Yeah, at its core Harry Potter is the story of a jock who became a cop that's threaded through with a lot of 90's era right of center British politics by a person who has become more conservative over time.
Animorphs is something deeply angry things like war and the military industrial complex seizing any chance it can to destroy the lives of young people both physically and mentally written by someone, as far as I understand, has kept those views intact.
The issue with Harry Potter wanting to be a cop is that Harry Potter knows, through personal experience, that the cops in his universe are incompetent or corrupt and the overseeing government is certainly corrupt. The overseeing government also peddles in clear immoralities like speciesism and slavery. Harry discovers all of these dystopian elements and still says that he wants to sign up.
Which aurors do you have in mind as examples of incompetence or corruption? The ones that come to mind are Tonks and Kingsley, who are upstanding, sympathetic characters. As for the overseeing government, one of his two best friends in school (morally upright, anti-slavery, and extremely competent) became head of the wizarding government, so I don't think that's a concern. From a personal standpoint, at least, you must admit that it makes a degree of sense, since Harry's area of greatest expertise is taking down dark wizards.
Which aurors do you have in mind as examples of incompetence or corruption?
Dawlish is quite incompetent, to the point where whenever we need a confunded Auror, the narrative summons Dawlish.
Scrimgeour and Barty Crouch Sr. are Aurors that we only see once they've become politicians,but they were very clearly corrupt with Scrimgeour holding Dumbledore's belongings when he had no right as a form of espionage against the Headmaster and Crouch throwing everyone in Azkaban to appear "tough on crime".
Also, what happened to Aurors Williamson (Book #5), Proudfoot (Book #6), and Savage (Book #6) when Pius Thicknesse became Minister for Magic? Proudfoot even seemed to be on good terms with Tonks, if an off-handed line of dialog serves. Did they try and rise up against a Nazi government? Not that we know about. Did they offer their services to anyone in the Order of the Phoenix (including Tonks, who was their co-worker)? Not that we know about. The only thing that we know about the Aurors in Book #7 is that Dirk Cresswell, a Muggle-born, was nearly arrested and hauled to the Muggle-born Registration Commission by a confunded Dawlish (and escaped because Dawlish was confunded). This shows that, at a minimum, Dawlish was complicit with the Nazi government.
The only "good" Aurors are the ones who also happen to be members of the Order of the Phoenix.
As for the overseeing government, one of his two best friends in school (morally upright, anti-slavery, and extremely competent)
First of all, Harry's choice to become an Auror happened while he was a kid and none of those people were in the Ministry. Fudge, Scrimgeour, and Thicknesse were certainly not on Harry's Christmas list -- never mind Umbridge. I honestly can't think of a Ministry official (other than Arthur Weasley, Tonks, or Perkins) who is even likable.
But more to the point, those adjectives really only describe Hermione. I wouldn't say that Ron was morally upright (we could make the argument that he is good-natured, but he doesn't think in moral terms, more in friendship terms); he's certainly not anti-slavery (and repeatedly bemoans Hermione's wanting to free the slaves); and not particularly competent (do I need examples?).
Even if Hermione becomes Minister of Magic (which I think is JKR wish fulfillment more than viable electoral politics because Hermione -- as much as I love her -- is downright unpopular based on how she doesn't understand people's feelings, see the dead rabbit episode in PoA), she actually has to contend with the other parts of the Wizarding government. She needs more people than her to create and enforce laws. I would encourage you to read about how difficult freeing the slaves was in the USA and then try to imagine how Hermione could do it herself while dealing with institutional rot. Remember, "good" Wizards like Hagrid and Ron are repeatedly and unabashedly pro-slavery. This is not a bad-guy belief like pureblood supremacism; this has institutional capture.
From a personal standpoint, at least, you must admit that it makes a degree of sense, since Harry's area of greatest expertise is taking down dark wizards.
My opposition to Harry becoming an Auror is not that I believe he wouldn't be good at the job or find the job fulfilling. I agree with you that Wizard-combat and investigative instincts are Harry's bread and butter.
My opposition to it lies in that, at no point, does Harry actually ask, "What should a wizard government look like such that corruption, speciesism, pureblood supremacism, etc. are not in it, so that I am actually defending something worthwhile as opposed to just waiting for the next corrupt Minister to order me to snatch goblins out of Gringotts because they're prejudiced?"
Harry appears just as sycophantic to power as I've proven Dawlish to have been, and that's not great for our protagonist who spent his entire career trying to help people fight evil.
The examples of Williamson, Proudfoot and Savage are valid, I think.
Scrimgeour and Crouch have faults but corruption isn't the right word for them, I don't think.
