Multifandom: Authorities

[selenak]

oyceter, I've finished listening to the radio play version of His Dark Materials. Well now, as Avon would say. Despite not having read Pullman yet - though I certainly will - I felt quite like after watching the Harry Potter movies, where I did know the original text first: It's this strange "rushing through Highlights Of…" sensation, as well as the feeling that something elusive is missing despite the faithfulness to the source. Which one doesn't get with the LotR films (ave, Jackson!).

Anyway. So, His Dark Materials, the radio plays. I certainly want to have a Daemon of my own. Mrs. Coulter and Lord Asriel seemed the most interesting characters to me, though I approve of Pullman not giving us too much of them. Regarding Pullman's theological issues, he certainly expresses them better in fantasy than in his interviews, but I can't help thinking Terry Pratchett got there first, and in a wittier and less dogmatic fashion, with Small Gods.
However, the whole "republic of heaven" concept, which is supposed to replace the old clerical hierarchy, combined with some recent postings, made me think about the way various world builders in various media handled the problem of authority, of individualism and its limits, of the structure of the societies they presented.

Tolkien and Lewis were both enamored with the idea of an idealized oligarchy, obviously. Characters like Gandalf or Aslan are not to be questioned; nor is their superior wisdom. The elves might feel their time is over and withdraw from Middle-Earth, but Middle Earth society per se does not change. For example, the fact that Grima Wormtongue has control of Rohan through his influence over the King is not meant as a criticism of the monarchy, nor is Eowyn's discontent with her lot as a woman really a challenge for more equality among the genders. It's Grima who is the aberration, not the system which is flawed, and Eowyn does not write the Middleearthian equivalent of Mary Wolstonecraft's defense of the Rights of Women, she marries. This is not meant as a criticism of Tolkien, btw. The world would be a dull place if all creations which do not fit a modern world view had to be thrown aside.

Rowling, as has been pointed out by more than one reviewer, makes the fact that there is something rotten in the state of wizarddom an important plot point. Starting with CoS, where the "mudblood" racism and the slavery of houseelves got first introduced, and the fact the ministery of magic with its ties to Lucius Malfoy and its propensity to imprison people on a mere suspicion, the depiction of the magical world in which Harry escaped in the first novel has become ever darker. By the time OotP has finished, it's glaringly obvious that the defeat of Voldemort is by no means the only thing which has to be accomplished before the novels are done - the entire magical world is in dire need of reformation or revolution. I was only half joking in my original reaction when I suggested I wouldn't be surprised if Harry ends the novels having abolished every single institution in it. (Which a friend of mine commented with: "As long as Snape doesn't sacrifice himself wearing an amulet and leaving a big hole where Hogwarts was.") At the same time, Rowling isn't completely anti-authoritarian - Dumbledore, while being presented as fallible and manipulative, is still the positive authority as opposed to the many negative embodiments of authority. But then, Dumbledore also walks around with a red "Mentor doomed to die" shirt, and the only question is whether it will happen in book 6 or 7. (7, is my guess, early on. For the record.) And he will not have a successor in the narrative structure. I mean, sure, there will be another headmaster - or more likely headmistress, i.e. McGonnagal - of Hogwarts, but no character will assume the Dumbledorian position of Wise Old Man. Which is as it should be, in any coming of age myth. As JMS of Babylon 5 fame observed, we all have to kill our parents.

(Speaking of Babylon 5, I already went on at some length about the politics therein, so I won't do so again, except to say that B5 is one of the few genre TV shows where changing societies are crucial for the individual characters and their arcs.)

One reason why the Star Wars prequels fascinate me so much, as I said earlier as well, is that the need for a society to change is a crucial plot point here, too, and not in the literal black-and-white Empire bad, Rebels good fashion of the OT. I'm currently having an interesting debate with cadesama at her lj about various things in the Potterverse and in SW, and she put it most succinctly, talking about the "Balance of the Force" prophecy and the deeply flawed system which is the Jedi Order:
The interpretation being that balance is not between Light and Dark, but between Unifying and Living. Duty and personal pursuits - the classical giri/ninjo conflict of all samurai flicks. Presuming that the Force does have will, it follows that if the Jedi had the right systems going, Anakin would have been born in the Republic. He would have been picked up and trained nearly from birth like any other Jedi.
But he wasn't. He was born outside of the Jedi's influence specifically because he was never meant to be a part of it. After being accepted by the Jedi, they had a choice that would determine their destiny. They could try to slot Anakin into traditional Jedi teachings or they could change their teachings. They didn't change. They didn't adapt. So they died.
When they taught Luke, they had another choice training him from childhood (pretty much be a big neon sign to Vader and Palpy) or waiting. So they waited, they attempted to change their teaching style - although they didn't completely succeed - and Luke managed to save the galaxy by saving his father. Anakin manages to save his son and save the galaxy. Giri. Ninjo. And balance is restored.

Comments

[cadesama.livejournal.com]

You quoted me! Squee!

I have to agree about Pullman's dogmatism - even though I shouldn't be allowed to since I didn't get past the first book. But the dogmatism, visible in even the writing style which seemed to very proud of itself, is what made me stop reading. So, yes, agreement.

