Multifandom: Authorities

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.