and slavery is really, really handy when you're the slave-owner. It's an incredibly bizarre (and depressing) way to end a seven book epic, IMO.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-07-05 11:21 pm (UTC)My problem with this is I didn't really see love represented. Harry didn't defeat Voldemort through love; he defeated him through power. Harry had the bigger wand (because of a lucky plot twist) and therefore Harry won.
The reason I think we're supposed to see the Potter series as uplifting or moral tale of good overcoming evil, is we're supposed to unquestionably accept that Harry and his friends are the good guys. Despite acts of dubious morality that the characters (and the book) skate right over. And the reason I say the book prefers us to not question, is that when you do question, it seems that Harry beating Voldemort didn't really accomplish much of anything. The downtrodden are still downtrodden; the golden are still golden.
I think it also helps in coming to terms with HP if we recognise that Harry’s goal is emphatically not to save the wizarding world and open up the Kingdom of Heaven for it. It’s a lot less grand than that, it’s to understand (ie.vanquish Voldemort) and live.
I agree the book becomes very tiny in the end. Will Harry achieve his vengeance and kill the man who killed his parents? Yes, he will. And that's it. All of the issues raised, that the series chose to raise (slavery, inequality of various magical species, the abuse of muggles, the inequality of various wizard families), get shunted off to the side. Inequality is a fact of life (and actually, the way things should be as our heroes are sitting rather pretty at the top of the ladder), and slavery is really, really handy when you're the slave-owner. It's an incredibly bizarre (and depressing) way to end a seven book epic, IMO.