Dear Fone Bone,
Cordial greetings and hope all is well. A very good day to you.
You too. I’m pleased to have found an opportunity now to respond to your criticisms. Thank you again for dealing in specificity - it really gets the conversation somewhere.
That said, as someone who has read the series multiple times, I’m certain your concerns about its portrayal of authority and obedience are baseless.
When Harry and his friends disobey the rules, one of two things always results:
(a)
They are reprimanded and punished by a legitimate authority. When this happens they are almost always contrite, and the narrator presents the situation in a way that makes Harry and his friends look unnecessarily reckless and guilty.
(b)
They either get away with it, or - if not - the narrator presents their disobedience as nonetheless virtuous or justified. I’ll address this below.
There
are some exceptions - for instance, the evil Death Eater pretending to be Professor Moody catches Harry breaking rules but lets him or even helps him.
At the end of the book, however, the revelation that this was actually Voldemort’s most loyal servant really puts a damper on the notion that such disobedience was righteous. The lesson is clear and good.
So what about that second category? Well, when Harry and his friends’ disobedience is presented as good, that’s because it is.
As you admit, Portrait, there is a higher authority than any earthly one, and if any human authority contradicts or impedes the demands of the universal moral law, then disobedience is justified.
The good mentor figures, like Professor McGonagall,
do occasionally punish or reprimand Harry, and he feels really bad in those situations. Legitimate authority - such as that of Albus Dumbledore - is
always presented as trustworthy, and obedience to such figures is presented in the books as both virtuous and necessary.
On the other hand, you have figures like book five’s Dolores Umbridge. She is an evil usurper - and a moral relativist, to boot - and yes, disobedience to her regime is presented as good.
But surely, Portrait, you don’t think that thematically undermining the authority of a relativistic usurper is anything but spiritually beneficial to children?
Now for some of your examples and assertions.
For example, obedience in Potter is anything but “obeying ones lawful superiors”.
Untrue. To trust authority figures like Dumbledore, McGonagall, and Lupin is presented in the books as both virtuous and necessary - especially when Harry doesn’t live up to it.
And the books even promote obedience to legitimate authorities
whom Harry doesn’t like or trust on a personal level.
For example, in the climax of
Order of the Phoenix Harry and his friends take matters into their own hands since all of the teachers they like and trust have been removed from Hogwarts by the usurping villain Umbridge.
But there was a legitimate authority left that they could have gone to - Professor Severus Snape. Their choice to bypass him
directly leads to the death of Harry’s beloved godfather.
Again, the message is clear, and the message is good.
If, they are reprimanded, it is usually by the professor that is law-abiding and supposedly has it in for them. Moreover, this is also the professor that is disobeyed, lied to and stolen from. The reason for this is quite simple. If you do not like a particular authority figure and consider that they are unfair to you, then your obligation to them no longer exists.
Unfair and untrue. Consider the following examples:
(a) It is
McGonagall who severely reprimands Harry and his friends for sneaking out at night in
Philosopher’s Stone. Harry and his friends like and respect Professor McGonagall, and they are disappointed in themselves for letting her down by their rule-breaking.
(b) As I illustrated above, sometimes
not trusting or obeying Professor Snape - the one you reference above, though not by name - has disastrous consequences for them. This happens in the first novel too, when they’re
sure he’s working for the bad guys, but they’re wrong and Dumbledore - the ultimate authority/father-figure - is right.
(c) Despite Harry’s personal animosity towards Professor Snape, Albus Dumbledore
always insists that Harry show him respect and refer to him as “Professor.”
Courage, according to Potter and company, means looking for danger, usually after being told not to do so - more disobedience encouraged.
Except that this choice usually ends up being a disaster for Harry and his friends. Like in
Philosopher’s Stone when McGonagall punishes them (as I already alluded to), or in
Order of the Phoenix when Harry’s choice to bypass legitimate authority costs his godfather his life (as I also alluded to).
Numerous other examples abound: Dumbledore gives Harry an important task in
Half-Blood Prince, which Harry basically ignores out of laziness. Dumbledore calls him out on this, and Harry feels bad - his disobedient negligence is presented for the reader as a
bad thing.
Justice means that one can get away with almost anything if one is famous
The archetype of fame in
Harry Potter is not actually Harry, who often shuns it, but actually Gilderoy Lockhart in
Chamber of Secrets (Book Two). Lockhart’s arrogant sense of entitlement over his fame is repeatedly ridiculed as a false basis for his belief that he can do whatever he wants.
- I had and have a vivid imagination and love the horror and fantasy genres as long as the story is not too gory (as it is with someone like Anne Rice)).