Comments on: Chapter 12: Magic is Might

By: Arabella Figg

Arabella Figg — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:26:57 +0000

Jenna, I apologize for getting to this so late and being so brief. Two large writing projects, my own upcoming chapter, a trip, and you know the other I’ve sunk my teeth into (heh).

I’m filled with admiration for your work on a difficult, sprawling chapter that covers several subjects and directions.

Might can always call itself right, can’t it, as it holds the power card, shutting down And trampling opposition and innocents alike. Very, very ugly picture of the Ministry’s complete degradation.

By: Joivre

Joivre — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 02:18:36 +0000

There is a beautiful moment when Wart discovers something in the Once and Future King. He debates Might is Right, Might can be Right, and then discovers Might for Right. This is the only path to follow. I do not know how I stumbled upon this. But I love it and it is part of my very being.

By: Red Rocker

Red Rocker — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 02:01:09 +0000

I don’t think that the old statue represents an ideal. It still represents inequality – albeit one in which the underprivileged don’t seem to mind their lack of equality. It’s hypocritical because it pretends that those with lesser rights don’t mind their status.

On the other hand, although the new statue “outs” the agenda of domination, and is in some ways more honest, it too is dishonest because the people who are being sat upon are depicted as less than human.

Less rights vs no rights; memory wipes vs murder: I think most of us would choose the former as the lesser of two evils.

By: Derek D

Derek D — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 00:55:07 +0000

Interesting point, SPT. I suppose the counter-argument is that the Brethren version represents the ideal that the Ministry (nominally) desires and that it’s a better vision than “Magic is Might” even if less truthful. And besides, there’s always the chance that someone might actually take the Brethren statue seriously, and call others to pay attention to how they aren’t living up to its standard.

We say “‘Til Death Do Us Part” in wedding vows, but the divorce rate shows that’s not actually the case for many of us. Should we instead say “Until you wrong me, or I get tired of you, or I don’t feel quite as fulfilled as a person, or I meet someone I like better” since it’s more brutally honest? You can call “Til death do us part” sentimental, but you can also call it the ideal, what we hope our marriages will attain to, even if they do not.

By: SPT

SPT — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 23:40:44 +0000

Which statue would you say is better art? The dishonest, sentimental Fountain of Magical Brethren? Or the horrible, yet honest, Magic is Might?

I would have to go with Magic is Might. It is an honest depiction of the Ministry’s aims under Death Eater domination. Further there is a certain truth in the basic idea. Magic is Might. Even if it is only used to keep Muggles ignorant instead of subjugated, that is still a power that Wizards have and Muggles do not.

And Magic is Might is also more affecting than The Fountain of Magical Brethren. It touches emotions deeper and more sophisticated. Just as The Monolith is a greater work of art than the statue of Peter Pan, so too is Magic is Might more of a “real” work of art.

To use another comparison, the statue of Magical Might is better art than the Fountain in the same way that The Tales of Beedle the Bard is better art than the bowdlerized versions by Mrs. Bloxam. And in the same way that the Harry Potter books are better art than most of the more treacly children’s book printed each year. Horror is a more sophisticated emotion than sentimentality and creating it in a novel setting elevates a work.

By: EStrunk

EStrunk — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 04:12:07 +0000

I wanted to comment about Kreacher’s transformation and as the beginning of this chapter is when we see the changed Kreacher this seems to be the place. I have seen elsewhere discussion about Dobby as a slave/servant who liberates himself by making the difficult decision to serve the master of his choosing. Later, Harry, the chosen master, is able to actually free Dobby. Winky, in contrast, is denied the ability to serve the master of her choosing, thus liberty is useless to her. She does not have the freedom to do what she wants to do, which is to serve the Crouch family. Kreacher is in bondage when we first meet him, serving people he despises. He rebels in whatever ways he can, stealing back the belongings of those he wishes he was still serving, muttering, then happily serving, presumably at Bellatrix’s command, and contributing to Sirius’s death. One can argue that he had no way of knowing that his actions would result in Sirius’s death, but he certainly knew that he was not faithfully serving Sirius. Then Harry takes the time to find out what matters to Kreacher and, voila, the situation is totally transformed. Kreacher is now able to do what he has longed to do, but been unable to do. That is to help find, in order to destroy, the locket. When he is free to do what he feels is his duty he is a joyful servant, and although bound to Harry he now feels free.
Just some thoughts re freedom and servanthood.