With Rowling, I'm quite sure I actually can say that I don't find her to be anti-authoritarian. People often cite that the books encourage children to disobey rules, because Harry and crew always get away with it. And, obviously, that's not the point. The point is that they *need* to break the rules in the first place. That Harry works under the assumption that adults will fail him, that their rules will hurt him instead of help - and that he's right. I can't think of a single adult important in Harry's life that hasn't failed him.

Dumbledore, the only adult who had managed to gain Harry's trust, destroys it in book 5. Given the stark existentialism and near nihilism of the books, I find that to be inevitable. That wasn't really the important point to me. Harry's failure is what was important, because it is not the failure of a child, but an adult. What may prevent JKR from being anti-authoritarian is that Harry himself has become a flawed authority rather than, necessarily, a hero.

Which is also why I don't think Dubmledore is marked for death anymore. His importance in Harry's life as the Wise Old Man has died in OotP. Physical death would have little more impact.

Harry Potter and the Problem of Authority

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Oh, I agree that the rules needed to be broken in the Potterverse - that was where I was going with the "something rotten" comment. Also that every adult in Harry's life failed him.
(Well, okay, Remus didn't, but he hasn't been around that much post PoA. Also, Mrs. Weasley tries her best, but while she might consider Harry as an additional son, she has seven children on her own.)
My point is that Rowling does not present a world in which there is such a thing as an infallible authority. (Whereas Tolkien and Lewis do.) It's, as I said, a world in dire need of revolution or reformation at the very least, but since there is no precedent for a working mutually beneficial relationship with authority - with the highly questionable exception of Dumbledore - I doubt such a world will be presented when the dust has settled.

True, Dumbledore lost his position as infallible Wise Old Man already without dying, but he's still questionable Wise Old Man. *g* Meaning Harry, though grudgingly, led himself be placated at the end. Moreover, we've been shown Dumbledore can at the least fight Voldemort into a standstill, if not defeat him outright. Also, he has a tendency to show up as deus ex machina. This clearly won't do for Harry's final showdown with Voldemort, so I think it's pretty safe to say whatever happens, Dumbledore will be dead by then.

Re: Harry Potter and the Problem of Authority

[cadesama.livejournal.com]

Hrm. Well, I think Remus did fail with the not telling Dumbledore about Snuffles and waiting so long teach the Patronus. As well, both he and Mrs. Weasley are in on the don't-tell-Harry conspiracy that eventually ends in disaster. And Mrs. Weasley tries to parent Harry at the point in time when he no longer needs parents, which is not especially a failing, just a wrong headed assessment of what he needs that's based on her caring for him instead of his needs.

The authority of the wizarding world, as it exists, is so incredibly fascist that can't imagine it not being broken down. But how it can be reformed honestly and uncheesily I really don't know. But I think it will probably invovle the removal of anyone who was part of the old system. Despite the fanfic-delusion that putting Mr. Weasley in charge will fix everything I think he (as he is now) would just propigate the system that leads people to look down on Muggles, elves, and goblins.

Oddly, it is their belief in infallible authoriy that has led to their current state, just as belief in Dumbledore had some rather nasty results in OotP. I wonder if Rowling is picking on Tolkein?

Dumbledore, while I kinda do want to see him bite it, is a guy I really want to see demystified and discredited. Martyring him would only preserve the fascist system that he's (supposedly) fighting against. I know that he has to be kept out of Harry's final battle, but aside from explanations, Harry doesn't need him anymore for protection(never has, except against kidnapping and the Dursleys!). Maybe there is some way he can be knocked off his pedestal completely and kept away from the battle.

Re: Harry Potter and the Problem of Authority

[selenak.livejournal.com]

gehayi has just suggested that Dumbledore dying an ordinary death of old age would solve the problem of avoiding the D-as-martyr scenario, and of course the D-as-deus-ex-machina scenario. Dumbledore as the Joyce of HP?

Honestly, I don't think we'll much of the new wizard society; Rowling will probably finish on a "all things have changed, changed utterly/a terrible beauty is born" note which avoids describing details for which one would need an entire new book. I do think, though, that Harry won't end up as the new Minister/Headmaster of Hogwarts/Whatever; he's probably more the Cincinnatus type, withdrawing after the task is accomplished. Or we could be more cynical and think of Shaw's concept of St. Joan, with everyone wishing she'd just go away after the coronation, and then ready to abandon her precisely because the presence of a saint/savior/reformer can't be born after the battle is over.

Re: Harry Potter and the Problem of Authority

[cadesama.livejournal.com]

I very much like the idea of Dumbledore dead and not martyred. Natural death is a good idea. Probably the only way to accomplish it, too. Given Harry's progress with the DA and outgrowth of his Wise Old Man in OotP, I think that he might actually be equipped to take up the reins. Not, obviously, in the literal sense of controlling Hogwarts and the Order, but symbollically.

