[HBP] Snape's situation
T.M. Sommers
Spoiler space for HPB
Spoiler space for HPB
Spoiler space for HPB
Spoiler space for HPB
Spoiler space for HPB
Spoiler space for HPB
Spoiler space for HPB
Spoiler space for HPB
Spoiler space for HPB
Spoiler space for HPB
Spoiler space for HPB
Spoiler space for HPB
Spoiler space for HPB
Spoiler space for HPB
Spoiler space for HPB
Spoiler space for HPB
Spoiler space for HPB
Spoiler space for HPB
Spoiler space for HPB
I have not read every post recently (who has?), so perhaps I
missed something, but I have not noticed anyone, when talking
about which side Snape is on, taking into consideration what
Snape's situation would be if he were a Good Guy. If he is good
(by which I just mean that he ultimate loyalty is to Dumbledore),
then he is in a very difficult position.
Dumbledore is, or was, generally very secretive, and as far as we
know no one knows why he trusted Snape. Not even McGonnagal,
who, as Dumbledore's deputy at Hogwarts, would surely be entitled
to know, Snape being a teacher. But now that Snape has overtly
killed Dumbledore, it is hard to believe that any of the Good
Guys who Dumbledore did not confide in, which seems to include
all of them, will ever trust him again.
Thus, if Snape's job for Dumbledore was to spy on Voldemort, no
one he passes information to will believe it, so there is no
point in the spying, and thus no reason for remaining under
cover. Likewise, if his job was to do something, such as kill
Voldemort or his close associates, or to find and destroy the
horcruxes, then, even if he is successful, when the war is over
he will be looking at life in Azkaban, assuming he survives, if
only for killing Dumbledore. No one will be of a mind to give
him a second (or would it be a third?) chance.
So, if Snape is 'good', his situation would seem to be fatal,
which is way out of character for a Slytherin, since Slytherins,
even 'good' ones, as we have seen with Slughorn, always look out
for themselves first and foremost.
There are only two ways out of this contradiction: Snape is truly
loyal to Voldemort, or Dumbledore did confide in someone, and
Snape knows it.
The former is clearly possible, and is equally clearly consistent
with all known facts. However, there is one very strong argument
against it. The ambiguity of Snape's position has been an
important theme running through all of the books so far. It
would be odd for an author to resolve such an important ambiguity
so far before the end of the entire work. If you are reading a
mystery, and find that the culprit has not only been identified,
but convicted, when you still have half of the book to read, you
are justified in thinking that that is not the end of the story,
so to speak. (See Fergus Hume's _The Mystery of a Hansom Cab_,
where that is just what happens.) It seems to me that it is most
likely that we will not learn Snape's true allegiance until near
the very end of book 7. Since it also appears unlikely that we
will see much of Snape in the early parts of the last book (so he
will not have the chance to appear good and then turn bad again),
I think the odds are that he will turn out to really be loyal to
Dumbledore. A comparison with E. Phillips Oppenheim's _The Great
Impersonation_ seems apt. In that book, the true identity of the
person presenting himself as Dominey is not known until the
very end, although different answers appear obvious at several
points along the way.
That leaves the second alternative: that Dumbledore confided in
someone. The question is who. Not Harry, we know for sure. No
one at Hogwarts, and no on in the Order, as far as we know (which
is pretty far). Surely he would not have confided in anyone at
the Ministry (not counting those in the Order). Who is left?
The obvious answer is Aberforth. They are brothers, after all,
and Aberforth is nearby. Just as important, Aberforth is likely
to be believed if he reveals Dumbledore's secrets. We also have
not seen much of him, and he has not, in the books, been
identified as Dumbledore's brother. Surely he will have some
role, or Rowling would not have introduced him at all. This
would seem to be a plausible role.
Note that the above would explain Snape's look of hatred just
before he killed Dumbledore. He hated being put in the
precarious position his killing of Dumbledore would put him in.
It also explains his outburst when Harry called him a coward.
Note also that the Unbreakable Vow does not really change the
above analysis. Since Dumbledore could have died at any time,
leaving Snape hanging, Snape is unlikely to have even begun
spying for Dumbledore (which occurred long before he made the
Vow) without some guarantee that his true role would become known
at the appropriate time.
To conclude, for story-external reasons, it seems likely that
Snape will turn out to be loyal to Dumbledore. But for that to
be true, Snape would surely have demanded that someone other than
Dumbledore know about Snapes activities and motivations, in order
to assure his ultimate safety in case something happened to
Dumbledore. A likely candidate for that confidant, perhaps the
only likely candidate, is Aberforth.
