I’m sorry if I’m contradicting myself. I’ve had a look back over my comments to try to sort them out.
Perhaps I was too dramatic in saying 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.
Did this come over as saying good and evil are meaningless in JKR’s world, and there’s no difference between Harry and Voldemort? The breaking down of good and evil I meant is in relation to the characters. We have two opposing sides - the goodies and the baddies, the hero and his supporters, the villain and his. This is clear, but as the story goes on we come to realise that we can’t just judge the characters by which side they’re on, that the story is asking us to understand each of them for him/herself. This isn’t very dramatic, I guess.
I also noticed I referred to a comment ‘below,’ when it was actually the comment I’d made almost immediately above, doh.
But I think I’ve been consistent in saying that we’re being asked to understand the characters for themselves - that the series is interested in humanity above morality.
Another sorry: on re-reading I think my reply to horridporrid may have come over as a bit cross, which is not at all how it was intended.
The Voldie-monster was a joke. But of course we can say he is a monster, what with the red eyes and the emerging from a cauldron and all! He was the creation of Tom Riddle, who wasn't a monster but a human being. But, as I said, even Voldemort felt regret. And Voldemort’s project was evil, no mistake.
Free will does exist, it’s just that it doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Inequality certainly is a fact of life - everyone starts from a different place and everyone faces different choices.
I’m sorry (again!) that I wasn’t clearer about Snape and the sectumsempra incident. He wallowed in his issues when he set up and sat through Harry's detentions, which were designed to re-animate James's and Sirius's wrongdoings.
Maybe it is wrong to say that humour dehumanizes, maybe it intensifies our humanity because it draws attention to our vulnerabilities.
Who the heck is Harry? It's a great question. I'd say he's no-one in particular, just a boy. Why should we care? Because we're all no-one in particular.
Is Harry good? Well, he really doesn’t want to take over the world, he’s brave, and he helps people in trouble when he comes across them. Good enough, perhaps?
no subject
Perhaps I was too dramatic in saying 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.
Did this come over as saying good and evil are meaningless in JKR’s world, and there’s no difference between Harry and Voldemort? The breaking down of good and evil I meant is in relation to the characters. We have two opposing sides - the goodies and the baddies, the hero and his supporters, the villain and his. This is clear, but as the story goes on we come to realise that we can’t just judge the characters by which side they’re on, that the story is asking us to understand each of them for him/herself. This isn’t very dramatic, I guess.
I also noticed I referred to a comment ‘below,’ when it was actually the comment I’d made almost immediately above, doh.
But I think I’ve been consistent in saying that we’re being asked to understand the characters for themselves - that the series is interested in humanity above morality.
Another sorry: on re-reading I think my reply to horridporrid may have come over as a bit cross, which is not at all how it was intended.
The Voldie-monster was a joke. But of course we can say he is a monster, what with the red eyes and the emerging from a cauldron and all! He was the creation of Tom Riddle, who wasn't a monster but a human being. But, as I said, even Voldemort felt regret. And Voldemort’s project was evil, no mistake.
Free will does exist, it’s just that it doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Inequality certainly is a fact of life - everyone starts from a different place and everyone faces different choices.
I’m sorry (again!) that I wasn’t clearer about Snape and the sectumsempra incident. He wallowed in his issues when he set up and sat through Harry's detentions, which were designed to re-animate James's and Sirius's wrongdoings.
Maybe it is wrong to say that humour dehumanizes, maybe it intensifies our humanity because it draws attention to our vulnerabilities.
Who the heck is Harry?
It's a great question. I'd say he's no-one in particular, just a boy.
Why should we care?
Because we're all no-one in particular.
Is Harry good? Well, he really doesn’t want to take over the world, he’s brave, and he helps people in trouble when he comes across them. Good enough, perhaps?