Harry Potter and the Underlying Theme

[nancylebov]

richardthinks posted an essay about the zipper pulling all the disparate bits of HP together, with the argument being that Harry and his friends are always willing to pay the cost of what they want-- in advance-- while the bad guys shuffle costs off onto other people.

It sounds plausible, but I haven't read the series recently enough to have much of an opinion about it. Where do the Weasley twins fit? They're a couple of cost-shufflers in some ways, but maybe this theme explains why they didn't get a big part in the final battle (something I was looking forward to).

You might be able to present Umbridge as a cost-shuffler, but it certainly isn't as obvious as in Voldemort's case. Actually, while she's a great villain, I'm not sure what her motives are. Is it just that she doesn't like Hogwarts and/or Dumbledore and/or Defense against Dark Arts, or is her flaw (in addition to sadism) that she wants to be in charge of things without knowing anything about them?

Anyway, willingness (or not) to pay the cost of what one wants is probably a big theme in the books, even if it doesn't cover everything.

Comments

[andrewducker]

Umbridge is a Follower. She needs the assurance of certainty that only comes with dedication to someone.

She doesn't like the forces of Good because they're too wishy-washy and chaotic.

[schemingreader.livejournal.com]

What about Dumbledore? He's definitely shuffling costs onto others. He expects Snape to sacrifice himself to atone for his sins. (Which are what? Repenting his bad actions and wanting to save his girlfriend?) Dumbledore sacrifices Harry's welfare without his consent for the greater good repeatedly.

I'm sure I won't be the first to remind you that the twins were active in the final battle and one died on-screen. They are both willing to sacrifice themselves. I don't think this is as clear-cut as it might be.

[nellorat.livejournal.com]

I don't think of that theme as basic to the HP books in the way that it is to Charles Williams' novels; he also has philosophy/theology underlying his system in a way that Rowling doesn't. I think of Rowling's good characters as having a more military kind of valor and virtue, not asking anything of followers that they wouldn't do themselves, but sometimes dong it themselves & sometimes not. This seems especially true of Dumbledore with HP and Snape.

[redneckgaijin.livejournal.com]

The only underlying theme I ever found is the same theme of most young-adult adventure stories: All Adults are Either Evil or Useless.

[madfilkentist]

In the early books, Harry does a few bits of cost-shuffling onto Draco, Crabbe, and Goyle. Granted, it's well-deserved.

[sturgeonslawyer.livejournal.com]

The only underlying theme I see with any consistency in these books is the value of moral courage. "Cost shuffling" can be seen as a lack of moral courage, for example. Everybody we are supposed to trust repeatedly puts moral courage -- though never called by that name -- above things like intelligence, power, popularity, money, etc.

[richardthinks.livejournal.com]

whswhs' comment on what a "theme" is strikes me as really useful... and totally different from a zipper.

Comments make me realise several things: sorry to collate them all in one place, seems like the best thing overall..?

Certainly what distinguishes the good guys is moral courage. I wanted to break that down a bit, though. As usual, not everyone has to be morally courageous for the world to be saved, only the Chosen One, and he doesn't save the world just by exhibiting courage... but he certainly doesn't save it by his wits or diligent application of sound principles or organizing ability, so I was trying to figure out how he does save it.

There is a certain asymmetry between Harry + co's shuffling and Malfoy + co's. I think some of that's just chauvinism typical to the adventure yarn (where the hero's setbacks and triumphs are somehow qualitatively different from others'). Some of it is the Nelson principle quoted below, of never asking anyone to do what you wouldn't: that's a form of authority and persuasion, right? And quite a dodgy one: you know I would do it, so I don't have to. That could get very problematic.

Except Dumbledore does wind up paying costs for Harry (multiple ways at the end of 6), while his pushing Harry to pay is always cast as a form of apprenticeship - preparing him for an inevitable fate (which really only works because it fits the genre expectations so well: what do prophecies really do to free will?). Snape pays for a lifetime of bitterness probably because he lacked the courage to try for Lily, but really his own story is totally overshadowed by the work he has to do being ambiguous all through the series. His sadism is obviously a form of cost-shuffling, making the kids miserable because he is.

I think Umbridge is a monster from Fudge's id (generated, note, by his unwillingness to acknowledge the cost of being minister - that it's his responsibility to do something about Voldemort), and an object lesson in unchecked power and its unintended consequences. Her flaw is that she wants others to suffer as she will not. She invents costs and then applies them callously, wantonly. The narrative purpose of her toadying to Fudge is I think to reinforce her in the archetypal role of bully: she has no noble purpose, she's just a hierarchy fetishist. But she's playing with dangerous forces she doesn't understand (symbolised most of all I think by the prejudice that undoes her): the costs she creates come with benefits outside her control.

No, I don't think this schema accounts for everything. As whswhs says, it's gotta have a motif for reflection, not just a thesis. I might even go further and say that unjust costs are an important theme (Hagrid, Neville, Sirius), and that they're successfully resolved not by redressing all balances but by surviving.

Where do the Weasley twins fit in? They're noble clowns - I think Eliezer has them pegged just right - and I think their purpose (other than comic relief) is to redress balances, let the air out of windbags, and remind the reader to separate what's actually important from what's trivial. School rules are mostly trivial, loyalty and the punishing of bullies are valid.

[bondo-ba.livejournal.com]

Regarding Umbridge, she seems to me to represent the puritanical ideal, the holier-than-thou neighbor. IMO, she is one of the most believable characters in the whole series because we've all met someone like her, hiding their mediocrity and resentment behind a veil of do-goodness and moral superiority, hoping to remake the world into their own image.

I've never been able to understand their motivations either (these are precisely the kind of people that I always seem to get into fights with), but I know they're out there in droves!