What you wrote made me think that about the Solzhenitsyn quote about the line between good and evil running through one's own heart, and that JKR's true moral failing is that she tries to create a world in which it's external--which is what we all want to think anyhow. Then I actually looked up the quote, and it's even more a propos than I had realized.
Solzhenitsyn (from Gulag Archipelago) “In the intoxication of youthful successes I had felt myself to be infallible, and I was therefore cruel. In the surfeit of power I was a murderer and an oppressor. In my most evil moments I was convinced that I was doing good, and I was well supplied with systematic arguments…. Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties, [nor between Houses, Jo!] but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts.”
Jo succeeds in convincing herself, if not us, that evil can be externalized. Everyone in her world (possibly excepting Severus and some of the other Slytherins, but definitely INCLUDING Albus—which explains a lot about Albus’s treatment of Severus and his House) insists that the line is not in the heart, but separating off a despised group.
When the Death Eaters took over the MoM, they drew their line between Muggles/Muggleborns and people with a Wizarding ancestor. The hardcore Purebloods draw their line between Purebloods and everyone else. The Marauders drew theirs, apparently, between themselves and everyone else. Most of the Gryffindors de facto draw it between Gryffindor and the other houses. Jo draws it between the three houses and Slytherin. It’s all the same line: what my group does is good or at worst justified, what yours does is evil or at best for the wrong motives. And as the storyteller she ultimately twisted the plot to make it so in DH, even in those story arcs (like Draco's, Severus's and Peter's) that could most satisfyingly have gone a different way.
The terrible thing is, Harry does grow morally through the series. Negatively. So does Hermione; the first year girl would never have maimed a fellow student for life. And in retrospect we can see it starts almost as soon as children are exposed to Hogwarts. When Harry meets Draco in Madame Malkin’s, Draco’s attempts to impress and befriend Harry backfire. Why? Because Draco says he wants to bend the first-year rules to have his own broom and play Quidditch, and this assertion of special privilege reminds Harry of his bullying cousin. A month later, the “fair” McGonnagall gives Harry his own broom and position on the Quidditch team, and he accepts the undue privilege with alacrity. Hermione learns to purchase friendship with lying by Halloween—having discovered that hard work, intelligence, and insisting on fair play make her a “horror” to her Gryffindor peers.
Very young children have both empathy and a sense of fair play. So, according to recent studies, do chimpanzees. But systematic training can destroy both qualities, and Hogwarts under Dumbledore does an excellent job of doing so. Kudos to Albus for making children into clones of himself.
Re: Major ranting against JKR - if you like the woman, don't read
Solzhenitsyn (from Gulag Archipelago)
“In the intoxication of youthful successes I had felt myself to be infallible, and I was therefore cruel. In the surfeit of power I was a murderer and an oppressor. In my most evil moments I was convinced that I was doing good, and I was well supplied with systematic arguments…. Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties, [nor between Houses, Jo!] but right through every human heart, and through all human hearts.”
Jo succeeds in convincing herself, if not us, that evil can be externalized. Everyone in her world (possibly excepting Severus and some of the other Slytherins, but definitely INCLUDING Albus—which explains a lot about Albus’s treatment of Severus and his House) insists that the line is not in the heart, but separating off a despised group.
When the Death Eaters took over the MoM, they drew their line between Muggles/Muggleborns and people with a Wizarding ancestor. The hardcore Purebloods draw their line between Purebloods and everyone else. The Marauders drew theirs, apparently, between themselves and everyone else. Most of the Gryffindors de facto draw it between Gryffindor and the other houses. Jo draws it between the three houses and Slytherin. It’s all the same line: what my group does is good or at worst justified, what yours does is evil or at best for the wrong motives. And as the storyteller she ultimately twisted the plot to make it so in DH, even in those story arcs (like Draco's, Severus's and Peter's) that could most satisfyingly have gone a different way.
The terrible thing is, Harry does grow morally through the series. Negatively. So does Hermione; the first year girl would never have maimed a fellow student for life. And in retrospect we can see it starts almost as soon as children are exposed to Hogwarts. When Harry meets Draco in Madame Malkin’s, Draco’s attempts to impress and befriend Harry backfire. Why? Because Draco says he wants to bend the first-year rules to have his own broom and play Quidditch, and this assertion of special privilege reminds Harry of his bullying cousin. A month later, the “fair” McGonnagall gives Harry his own broom and position on the Quidditch team, and he accepts the undue privilege with alacrity. Hermione learns to purchase friendship with lying by Halloween—having discovered that hard work, intelligence, and insisting on fair play make her a “horror” to her Gryffindor peers.
Very young children have both empathy and a sense of fair play. So, according to recent studies, do chimpanzees. But systematic training can destroy both qualities, and Hogwarts under Dumbledore does an excellent job of doing so. Kudos to Albus for making children into clones of himself.