Snapedom

“It seems to me that as innocent victims, guilty of nothing more than harboring a marked man, we ought to qualify for government protection!”

Harry laughed; he could not help himself. It was so very typical of his uncle to put his hopes in the establishment, even within this world that he despised and mistrusted.


DH, “The Dursleys Departing”

A followup of sorts to "Discipline at Hogwarts".



Some of the weirdness of the Potterverse morality may come because JKR seems to conflate the D&D categories of good and evil with those of chaos versus law.

(Here’s a cut to the Wiki definitions for those unfamiliar with the distinction.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alignment_(Dungeons_%26_Dragons)

I came to this understanding through an examination of Dumbledore. One would naturally expect the headmaster of the WW’s premier school, the head of the Wizengamot, the chief of the International Confederation of Wizards, four-times-asked-to-be Minister, to be the very embodiment of Lawful Good in the Potterverse. Instead, as I showed in my “Discipline at Hogwarts,” Albus is himself chaotic (he would say, good, but others might argue that point), and strongly encourages lawlessness in others.

(Mind, it’s okay for people to obey HIM, since he knows best—but no one should ever put store on obedience to the Ministry, or indeed on rules and laws as such. And if you look, Albus in canon asks for obedience outside of the authority structures he commands, not usually within them. Albus doesn’t enforce school rules with Harry, but he asks that Harry give up his life to an extracurricular quest; Albus doesn’t command Hagrid as a teacher to visit the giants, but as an Order member. He does not, in short, use his positions of authority to make people obey him. Either they do so voluntarily out of their trust in his superior wisdom, or they’re fools and don’t.)

How weird. The authority figure most visible in the books disdains and flouts authority.

In the Potterverse it seems to be the case that Chaotic=Good and Lawful=Evil. All of the characters with whom we are expected to sympathize are rulebreakers to one extent or another, from Harry and Albus, down to Hagrid using his “umbrella” and rearing dragons, to Arthur tinkering in his shed, to Ron hexing a driving examiner to get out of following Muggle rules. All of the evil or unsympathetic characters, in contrast, are guilty of trying to use laws/rules to make others’ lives miserable.

Look at the Hogwarts staff who are most committed to enforcing rules: Snape, Filch, and Umbridge. Look at who joins the Inquisitorial Squad: those evil Slytherins. Look at the orderly and law-and-order-rhetoric spouting Dursleys.

(“Fair” Minerva is actually neutral on the order-chaos line—she’ll enforce rules if she chooses, and ignore them when she chooses. Harry’s punishment for disobeying Hooch and risking his life by flying before he’d had lessons, anyone? Or offering to fight Aurors at Dumbledore’s side when he’d just confessed [falsely, as it happens] to open treason?)

Almost every time we actually see the Ministry or Board of Governors actively exercising their authority it’s presented by JKR as stupidly mistaken at best, outright evil at worst. Expelling Hagrid, imprisoning Sirius, suspending Dumbledore, trying to execute Buckbeak, trying to expel Harry, sacking Dumbledore, imprisoning Hagrid and Stan Shunpike… how often are the Ministry’s actions simply wrong? And they can do nothing effective against Riddle—that requires Dumbledore and his band of Merry Men.

One would expect a psychopathic torturer/killer and his terrorist followers to be an embodiment of Chaotic Evil. (Indeed serial killers—of which Tom is one—are listed as the type’s representative.) Yet when Riddle does finally assume power, the Death Eaters set up a regime that’s a perfect illustration of a Lawful Evil tyranny—with Dolores given a prominent place of power. I think Jo just can’t imagine disorder and anarchy as truly paired with evil.

Which may be why Jo had to allow Voldemort to take over the WW entirely before Harry could defeat him. Death Eaters might otherwise have looked superficially like agents of disorder, like disruptors of established authority. But disrupting authority is intrinsically good—that confusion can’t be allowed to stand! So the Death Eaters had to be permitted to win temporarily so we could see their true face, could see Jo’s demonstration that Evil IS Authoritarianism (and vice versa).

