Mahonri Stewart: Good morality in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
Books, Good stuff, Philosophy, Religion, Writing August 3rd, 2007With his permission, I’m copying these words of Mahonri Stewart (an LDS playwright and active voice in the LDS literary/art community, and who occasionally writes over here) which he wrote at the AML-list, where the topic emerged (in response to a link to my Harry Potter predictions at this blog) of the morality presented in the final Harry Potter book. I liked what he had to say about the book; here it is (with minor edits for clarity/syntax). There will be spoilers here if you haven’t read Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.
[Rowling shows repentance] in Dumbledore. In Harry’s near death experience where he meets up with Dumbledore, Dumbledore gives a pretty heart felt confession. As to the use of the forbidden curses, Rowling makes it pretty clear that the worst of them, the Death Curse [Avada Kedavra], Harry won’t use flippantly. When he’s being chased by death eaters at the beginning of the book, Lupin insinuates that he should have used the curse since his life was in danger, but Harry tells him flatly that he doesn’t work that way. He’s not just going to fling that curse around whenever he feels he is in danger. And with the Imperius Curse, Harry does show remorse for feeling like he had to use it– Rowling doesn’t dwell on the point because the characters are in mortal danger at that point and don’t really have the time for a remorseful inner monologue– they’re being chased by Goblins and encountering a dragon and trying to destroy the Horcruxes which put their whole world in peril! Yeah, under the circumstances they’re going to make some rash decisions.
As to the use of the curses in general, I believe MOST of the cases in which it is used, it is justifiable because it is used in time of war (and let’s not forget that at that point it’s about survival) and there is a time when extreme measures need to be taken (Nephi and Laban, anyone?). In time of war, we Muggles do our own Crucio curses– they’re called guns, tear gas, pepper gas, tanks, bombs, grenades– and let’s not forget that most horrible of curses, the Atomic Bomb, which won the war against Japan. Against Voldemort’s Army, pretty much the wizarding equivelent to Hitler, the wizarding community took up arms against what they considered the face of evil. Many of the rules of war went out the window in WWII (including the previous ban of attacking civilian communities in Germany and Japan). It’s not pretty, it shows humanity’s viciousness, but at that point in the books, it was about survival. And the scriptures themselves show plenty of examples where God overrides his own rules when extremities have been pushed to their limits. I think Rowling is showing what would really happen in that community when it really came down to a war.
Concerning Snape, [his sacrifice was not lightly dismissed, but treated seriously] by Rowling. His death was “casual” in the way of the killing, because it was Voldemort who did the killing, and we’ve come to expect that from him, but then his last moments with Harry were quite touching and then (in the middle of the climax, mind you) she devotes an entire chapter explaining his life and showing that he was indeed a misused hero. I don’t consider that a dismissal, I consider that an eulogy. She was heralding what seems to have been one of her favorite characters. Harry even named one of his children after him! How many of your children have you named after your mother’s old boyfriends? [me: I’m named after one of my mother’s old boyfriends.] [A melodramatic deathbed monologue wouldn’t work there - what was given worked.]
[Rowling doesn’t condone any of the bad behavior of Harry’s parents.] I think it’s pretty obvious that she roundly condemns it (Rowling loves the sinner, while hating the sin). And we only see the bad side of them because we see them through Snape’s eyes, and Snape was desperately trying to show Harry that things weren’t as black and white as Harry had assumed. That doesn’t mean that they were moral reprobates, it just means that they made many of the mistakes a lot of people in high school do– cruelty in the name of popularity. And although many people have made that mistake, often they grow up, grow out of such attitudes and go on to be really decent folks. And in the case of Lily, she actually isn’t tainted by that particular sin– she doesn’t do anything for the glory of the crowd, she remains a true friend to Snape until she feels betrayed by him by what she sees as immoral behavior in his taking on the Dark Arts. An overactive sense of betrayal and perhaps a little bit of judgmentalism are the only sins Rowling pins to Lily.
The fact that Harry’s parents weren’t the saints of his childhood dreams makes the book all that more effective to me. They are no longer static ideals, but flesh and blood human beings who are imperfect and in need of Grace. This seems to be a theme in the last few books, as Dumbledore undergoes the same re-definition in Harry’s mind, not to mention that Harry has to come to terms with his own failings. Rowling, instead of cultivating attitudes of judgmentalism and moral puritanism towards her characters, instead shows sympathy for the worst of her characters and shows shadows in the best of her characters. This, to me, is one of the most moral worldviews that she could have taken, for not only is it more realistic and rooted in actual human behavior, but it also teaches forgiveness on the part of the reader. Too often, I think, we are too prone to label good guys and bad guys in our reading. Rowling pushes us out of our comfort zones there and shows that we are all mutts, good and evil mixed. But then she shows that eventually we can transcend that and do something truly good and powerful with our lives (some of the most effective examples being Snape and Dumbledore).
[Moral nitpicking over this book] disheartens me, as I think it damages a work that portrays so much goodness and spirituality: Rowling’s Christ and Grace imagery; her criticism against Lupin for considering leaving his family to re-live the glory days of his youth; the theme of forgiveness and redemption; Rowling’s criticism against those who would judge people’s lives only by the negative aspects; the breaking down of class systems and labels that happens in the books; the understanding that there is nothing to fear from the death of the body, but rather everything to gain from concern for the life of our soul; the power of loyalty and friendship; the power of courage; the power of love.
Deathly Hallows was one of the most edifying books I have read for a long time. I put that book down filled with love and light. The national market rarely receives such a moral work and even more rarely embraces it so heartily. I think it’s quite the feat that Rowling has accomplished and I don’t believe for a moment that she doesn’t deserve it.