The redeemed individual in HP

[elanor-x.livejournal.com]

Declaration: I do not agree with all statements made in this article and, as a non-American, am hardly a political expert, so this link does not mean endorsement of any 'non-HP things.'

Why is this article worth reading?

What stood out to me was the interesting reading of OoTF. It has always been my least favorite HP book. After waiting for years for its publication, I remember practically suffering and wanting to shut the book down every time Dolores Umbridge or Harry's anger made an appearance.  Since one of the two, of most often their combination, are ubiquitous in OoTF, you may imagine the 'joy' of reading.

Renee Gorman's interpretation of Harry's evolution in OoTF at last reconciled me to this part of the series.

QUOTE from the article

Harry’s frustration stems from both the fact that he knows the truth and that he is being punished for his virtue: an injustice that is difficult to swallow. But he is also battling with his loss of popularity and celebrity. Though Harry consistently claims to hate the limelight—and though he genuinely does at times—he also secretly prizes his famous persona.

When Harry makes the reckless choice to leave Hogwarts and save Sirius after seeing a vision of Sirius captured by Voldemort, he has the following heated exchange with Hermione, the wisest of his peers.

“OK,” she said, looking frightened yet determined, “I’ve just got to say this—”
“What?”
“You … this isn’t a criticism, Harry! But you do … sort of … I mean—don’t you think you’ve got a bit of a—a—saving-people thing!” she said.
He glared at her.
“And what’s that supposed to mean, a ‘saving-people thing?”

Hermione hits a nerve here. But Harry ignores her warning and charges ahead to try to save Sirius. But, consciously or not, at this moment, Harry is also trying to save his own famous heroic persona. He gets his wish. After Sirius dies and Voldemort flees from a battle with Dumbledore, the truth is revealed, and Harry is once more the apple of the magical world’s eye—but it does not make him happy, after all.

This is partly because of his grief at losing Sirius, but also because that part of Harry that secretly prized acclamation dies along with his Godfather. It is no coincidence that this book is called The Order of the Phoenix because Harry emerges from the ashes of this tragedy a better man. Sirius had to die so that Harry could sacrifice himself for the right reason and finally defeat Voldemort.

Comments

[sunnyskywalker]

Hm. It's an interesting idea... but it only works if Harry does learn something useful from the incident, become a better person, and die for the "right reason." I'm not sure any of those three things are true.

Harry never gets better at stopping to think through plans first, learn how to evaluate who might be trustworthy at least for the purposes of a certain mission, or work with people in general. He still rushes off in lone hero mode even when it isn't the best idea. OotP Harry doesn't torture anyone for spitting, unlike his later DH self. And if Rowling wanted us to think that Harry chooses to die for noble reasons because he's become a better person, she really shot herself in the foot when she had him make the decision after learning how Dumbledore had lied and betrayed him by setting him up to have little or no choice in the matter, and then made his honor guard on the way to his death come from an artifact known to induce suicidal despair.

I think the article might have an interesting idea regarding what Rowling meant the story to be, or what the characters might believe, but it doesn't hold up very well.

And the idea that the thing Dumbledore needs redemption for is only something that happened a hundred years ago, and that the incident shaped him into a better man, is... um. Well, that's certainly what Dumbledore would like us to believe, and what Harry seems to accept. But what about all the suffering he's been responsible for over the past 50 years? What's he done to redeem himself from those things?

The whole thing seems to come down to, "Well, the people who did terrible things say they're redeemed now, and I like the narrative of that, so it would be intolerant to hold anything those people did against them, or at least stop putting them up on pedestals and honoring them."

Rowling could have done something interesting with the idea how to live in a world where maybe people you care about or admire do terrible things and don't ever make amends or even fully realize what they've done wrong, or how you deal with someone who's done both terrible and noble things. But she didn't do it very successfully, if she tried. Instead, she let Harry just stop thinking about things once they got uncomfortable and conveniently killed off the most difficult characters so no one would have to deal with them, and pasted on the "mildly flawed but yay really redeemed and noble" facade over nearly everyone as if she hadn't just shown us it was a facade.

[sunnyskywalker]

You know, after thinking this over some more, I'm finding it curious that the author specifically connected these themes to the statue-toppling trend. Because there are two very significant statutes in HP.

The second one is the "Magic Is Might" statute in DH, which depicts a witch and wizard seated on twisted human figures. Whatever we think of the statue's morality or artistic merit, this does represent an important moment in wizarding history. Would it be wrong to remove it from the atrium of the Ministry of Magic? Is that canceling our memory of history?

The first is the Fountain of Magical Brethren. For all we know, this statute has great artistic merit and was created by a famous sculptor. It may also commemorate a specific historic event, like the signing of a treaty. The witch and wizard might have been real people with complicated personalities containing both good and bad. Say the wizard negotiated an important peace treaty which saved many lives, abused his wife, and also beat three house-elves to death, and the witch invented a critical healing potion and also was the key Wizengamot member pushing for the law forbidding goblins to carry wands.

We don't know who they are or whether the statue represents an event because even if there is a plaque explaining everything, most people will never read it. Even those who do won't read it every time they pass the statue and think about the historical complexities. Whatever else it means, the statue also stands on its own as a visual symbol, and that might mean that people passing it just get a jolt of memory about "that guy who murdered my great-grandmother" or "that witch who is a major reason I'm treated as a second-class citizen." Or just see the grouping and think, "Yes, human magic-users lording it over their grateful inferiors. That's an accurate representation of the Ministry's beliefs, all right."

If that statue had survived, or if it has been repaired and could be re-installed, would it be wrong to take it out of the atrium? There isn't really a "neutral" option. Leaving it there is a statement that whatever bad things the witch and wizard might have done do not outweigh the good things which justify having a public statue memorializing them, and that species superiority is something which ought to be portrayed in the halls of government. Taking it out says that the wrongs are important enough that they shouldn't be lauded in public.

And it isn't a choice between leaving the statue in the atrium and no one ever seeing it again. There's Option C, the Indiana Jones option: "That belongs in a museum!" That is, a place where people will be interested in the historical context and where it isn't acting as the face of or welcome mat for for the entire government. Would putting the statue in a museum be that intolerant "cancel culture," in the author's opinion?

And if a house-elf, a centaur, and a goblin decided to pull down the symbol of how wizards like to oppress them, would that be wrong?

While it's a matter of interpretation, I don't think the books support the interpretation that these statutes are precious relics which ought to be eternally preserved and appreciated in the Ministry atrium forevermore. In fact, I rather get the feeling that the Fountain of Magical Brethren getting blasted to pieces was seen as a bonus of the fight, and that melting down the Magic Is Might statute might just be one of Kingsley Shacklebolt's first orders as the new Minister. So I don't know what the article's author thinks they're proving, really.

[with-rainfall.livejournal.com]

“But, despite having been confronted by the full extent of Dumbledore’s crimes, Harry chooses to follow the path set by Dumbledore, enter the dark tunnel behind the painting and fight for his beliefs. By”

Does he, though? As the series goes on, if anything, it’s the opposite. Harry was never the most active of protagonists (except where saving people was concerned), but he gets extremely passive and by the end of DH, he’s DD’s sacrificial lamb. Not only that, but he never once questions the trajectory of events that led him to “Dumbledore wants me killed.”