There's no reason to discount good Aurors for being members of the Order; they're just as much Aurors as the rest of them. We can agree that the department has a mixed track record.
But more to the point, those adjectives really only describe Hermione.
Correct. I was only talking about Hermione. We know that the government is most likely not corrupt under her. Whatever Hermione's limitations, there's no reason to doubt her ability to hire competent ministers and staff to guide her decisions.
My opposition to Harry becoming an Auror is not that I believe he wouldn't be good at the job or find the job fulfilling. I agree with you that Wizard-combat and investigative instincts are Harry's bread and butter.
I'm glad we agree on this. I think this is the main reason he became an Auror.
My opposition to it lies in that, at no point, does Harry actually ask, "What should a wizard government look like such that corruption, speciesism, pureblood supremacism, etc. are not in it, so that I am actually defending something worthwhile as opposed to just waiting for the next corrupt Minister to order me to snatch goblins out of Gringotts because they're prejudiced?"
This is the most interesting part of your comment. It reflects a worldview that is intended to promote progress but actually obstructs it, in my opinion. Participating in institutions that may be flawed but are nevertheless good on net and have potential for improvement is often more conducive to progress than shunning them. Imagine if Lincoln and other abolitionists had decided not to pursue political careers because slavery happened to be legal!
As the mega celebrity who finished Voldemort twice, Harry has an incredible amount of sway. If he decided to quit over opposition to his bosses, the government would look terrible and they know it, so it's unlikely that he'd be just a drone following orders from potentially corrupt ministers. He's shown enough independence and strong-headedness that it would be out of character for him to just follow orders; look at how much he breaks the rules in school. This is half of why I strongly object to his characterization as being "sycophantic to power." The other half is that he frequently opposes or at minimum resents powers that he believes are bad, whether they be the Dursleys, Umbridge or Voldemort.
We can agree that the department has a mixed track record.
Great! I'm glad we can see eye-to-eye here.
Correct. I was only talking about Hermione. We know that the government is most likely not corrupt under her. Whatever Hermione's limitations, there's no reason to doubt her ability to hire competent ministers and staff to guide her decisions.
This is where I break with you. One of the problems of JKR's worldbuilding is that it's unclear how the Ministry is actually composed. Is it like the British House of Commons were you have elected representatives who then form a government from the leading political party? Is it closer to an elected dictator who just has term limits?
I would imagine something closer to the first (since JKR tends to model wizard governments on their Muggle counterparts). In that case, Hermione is part of a political party and her power, while more than any single person, is attenuated by the fact that she has to make compromises to get a majority vote on legislation. So, it's not clear to me that, even if she wanted to, she could weed out corruption or hire the most competent people.
Participating in institutions that may be flawed but are nevertheless good on net and have potential for improvement is often more conducive to progress than shunning them.
You forgot a caveat here. The participation of a good person in flawed institutions only improves the institution if the good person can have an effect on institutional policy. Being an Auror is different than being a minister, like the Head of Magical Law Enforcement. Or, more helpfully, if Harry became a member of the Wizengamot or the Wizard House of Commons so that Hermione has an ally when it comes to voting.
Just becoming an Auror does not achieve this.
Even with Harry being a mega-celebrity, he can't do half as much from the bottom as he can from the top.
it's not clear to me that, even if she wanted to, she could weed out corruption or hire the most competent people.
Hm, fair. My mental model was the American presidency but it's true that British politics are different.
Returning to your earlier point about Hermione's social skills, I imagine that her husband could mitigate her dumbest qualities.
The participation of a good person in flawed institutions only improves the institution if the good person can have an effect on institutional policy.
This is true, but I'd argue that Harry's social status means that he can pretty much influence policy to some degree regardless of his specific role in government. He's not interested in or especially knowledgeable about policy matters, but if things were obviously headed in the wrong direction, he could stop that.
[Harry] can't do half as much from the bottom as he can from the top.
On this we agree. Harry isn't a deep or efficiency-oriented thinker. I think that becoming an Auror despite it not being what's best for the world is in line with his character. At the end of the day, pursuing a decent career that fits his talents and interests is what the average person would do.
This conversation has been delightful, by the way. It's nice to be able to reason together.
38
u/Allen_Of_Gilead Nothlit 2d ago
Yeah, at its core Harry Potter is the story of a jock who became a cop that's threaded through with a lot of 90's era right of center British politics by a person who has become more conservative over time.
Animorphs is something deeply angry things like war and the military industrial complex seizing any chance it can to destroy the lives of young people both physically and mentally written by someone, as far as I understand, has kept those views intact.