--
Thomas M. Sommers -- t...@nj.net -- AB2SB
LouAnn
"T.M. Sommers" <t...@nj.net> wrote in message
news:bwiMe.1535$nL3.1...@newshog.newsread.com...
Very good, I like your reasoning. And I would love to believe that Snape is
still loyal to Dumbledore, but JKR's interview with Melissa and Emerson
killed that line of reasoning. I therefore believe Snape is being the
ultimate Slytherin, and is serving only himself.
One more thing, Aberforth has been named as Dumbedore's brother in the GoF
by Dumbledore himself.
LouAnn
HP Cult Leader
>
Schu
> Spoiler space for HPB
> Spoiler space for HPB
> Spoiler space for HPB
> Spoiler space for HPB
> Spoiler space for HPB
> Spoiler space for HPB
> Spoiler space for HPB
> Spoiler space for HPB
> Spoiler space for HPB
> Spoiler space for HPB
> Spoiler space for HPB
> Spoiler space for HPB
> Spoiler space for HPB
> Spoiler space for HPB
> Spoiler space for HPB
> Spoiler space for HPB
> Spoiler space for HPB
> Spoiler space for HPB
> Spoiler space for HPB
>
all the people that were pointed out included the barman from the Hogs-Head
Pub. This has long been speculated to be Aberforth. He was also the one
who caught Snape listening-in on the Prophecy. A part of me still wants to
tink that Snape is a bad guy in LV's employ, but now it just seems to
simple. Time will tell.
-Schu
T.M. Sommers
> "T.M. Sommers" <t...@nj.net> wrote in message
> news:bwiMe.1535$nL3.1...@newshog.newsread.com...
>
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>
> still loyal to Dumbledore, but JKR's interview with Melissa and Emerson
> killed that line of reasoning. I therefore believe Snape is being the
> ultimate Slytherin, and is serving only himself.
I don't think she stated categorically that Snape is evil in that
interview. In fact, she refused to answer the question directly.
Here is the link:
http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/extras/aa-jointerview1.html
The pertinent part is about halfway down the page.
> One more thing, Aberforth has been named as Dumbedore's brother in the GoF
> by Dumbledore himself.
I did not express myself clearly. We know Aberforth's name, but
we do not know, in the books, that the barman of the Hogshead is
Troels Forchhammer
Sommers" <t...@nj.net> enriched us with:
>
HBP Spoiler space (18 lines)
00010000
00001111
00001110
00001101
00001100
00001011
00001010
00001001
00001000
00000111
00000110
00000101
00000100
00000011
00000010
00000001
00000000
> I don't think she stated categorically that Snape is evil in that
> interview. In fact, she refused to answer the question directly.
> Here is the link:
>
> http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/extras/aa-jointerview1.html
>
> The pertinent part is about halfway down the page.
Just where she describes people who claim that Snape isn't evil as
clinging to desparate hope, yes.
--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid e-mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>
Do not meddle in the affairs of Wizards, for they are
subtle and quick to anger.
- Gildor Inglorion, 'LotR' (J.R.R. Tolkien)
T.M. Sommers
That certainly implies that he is evil, but later she says, "I
can't answer that question because it's a spoiler, isn't it,
whatever I say, and obviously, it has such a huge impact on what
will happen when they meet again that I can't." So I don't think
the 'clinging to desperte hope' line should be taken as an answers.
Just to be clear, I am not saying that certainly Snape is a Good
Guy. I only say that, based on the story-external reasoning I
gave, I think it likely that we don't know yet the final answer
to the question of Snape's loyalty, and that that means that it
is likely he is loyal to Dumbledore.
T.M. Sommers
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 09:40:23 GMT, "T.M. Sommers" <t...@nj.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>
>
>>one he passes information to will believe it, so there is no
>>point in the spying, and thus no reason for remaining under
>>cover.
>
If he is loyal to Dumbledore, he is.
>>Likewise, if his job was to do something, such as kill
>>Voldemort
>
> I don't think so
I said 'if'.
>>or his close associates, or to find and destroy the
>>horcruxes,
>
> This is open to speculation: does Snape know about hocruxes ? I
> don't think so, but it's my mind ^_^;;;
Again, I said 'if'.
>>No one will be of a mind to give him a second (or would it be a third?) chance.
>
> Only Harry could give Severus a 2nd change.
It will not be up to Harry if Snape goes to Azkaban.
>>which is way out of character for a Slytherin, since Slytherins,
>>even 'good' ones, as we have seen with Slughorn, always look out
>>for themselves first and foremost.
>
> Snape never seemed very Slytherin-ish in this way, tho'...
Snape is very good at hiding his feelings.
