deathtocapslock | Rowling's weird relationship with bodily harm... (Reply)

Wiser people than I have commented on how the Harry Potter books fail to portray people who die as anything but heroic (if they're good) or irredeemable (if they're evil) for doing so. The thing is, it seems like that extends to all kinds of bodily harm. I'm preparing an abridging of the first chapter to feature Marietta right about now, and if you think about it, both she and Harry acquire some sort of indelible scars over the course of the very same book, but Harry's presented as a heroic martyr and Marietta as a despicable coward (which is the worst thing to be in the Potterverse, after all), and in doing so trivializes the idea of getting a scar entirely--if you're good it makes you a heroic martyr and if you're bad it's just something you deserve. Similarly, when Harry is subjected to the Cruciatus curse we get treated to descriptions of his struggling manfully against it, but when a character we don't like or care about gets tortured (see, for example, Harry's torturing the Death Eater in DH) they deserve it so it's okay. If you're good suffering builds character, if you're bad suffering is what you deserve. Neither case confronts realistically how devastating suffering grievous bodily harm, loss, or death can be.