In the world of Harry Potter, the teachers don't listen to the children enough so they are forced to go it alone to save the day. This is a mechanism to allow the story to progress, but I think the idea of appropriate rebellion is still an interesting one.
When is it okay for Harry and his friend's to rebel? Are all their rebellions throughout the series appropriate? If they are misguided but still rebelling for a good reason how do we seem them? Do we seem them as morally sound but misguided in the details, or as morally misguided?
On page 331 of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, we see Dumbledore, who had by now become the unofficial person to look to when it comes to morals in the Harry Potter series, say that Harry and Ron were not going to get punished for breaking the rules, but instead, rewarded. Dumbledore seems to think, as we the readers inevitably do as well, that people should follow the spirit of the rules, and not the letter.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
great! it reminds me of henry david thoreau's "civil disobedience." i wonder if jk rowling has read it? I hope you continue to follow these questions toward the end of the series -- maybe you will find some answers!
ReplyDeleteit would also be fun to explore how dumbledore has "become the unofficial person to look to when it comes to morals in the harry potter series" -- what did rowling do to help us trust him so implicitly? how does she use dumbledore as a tool to guide/manipulate harry, or the readers? is it guidance or manipulation? similar to these questions of rebellion, are the authority figures they choose to follow guiding them in the right direction? guiding us, as readers, in the right direction?
sorry to answer your questions with questions -- but this really got me thinking!