Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone by J.K. Rowling largely showcases the themes of good versus evil and right versus wrong. Several times throughout the novel however, doing the right thing comes with the consequence of going against authority and breaking the rules. In order to do the right and just action, Harry, Ron, and Hermione often have to break the rules of Hogwarts. There are instances though when breaking the rules gets Harry and company into trouble, creating a balance of respecting authority and knowing when to go against it.
One example of Harry going against authority is when he uses his broomstick to fly and retrieve Neville’s Remembrall that Malfoy was going to hide up in a tree. Madam Hooch explicitly told the students, “leave those brooms where they are or you’ll be out of Hogwarts before you can say ‘Quidditch’” (pg. 147). Although Madam Hooch was clear in her warning, Harry went against her command and flew with his broomstick in order to stick up for his friend Neville and return his belonging. Harry was caught defying instructions by professor McGonagall, but instead of being punished he was rewarded by being assigned the role of seeker on the Gryffindor Quidditch team.
On the other hand, there are a few instances in which Harry and friends broke the rules but were severely punished for doing so. One example is when Mr. Filch catches Harry and Hermione wandering the castle late at night after they had gotten rid of Norbert the Norwegian Ridgeback dragon. Filch finds the pair and takes them to Professor McGonagall, who gives them detention and says that “fifty points will be taken from Gryffindor” (pg. 243). Even though helping Hagrid get rid of his dragon was ultimately the right thing to do, it wasn’t Harry and Hermione’s business to get involved in and they end up getting punished because of it.
J.K. Rowling emphasizes that there should be a balance between maintaining authority and rebelling against it when necessary through the actions of Dumbledore. Dumbledore is the one who gives Harry his father’s invisibility cloak with a note saying to “use it well” (pg. 202). Throughout the novel, it is the cloak that allows Harry to so often and so easily break the rules and avoid being punished. Dumbledore knew that Harry was pure of heart and would only use it to do what he thought was right. Rowling made it clear that in certain circumstances it is important to go against authority as long as it involves doing the right thing. Otherwise, authority should be maintained and rules should be followed as they exist for a reason.
Treading this line is a very conscious part of The Sorcerer's Stone in particular, and I'm glad you brought it up. J.K. Rowling makes a very clear statement in the beginning of the book about what is good and evil; contrasting that with the rules of Hogwarts gives tehe book a level of moral ambiguity that adds a dimension to Harry's character. Take the character of Snape, for example. By all accounts, he is written as a potential follower of Voldemort; an evil person. However, he technically follows the rules set forth by the establishment. This is the opposite side of the coin that Harry Potter falls on. (In the context of The Sorcerers Stone), while Harry breaks the rules to perform good, Snape is the character who maintains his malignancy all while adhering to the rules.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point that there needs to be a balance between respecting authority and going against it. In a way, J.K. Rowling seems to bury this message in the story when students are awarded points even after breaking the rules. For instance, Slytherin was in first place for the House Cup at the end-of-the-year feast, but that quickly changed when Dumbledore arrived. Taking recent events into account, Dumbledore says, "to Mr. Ronald Weasley... I award Gryffindor house fifty points... to Miss Hermione Granger... I award Gryffindor house fifty points... to Mr. Harry Potter... I award Gryffindor house sixty points... award ten points to Mr. Neville Longbottom" (305-306). This last minute allocation took the House Cup away from Slytherin and it was awarded to Gryffindor instead. Although Dumbledore awarded the points for a best-played game of chess, the ability to stay logical in the face of fire, outstanding courage, and bravery, one could argue that these acts were done while breaking Hogwarts rules and should be punished instead. J.K. Rowling's moral line seems be based on if the student's intentions were pure or not rather than if they are respecting authority.
ReplyDeleteI think you bring up an interesting point. I would like to expand on it by describing how the characters are punished (or rewarded) for going against authority. Rowling makes it clear that the punishment for breaking the rules will often depend on the authority figure present and their own interests in the matter. Two examples of this are when Harry breaks the rule about riding the broomstick and when Snape repeatedly punishes Harry for minor incidents. When Harry rides the broomstick to get Neville’s Remembrall back, he is caught by Professor McGonagall. Instead of punishing him as Madam Hooch would have, she instead gives Harry a spot on the Quidditch team and a new broomstick. She does this as she wants “a better team than last year” since they were “flattened in [the] last match by Slytherin” and she couldn’t “look Severus Snape in the face for weeks” (Rowling 152). She does not punish Harry out of self-interest for the status of Gryffindor. On the flip side, Snape constantly punishes Harry for minor incidences, such as when he takes a point away from Gryffindor because Harry didn’t tell Neville not to make a mistake on his potion (139). Despite Neville making the mistake, Harry is the one getting punished. Snape does this as he hates Harry’s dad, and thus hates Harry. If Harry had not been present, Snape likely would have only punished Neville for his mistake instead. So, not only does she teach how there should be a balance between respecting authority and breaking the rules, but Rowling also describes how the treatment of those who break the rules is often determined by the interests of the authority figures present.
ReplyDeleteI do wonder to what extent Rowling encourages breaking the rules to reach an end goal. Through some instances in the story, some of which including disregarding the orders to avoid the troll and chasing Malfoy on a broom, Harry is able to achieve more than he loses. Through the troll incident, "from that moment on, Hermione Granger became their friend" (Rowling 179) while Harry became the Seeker for the Gryffindor Team through disregarding the rule regarding brooms.
ReplyDeleteIn some ways, I question what Rowling is trying to encourage through this. While these actions would be seen as morally righteous in the modern day, it is likely Harry would still have gotten in trouble for engaging in a similar act. Furthermore, professors would be much less likely to turn a blind eye to these actions, with McGonagall and Dumbledore's actions unlikely to occur. Those two seem to intentionally ignore any misgivings, in relation to their own self interests.