>>The obvious answer is Aberforth. They are brothers, after all,
>>and Aberforth is nearby. Just as important, Aberforth is likely
>>to be believed if he reveals Dumbledore's secrets. We also have
>>not seen much of him, and he has not, in the books, been
>>identified as Dumbledore's brother. Surely he will have some
>>role, or Rowling would not have introduced him at all. This
>>would seem to be a plausible role.
>
> Do you think he knows why DD trusts Snape and he can tell others and
> "save" snape from Azkaban ?
He may. That was my point.
> I don't think he can save him, anyway. His brother just comes out from
> nowhere, say hi to all, explain the reason why then leave again ?
Not from nowhere. Aberforth was in the Order, he is known to all
concerned.
>>He hated being put in the precarious position his killing of Dumbledore would put him in.
>
> No, he killed DD because he knew he had to do so.
Which does not contradict what I said.
>>Snape would surely have demanded that someone other than
>>Dumbledore know about Snapes activities and motivations, in order
>>to assure his ultimate safety in case something happened to
>>Dumbledore. A likely candidate for that confidant, perhaps the
>>only likely candidate, is Aberforth.
>
> What about one of the former headmasters ? ; >>>
The portraits are loyal to the current headmaster/mistress. They
will tell McGonnagall what they know, if they know anything.
Under that condition, it is less likely that Dumbledore would
have told them, although he might have.
A.G.McDowell
<moorN...@freemail.it> writes
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>
>>
>
>>horcruxes,
>
>don't think so, but it's my mind ^_^;;;
'The ring, Harry. Marvolo's ring. And a terrible curse there was upon it
too. Had it not been - forgive me the lack of seemly modesty - for my
own prodigious skill, and for Professor Snape's timely action when I
returned to Hogwarts, desperately injured, I might not have lived to
tell the tale. However, a withered hand does not seem an unreasonable
exchange for a seventh of Voldemort's soul. The ring is no longer a
Horcrux'.
I think Snape does indeed know about Horcruxes, or at least if he
doesn't he is in a position to tell Voldemort enough detail about
Dumbledore's (well-known) injury for Voldemort to work the rest out for
himself. So if Snape is on speaking terms with Voldemort, Harry can
expect ambushes and/or booby-traps at every Horcrux - and Voldemort
might also be considering splitting his soul even further.
Come to think of it, wouldn't it have been easier and less obtrusive for
Snape just not to be so good at helping Dumbledore heal up after the
ring?
--
A.G.McDowell
karn...@cs.com
T.M. Sommers wrote:
> Spoiler space for HPB
> Spoiler space for HPB
> Spoiler space for HPB
> Spoiler space for HPB
> Spoiler space for HPB
> Spoiler space for HPB
> Spoiler space for HPB
> Spoiler space for HPB
> Spoiler space for HPB
> Spoiler space for HPB
> Spoiler space for HPB
> Spoiler space for HPB
> Spoiler space for HPB
> Spoiler space for HPB
> Spoiler space for HPB
> Spoiler space for HPB
> Spoiler space for HPB
> Spoiler space for HPB
> Spoiler space for HPB
> Spoiler space for HPB
>
>
> So, if Snape is 'good', his situation would seem to be fatal,
> which is way out of character for a Slytherin, since Slytherins,
> even 'good' ones, as we have seen with Slughorn, always look out
> for themselves first and foremost.
Slytherin's are supposed to be CUNNING, also. If these stereotypes
always run true, then explain Crabbe and Goyle. If Gryffendors are all
brave, explain Wormtail. If Hufflepuffs are all "a bunch of duffers",
explain Cedric Diggory.
Remember, Harry nearly ended up in Slytherin. The Sorting Hat is
certain he would have been a good fit there. Would Harry have
instantly turned into a person incapable of self-sacrifice the moment
he ended up in Slytherin House? I don't think so.
Take Narcissa and Lucius. Do you think that they would sacrifice
themselves for their son? I do.
Take Regulus Black. He might not be dead, I admit. But he certainly
SEEMS at this point to have sacrificed his own life, or at least
gravely risked it, in order to defeat Voldemort. Judging from his
note, he died _willingly_, in the hope that his sacrifice would someday
serve the greater good.
> There are only two ways out of this contradiction: Snape is truly
> loyal to Voldemort, or Dumbledore did confide in someone, and
> Snape knows it.
I don't think you can rule out self-sacrificing behavior just because
someone is a Slytherin.
<snip>
> To conclude, for story-external reasons, it seems likely that
> Snape will turn out to be loyal to Dumbledore. But for that to
> be true, Snape would surely have demanded that someone other than
> Dumbledore know about Snapes activities and motivations, in order
> to assure his ultimate safety in case something happened to
> Dumbledore. A likely candidate for that confidant, perhaps the
> only likely candidate, is Aberforth.
