Except, of course, that Voldemort is no longer right the moment he takes the steps he's been taking - torture, murder, extortion, yadda yadda. Sorry - you've organized some no-brainer but frequently unspoken aspects of Voldemort's methods and possible motivations in a very eloquent way, but eh. Personally, I'm puzzled (and sometimes a little disturbed) by Potterfandom's penchant for extreme moral ambiguity/Death Eater sympathizing that goes hand in hand with "good guy" bashing (not that you're doing the latter, I just notice it a lot in general). Yes, all is not well in the default wizarding world, but that doesn't mean we all need to go and root for the bad guys, either. *shakes head*
I'm sorry you misinterpreted my portrayal of Voldemort as actively supporting his views and methods - I by no means wished to provide a moral sanction for killing. However, just because Voldemort is a horrible man because of his actions, doesn't mean he has some decent reasons for them. (Notice I say "reason", not "excuse".) I don't believe in moral relativism, but I do believe in moral ambiguity. No one is purely evil. Although a storybook character might indeed be evil, I like to think that Voldemort is only a man commiting evil acts.
Well, it wasn't so much your essay itself as the lj-cut "What if Voldemort is right?" that prompted the "ewww" part of my reaction. I also believe in moral ambiguity, but I also think that Voldemort is quite obviously a sick bastard and though his actions do have some reason behind them (as do those of most 'evil' revolutionaries - characters like Hitler aside), that's kind of self-evident and isn't really worth discussing, because he's, well, a sick bastard. I dunno.
Although a storybook character might indeed be evil, I like to think that Voldemort is only a man commiting evil acts.
That's a fair distinction to make, and I might actually agree, frankly. I just get very uncomfortable when people link "he's just doing evil stuff, he's not evil incarnate" to "hey, these ideas make sense! they're even good!" Which you didn't do, but there are a lot of essays like that being linked and written right now, so perhaps I mentally generalized just a tad.
Well, it wasn't so much your essay itself as the lj-cut "What if Voldemort is right?" that prompted the "ewww" part of my reaction.
Well, for one thing, that was just a really bold statement to try to grab people's attention. And also, I was refering to him being right about the dangers of Muggles and Muggleborns to wizarding society, not him being morally right.
"hey, these ideas make sense! they're even good!"
Ah, but I do say that, don't I? In my opinion they could very well be good - but by no means are the methods which are used to promote the idea good.
Well, for one thing, that was just a really bold statement to try to grab people's attention. And also, I was refering to him being right about the dangers of Muggles and Muggleborns to wizarding society, not him being morally right.
Yes, but I don't think you were really clear enough on the distinction in your essay. You didn't talk about methodology much.
Ah, but I do say that, don't I? In my opinion they could very well be good - but by no means are the methods which are used to promote the idea good.
Okay, yes, that's definitely my bad - I meant "hey, these ideas make sense! they're even good enough to counterbalance the methods!"
I'll go back and fix that when I get the chance. Although I considered the essay more of "this is my take on what's Voldie's opinions really are" than "this is my opinion about Voldie's opinions".
To me it looks like we have poor Harry and friends (and Draco and friends for that matter) trying to negotiate successfully a world in which:
1) There are the Death Eaters. Agree with them or die. Right.
2) There is Dumbledore, who values personal loyalty above morality, tolerates the most insane behaviour in his circle among those who are 'loyal' to him, does everything he can to drive away those who might reconsider their families' politics but will never, ever be 'loyal' to him, suppresses information, argues that suppressing information is a good thing because it allows wiser heads to make decisions for those they 'love', equates 'love' with control, etc. This is not a person I want in authority, either.
3) There is the Ministry, which is essentially a fascist government that enforces its laws capriciously.
Pray tell me, where are these good guys and in what book does she plan to introduce them?
The good (adult) guys: Remus, always searching for redemption and making up for his lapses. Hagrid. McGonagall yes, she helped Harry get a broom and Hermione a time-turner. These are small favoritism issues that harm nobody, and she's just as harsh if not harsher on her favorites when they do break the rules. Who took 150 points from the Gryffindors in the first place?). Firenze. The Weasleys. There are plenty of good guys.
1) There are the Death Eaters. Agree with them or die. Right.
Also, they torture and abuse people.
2) There is Dumbledore, who values personal loyalty above morality,
Er...what?
tolerates the most insane behaviour in his circle among those who are 'loyal' to him,
The only example I can think of is Sirius, and I thought Sirius was punished harshly but quietly?
does everything he can to drive away those who might reconsider their families' politics but will never, ever be 'loyal' to him,
How? Apart from the end of the first book, when Harry SAVED THE SCHOOL.
suppresses information, argues that suppressing
( ... )
Firenze's a pet peeve of mine - I don't consider him a good guy. If Centaurs can tell the future with accuracy, I think it's incumbent upon them not to interfere with the course the world takes, lest they utterly destroy free will. Hence, I dislike Firenze.