This could also be why Dumbledore’s rather shaky relationship with the truth, and Harry’s gallant Cruciatus, are not problems for JKR: Saints are Lawful Good, and neither Harry nor Dumbledore is a saint. Who expects a trickster to be truthful, or a rebel to obey laws outlawing such-and-such a spell when he’s fighting Pure Evil?

Indeed, the Trickster archetype can explain why JKR condones both Dumbledore’s lies and manipulations, and the Statute of Secrecy, upheld by mass Obliviaton and Confunding of helpless Muggles.

Let’s draw a distinction: JKR agreed that Harry’s torturing a baddy showed that Harry had (minor) flaws. A more saintly Harry wouldn’t have done it. But nowhere in canon does the authorial voice criticize the use of memory charms, even though she shows that they can cause permanent mental damage. Her very world is built on, absolutely requires, their widespread use, and as the epilogue shows, “All is well” with that state of affairs continuing. Indeed, Jo goes out of her way to mention Ron Confunding a Muggle official.

The Lawful way to get someone to do what you want is to pass a Law and then enforce it, i.e. to Force them to Obey. The Chaotic way is to Trick them into it. It’s morally superior to Trick people than to Force them, even if you have to lie to them, drug them (Harry getting Slughorn’s memory), shamelessly manipulate their circumstances (Dumbles leaving Harry with the Dursleys) or even alter their minds (Kingsley with Marietta) to make them follow your will.

JKR apparently sees memory charms as a form of trickery, rather than as an extension of force. The Wizarding World is TRICKING us Muggles into ignoring them, and there can be no possible objection to that.

This conflation of chaos with virtue may also explain why some of us are at such variance with Jo about some of her characters. JKR may truly think that if she shows a character being rebellious/lawless/rule-breaking, that is the same as showing that character to be good at heart. No need to show any further “distinguished examples of benevolence”—it comes with the territory of being a rule-breaker.

Similarly, if Jo shows us characters bent on enforcing rules, that proves they’re really cold-hearted and evil, whatever other traits she has them show. Or at least misguided: if the character DOES have a good heart, s/he’ll eventually see the error of hir ways and abandon rule-enforcing. You know, like Percy and Hermione. (Which is why Lawful Percy has to apologize to the Chaotic Twins who tormented him for years and drove him out of his family, and never vice versa.)

JKR showed us James and Sirius breaking rules, and Snivellus wanting them enforced (against the Marauders, against the Trio)—what else do we need to know, to tell which was really good at heart? How could we possibly question her assertion that James was a hero of his age and Snape was not? She SHOWED us, clearly, what they were like. It’s not like Snape ever really reformed and gave up his rule-enforcing.

If we readers were any slower we’d be going backwards!

And Neville and the DA are Jo’s vision of people who are roused by example to Better themselves, to become truly Good: they are inspired by Harry to resist, chaotically, the Lawful Evil regime.

Which is why Jo presents cheeking teachers and defacing public property as being exactly as heroic and significant as refusing to commit torture under duress or suffering torture oneself to protect little kids.

I am serious: if you look, that what canon states. In “The Lost Diadem,” Neville details four specific things he/DA members did and were punished for by the Carrows. All are given equal weight. One of the “deep gashes” on Neville’s face came from Amycus, for refusing to cast the Cruciatus; the one on the other side was given him by Alecto, “for asking her how much Muggle blood she and her brother have got”. The DA was running around alternately scrawling on the walls, “Dumbledore’s Army, Still Recruiting,” and rescuing first-years from being chained in preparation for torture.

It’s all the same to Jo.

Jo even had Neville justifying doing utterly pointless things solely to piss off the authorities, regardless of the retribution those authorities might exact (this is where my own writing of Neville has, I must admit, been decidedly OOC): “The thing is, it helps when people stand up to them, it gives everyone hope. I used to notice that when you did it, Harry.”

Um. Yeah. Chaos good, lawfulness evil. Okay, I get your position, Jo. Even if I don’t agree.

(For a much more insightful look chaotic good fighting lawful evil, read Pat Murphy’s brilliant and heartbreaking novel, The City, Not Long After.)