I disagree with your assumption that just because a certain stereotype
gets thrown around, it has to be true.
But I also think that you are dead-on-accurate about Aberforth. If DD
feels he cannot trust the Order for some reason, Aberforth is the
logical choice. Nobody seems to know who he is, he is totally under
the radar, and he must be a very powerful Wizard in his own way, hence
difficult to Imperius.
Excellent theory.
Tim Bruening
"T.M. Sommers" wrote:
Munch of reasoning that JKR would not have resolved the Snape ambiguity
so long before the end of the series.
Or Dumbledore may have left a memory in a bottle explaining Snape's true
loyalties. But would Harry believe such a memory, as he has always been
inclined to believe the worst of Snape.
LouAnn
> > Spoiler space for HPB
> > Spoiler space for HPB
> > Spoiler space for HPB
> > Spoiler space for HPB
> > Spoiler space for HPB
> > Spoiler space for HPB
> > Spoiler space for HPB
> > Spoiler space for HPB
> > Spoiler space for HPB
> > Spoiler space for HPB
> > Spoiler space for HPB
> > Spoiler space for HPB
> > Spoiler space for HPB
> > Spoiler space for HPB
> > Spoiler space for HPB
> >
> > only likely candidate, is Aberforth.
>
> I disagree with your assumption that just because a certain stereotype
> gets thrown around, it has to be true.
>
> But I also think that you are dead-on-accurate about Aberforth. If DD
> feels he cannot trust the Order for some reason, Aberforth is the
> logical choice. Nobody seems to know who he is, he is totally under
> the radar, and he must be a very powerful Wizard in his own way, hence
> difficult to Imperius.
>
> Excellent theory.
I can't believe that NOBODY knows who he is, because he was in the old photo
of the original Order of Phoenix that Moody showed Harry. (OotP Pg 174). He
may not be in the thick of things, but I am sure people know who he is. I
am sure we will see him again, because JKR keeps bring him to our attention.
LouAnn
HP Cult Leader
>
T.M. Sommers
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 23:38:18 GMT, "T.M. Sommers" <t...@nj.net> wrote:
>>Moor wrote:
>>>On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 09:40:23 GMT, "T.M. Sommers" <t...@nj.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>>>Spoiler space for HPB
>
>>
>>If he is loyal to Dumbledore, he is.
>
> (actually agree : ))) )
Did you see the word 'if'?
>>>Only Harry could give Severus a 2nd change.
>>
>>It will not be up to Harry if Snape goes to Azkaban.
>
> Well, I really can't imagine Snape being arrested by an unknow auror
> and then going to Azkaban without facing Harry ^_^;;;
You are assuming that Harry will kill Snape.
>Not from nowhere. Aberforth was in the Order, he is known to all
>>concerned.
>
> How long since last time we saw him ? ; >>>
Dumbledore's funeral.
> I think it's all up to Harry. Aberforth might know the reason why DD
> used to trust Snape, but I don't think anyone cares about it, now:
> Snape killed Hogwarts's headmaster, the only wizard LV feared, the
> head of Wizgamot (or whaterver it's called ^_^;;;) and Order. This is
> his sin.
The reason for Dumbledore's trust could easily have a great deal
of bearing on why Snape killed him. If Snape is still loyal to
Dumbledore, certainly he will care that people know it, and know why.
>>The portraits are loyal to the current headmaster/mistress. They
>>will tell McGonnagall what they know, if they know anything.
>>Under that condition, it is less likely that Dumbledore would
>>have told them, although he might have.
>
> Maybe they heard it: they seem to sleep, sometimes ; >>>
> Maybe you have to ask them, they're not telling it otherwise
If Dumbledore's portrait could tell McGonnagall what happened,
she would not have had to ask Harry.
David Sueme
T.M. Sommers wrote:
>Snape... If he is good... is in a very difficult position... which is way out of character for a Slytherin, since Slytherins,
> even 'good' ones, as we have seen with Slughorn, always look out
> for themselves first and foremost.
Two objections:
1. Snape had to do something BIG to get DD to take him back into the
fold after the recently-revealed omen-revealing betrayal. I don't see
accepting anything less than a renunciation of the self-interested
attitude you cite as doing the trick for Spape.
2. This is the ultimate confronatation against the utterly most
powerful and ruthless evil. As Buffy Summers (no relation I presume)
put it in the movie: "I'm in way over my head". Everybody is, even
Snape.