This is true. But I feel like if centaur predictions are mostly accurate... well, knowing the future is a far greater power than any mere ability with a wand, isn't it? And when someone (or some race) is so much more powerful than another, I feel it's really only right for them to not interfere.
Hmm. They do seem to be more the vague "war is coming" kind of predictions- perhaps with more detail, but nonetheless they aren't the most accurate. In fact, as said in the books, Firenze's lessons are designed to show the children that prophecy and divination can be vague and they can be wrong, or at the very least down to interpretation. When placed in the context of the Neville-or-Harry problem, or the vagueness of Trelawney's second prophecy, it's rather hard to say that Centaurs and their prophecies are much more than weather-gauges of the heavens.
Well, a lot of the answers to your questions are in my journal, really; I've written about Dumbledore lots there. For instance, yes, Harry saved the school, but there was no need to drape the hall in green making an entire house think it had won when it hadn't before dropping the bomb.
The reason for more lines on Dumbledore is that it's obvious what's wrong with the Death Eaters and the Ministry, but Dumbledore has the Reaganish ability to disguise his actual behaviour with a fatherly mien. It's ALL OVER the books, for instance, with the emphasis on personal loyalty--from the reason given for Fawkes saving the day in CoS to the behaviour tolerated by Dumbly's chosen vis-a-vis outsiders, etc.
I can agree with you that Dumbledore appears to be lesser of three evils in that his tactics do not involve torture or murder (although he certainly laughs off attempted murder easily enough). But the least of three evils is not a good. That doesn't make him a good guy or a hero, and I could never follow ANY of them.
Reply
Reply
Although a storybook character might indeed be evil, I like to think that Voldemort is only a man commiting evil acts.
That's a fair distinction to make, and I might actually agree, frankly. I just get very uncomfortable when people link "he's just doing evil stuff, he's not evil incarnate" to "hey, these ideas make sense! they're even good!" Which you didn't do, but there are a lot of essays like that being linked and written right now, so perhaps I mentally generalized just a tad.
Reply
Well, for one thing, that was just a really bold statement to try to grab people's attention. And also, I was refering to him being right about the dangers of Muggles and Muggleborns to wizarding society, not him being morally right.
"hey, these ideas make sense! they're even good!"
Ah, but I do say that, don't I? In my opinion they could very well be good - but by no means are the methods which are used to promote the idea good.
Reply
Yes, but I don't think you were really clear enough on the distinction in your essay. You didn't talk about methodology much.
Ah, but I do say that, don't I? In my opinion they could very well be good - but by no means are the methods which are used to promote the idea good.
Okay, yes, that's definitely my bad - I meant "hey, these ideas make sense! they're even good enough to counterbalance the methods!"
Reply
Reply
To me it looks like we have poor Harry and friends (and Draco and friends for that matter) trying to negotiate successfully a world in which:
1) There are the Death Eaters. Agree with them or die. Right.
2) There is Dumbledore, who values personal loyalty above morality, tolerates the most insane behaviour in his circle among those who are 'loyal' to him, does everything he can to drive away those who might reconsider their families' politics but will never, ever be 'loyal' to him, suppresses information, argues that suppressing information is a good thing because it allows wiser heads to make decisions for those they 'love', equates 'love' with control, etc. This is not a person I want in authority, either.
3) There is the Ministry, which is essentially a fascist government that enforces its laws capriciously.
Pray tell me, where are these good guys and in what book does she plan to introduce them?
Reply
1) There are the Death Eaters. Agree with them or die. Right.
Also, they torture and abuse people.
2) There is Dumbledore, who values personal loyalty above morality,
Er...what?
tolerates the most insane behaviour in his circle among those who are 'loyal' to him,
The only example I can think of is Sirius, and I thought Sirius was punished harshly but quietly?
does everything he can to drive away those who might reconsider their families' politics but will never, ever be 'loyal' to him,
How? Apart from the end of the first book, when Harry SAVED THE SCHOOL.
suppresses information, argues that suppressing ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
The reason for more lines on Dumbledore is that it's obvious what's wrong with the Death Eaters and the Ministry, but Dumbledore has the Reaganish ability to disguise his actual behaviour with a fatherly mien. It's ALL OVER the books, for instance, with the emphasis on personal loyalty--from the reason given for Fawkes saving the day in CoS to the behaviour tolerated by Dumbly's chosen vis-a-vis outsiders, etc.
I can agree with you that Dumbledore appears to be lesser of three evils in that his tactics do not involve torture or murder (although he certainly laughs off attempted murder easily enough). But the least of three evils is not a good. That doesn't make him a good guy or a hero, and I could never follow ANY of them.
Reply
Leave a comment