By: Lily Luna

Lily Luna — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 02:03:16 +0000

Oops, I meant “statue” not “statute.” Although the new laws regarding muggle-borns etc. are abominations, too.

By: Lily Luna

Lily Luna — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 02:02:08 +0000

Good work Jenna and all the commenters so far. Some very though-provoking analysis by all.

The statute (specifically the base of “mounds of carved humans: hundreds and hundreds of naked bodies, men, women, and children, all with rather stupid, ugly faces, twisted and pressed together”) evokes the description of the bodies of those murdered in the gas chambers of Auschwitz, pressed together and entangled, in Herman Wouk’s War and Remembrance (Fontana 1978 paperback edition, pp. 303-304, 1108-1109). A good point above about fascist/communist monumental art. It’s a little like the giant statutes of Stalin and dictators in other countries that were pulled down with the fall of Communism.

I believe the names Ronald and Reginald both mean advisor to the king. Reg Cattermole seems to be Ron’s alter ego: somewhat incompetent at magic, well meaning, muggle-born SO.

Kreacher wears Regulus’ locket and it inspires him to become a better being. Later the trio wears Voldy’s locket and it engenders bickering, depression, and Ron’s departure.

By: Jenna St. Hilaire

Jenna St. Hilaire — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 18:27:14 +0000

Intriguing discussion going on here. And thanks for the kind compliments!

Red Rocker, yes–I get the same feeling from the Monolith. It seems like a colossal failure in artistic communication, if joy and salvation were what Vigeland was going for. Maybe it works for some people.

Revgeorge, that struck me too: people walking past that statue every day, going about their work. I wonder how normal it would have felt, how many would suppress their revulsion out of fear, how many would flee the country in the night, how many would consider it just an open practice of what was merely hidden before.

Johnny, very true. You said it better than I did.

Sevenkeys and Derek D, the theory of Deathly Hallows as mirroring the other six books is fascinating! I’ll look forward to hearing more about that.

By: diva_alix

diva_alix — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 18:19:08 +0000

Nice job, Jenna! I especially liked your points about the Ministry going “down the toilet”, Magic is Might, and the worst thing someone can do being to dehumanize another. Johnny added in the other crucial aspect, that when we dehumanize others, we’re also dehumanizing ourselves.
In reading this chapter I thought, “what is this reminding me of that I read recently??” and then it came to me, A Tale of Two Cities. I mean specifically Ministry employees like Runcorn turning in people as much for personal vendettas as anything else. In Dickens’ work people like the Defarges denounced people like Darnay because they were connected with a social class that had caused them pain and that they hated, ignoring the fact that Darnay had spent his life esquewing his title and the oppression it entailed. Another Ministry employee congrdulates him on his turning in Dirk Cresswell saying “I might get his job now!”. Like all totalitarian regimes where there are no fair trials, this is a system where people can denounce each other for vengence or personal gain, as if imprisoning people over their blood status and denying non-human magical creatures their rights because they’re not human wasn’t bad enough. The main difference between Dickens’ work and this one was that Paris’s revolution was one of oppressed people rising up against opppressors and then becoming as brutal. The M.O.M. is close to Hitler’s regime, though every totalitarian regime runs the risk of meeting the same fate at the French aristrocracy.
The idea that anyone can turn anyone else in and no one is safe in a facist society is also discussed in Naomi Wolf’s book “The End of America”, a very interesting and important read that I recommend.
Joivre I liked your parallel’s to the White’s book. I really do need to read that at some point.