And *that* could be a way for reform to happen. Thinking on your comments regarding fun possibilities of the Dursleys at Hogwarts, wouldn't that have nice symmetry to the Dementor invasion of Privet Drive. Reform will only be possible once the wizarding world as a whole admit that they are no better than muggles - which might mean that the world need to be blended. With the school year stucture of the books, of course, I'm not sure if this would be visible or even a plausible undertaking in the books. Eh.

With those two scenarios . . . I kinda hope Harry just dies instead. He deserves a normal life, and it just might not be possible. I don't think the assertive leader he is growing into would be content with withdrawing or being pushed aside. Harry's been withdrawn all his life and it has just now started to change. Hopefully, if the wizarding world is reformed it will make some place for him beyond what exists for him now in the future.

[gehayi.livejournal.com]

I think that Dumbledore will die early in Book 6. I don't think it's going to be a very dramatic death, either. I suspect he is just going to die of illness or old age. (Dumbledore has been looking thinner and frailer in each book.)

If Dumbledore dies of old age rather than perishing in battle to save Harry, think how this will affect the story:

1. Dumbledore wouldn't be seen as a martyr or a hero. He would just be an old wizard who died a natural death, and as such, most of his policies and dreams would die with him. His death would not be a rallying point.

2. Dumbledore has been fighting the Ministry of Magic, as well as Voldemort, for a long time. With Dumbledore's death, much of his intelligence network would be thrown into disarray. The Ministry of Magic--which has interfered at Hogwarts three times--probably would do so again; perhaps not as blatantly as the Ministry did with the Dementors or with Dolores Umbridge, but some policies might change...and probably not for the better. This time, however, Harry and his friends--and even the teachers--would have to face the fact that whatever was wrong, however unfair the rules and policies, Dumbledore couldn't fix it. Not this time.

3. The new headmistress would probably be McGonagall. This is fair; she certainly deserves the position. But--she's much stricter than Dumbledore. She wouldn't give Harry as much leeway as he had. (Can you see Professor McGonagall giving Harry an Invisibility Cloak, or letting him sneak out of Hogwarts? I can't. She's not a bad person, but she's a stickler for the rules.) This too would be a change for Harry, and probably an unwelcome one.

4. Dumbledore's death would be the crowning touch to the emotional break between Harry and Dumbledore in OotP. This would be the third time a "father" of his has abandoned Harry through death. If Harry is at all human, he would resent that bitterly. No matter how old you are, it's hard to grasp that someone could just die and leave you alone.

Moreover, this would hit Harry hard emotionally, because death would cut off any hope Harry had of rebuilding the relationship. Any chance for that would have been lost. Nor would Harry be able to prove himself to Dumbledore...and he has spent a lot of time doing things because he didn't want to hurt or disappoint the old wizard. Dumbledore wouldn't be a factor in Harry's heroism any longer.

5. Given the opportunity of Dumbledore's death, would Voldemort put pressure on certain vulnerable officials and force them to destroy evidence against his Death Eaters? Would Lucius Malfoy be cleared of all charges and be restored to his position on the Board of Hogwarts? (Hardly impossible--I read of a college professor who, it was just learned, is on parole for murder...yet the college to which he is transferring shows no signs of wanting to dismiss him or to withdraw its offer of a job.) And if Malfoy can't be freed or restored...well, Voldemort surely has other Death Eaters whom no one suspects whom he can place on the Hogwarts Board. He'd need control of a few people on the Board so that he could control what the students learned and what they believed for the next few years.

Given this scenario, I think that the sixth year would be a time of trials for Harry, who would be in an increasingly restrictive environment without his Mentor and Guide, and without any certainty that things would ever change, because Dumbledore wasn't there to fix it. I also think he'd see more clearly how many things were wrong with the wizarding world. Given the prophecy that he has to kill or be killed, it wouldn't be too surprising he wanted to flee from that as well. He might even want to alter what he sees as wrong in his life...but try to mend the problem in entirely the wrong way. (I bet that's how Tom Riddle started.)

In any case, I think that Rowling has already made clear that Lord Voldemort is not all that is wrong with the wizarding world. I believe in Book 6 that Harry will have to face many more things and concepts that are wrong and unjust in the wizarding world...and a few things that are wrong in his character as well.

And hello! HonorH referred me here. She recently converted me to Sandman fandom.

Dumbledore as Joyce Summers, hm?

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Well, there are quite a lot of parallels between Harry and Buffy already...

Seriously now, we agree that Dumbledore is doomed, and I like your idea of a natural death. The reason why I believe it will happen early in 7 as opposed to 6 is just that if D. dies in 6 and the ministery does interfer by replacing him with someone other than McGonnagal (doesn't have to be Umbridge Mark II), Harry would have no believable reason to return to Hogwarts in 7. Hogwarts was already made unbearable for him in 5, and he did consider staying away. With 17, there wouldn't even be the problem of custody.

What I'm really curious about is how Harry will accomplish revolution or reformation in the wizarding world, because as opposed to killing Voldemort, that's not something you can pull off on your own. You neeed a movement and you need a sizable number of people seeing there is something seriously wrong with the status quo. Which, Hermione aside, as yet nobody seems to, including good-natured wizards like Weasleys.

Hello to you to, and welcome to the joys of the Sandman saga. Which I converted HonorH to.*g*