Dave
T.M. Sommers
> T.M. Sommers wrote:
>
>>Snape... If he is good... is in a very difficult position... which is way out of character for a Slytherin, since Slytherins,
>>even 'good' ones, as we have seen with Slughorn, always look out
>>for themselves first and foremost.
>
> Two objections:
>
> 1. Snape had to do something BIG to get DD to take him back into the
> fold after the recently-revealed omen-revealing betrayal. I don't see
> accepting anything less than a renunciation of the self-interested
> attitude you cite as doing the trick for Spape.
You can't renounce your basic character. At any rate, I think
Snape must have done something very specific to get Dumbledore's
trust, not just some vague turning over of a new leaf.
> 2. This is the ultimate confronatation against the utterly most
> powerful and ruthless evil. As Buffy Summers (no relation I presume)
> put it in the movie: "I'm in way over my head". Everybody is, even
> Snape.
Heck, most people are in over their heads in real life all the
time, even without confronting utter evil (although I do not
agree that Voldemort is that; much worse can easily be imagined).
David Sueme
karn...@cs.com wrote:
> Slytherin's are supposed to be CUNNING, also. If these stereotypes
> always run true, then explain Crabbe and Goyle.
There is no evidence that a pie has ever escaped thier scheming.
If Gryffendors are all
> brave, explain Wormtail.
Actually, what is to explain about Wormtail is DD's remark about how
convenient it might be for Harry to have someone in Harry's debt in
Voldy's inner circle. That hasn't been played out yet, has it?
If Hufflepuffs are all "a bunch of duffers",
> explain Cedric Diggory.
Dead?
Dave
T.M. Sommers
> T.M. Sommers wrote:
>
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>
>
>>which is way out of character for a Slytherin, since Slytherins,
>>even 'good' ones, as we have seen with Slughorn, always look out
>>for themselves first and foremost.
>
> Slytherin's are supposed to be CUNNING, also. If these stereotypes
> always run true, then explain Crabbe and Goyle.
They had to go somewhere.
> If Gryffendors are all
> brave, explain Wormtail.
Are we sure that was his house?
> If Hufflepuffs are all "a bunch of duffers",
> explain Cedric Diggory.
I don't think that is the official criterion.
> Remember, Harry nearly ended up in Slytherin. The Sorting Hat is
> certain he would have been a good fit there. Would Harry have
> instantly turned into a person incapable of self-sacrifice the moment
> he ended up in Slytherin House? I don't think so.
He would not have changed; the Slytherinish traits are already
there. Harry has shown himself to be quite selfish at times,
such as all through Phoenix. His extraction of the secret from
Slughorn also showed a ruthless side to his nature.
> Take Narcissa and Lucius. Do you think that they would sacrifice
> themselves for their son? I do.
Lucius, probably not, but perhaps Narcissa. That, however, is
just biology speaking. Mothers who don't protect their young
don't leave many grandchildren. Such alleged altruism is really
selfishness in disguise.
> Take Regulus Black. He might not be dead, I admit. But he certainly
> SEEMS at this point to have sacrificed his own life, or at least
> gravely risked it, in order to defeat Voldemort. Judging from his
> note, he died _willingly_, in the hope that his sacrifice would someday
> serve the greater good.
I don't see it that way at all. He tried to quit the Death
Eaters, but you don't do that. They were after him, and he
expected them to catch him sooner or later.
>>There are only two ways out of this contradiction: Snape is truly
>>loyal to Voldemort, or Dumbledore did confide in someone, and
>>Snape knows it.
>
> I don't think you can rule out self-sacrificing behavior just because
> someone is a Slytherin.
Show me a Slytherin who has done a truly altruistic act.
T.M. Sommers
> "T.M. Sommers" wrote:
>
>
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>
>>
>>Snape will turn out to be loyal to Dumbledore. But for that to
>>be true, Snape would surely have demanded that someone other than
>>Dumbledore know about Snapes activities and motivations, in order
>>to assure his ultimate safety in case something happened to
>>Dumbledore. A likely candidate for that confidant, perhaps the
>>only likely candidate, is Aberforth.
>
> Or Dumbledore may have left a memory in a bottle explaining Snape's true
> loyalties. But would Harry believe such a memory, as he has always been
> inclined to believe the worst of Snape.
The question is not just whether such a memory would be believed,
but would it be found.
It also appears clear that Dumbledore did not confide in the
portraits. They expressed shock when Dumbledore was explaining
the multiple horcruxes to Harry. Further, McGonnagal asked Harry
what Dumbledore had been up to, and was perturbed when he would
not tell, so it is likely that she does not expect Dumbledore's
portrait to either know or tell.
karn...@cs.com
Exactly. We have a whole bunch of complex, unique human beings. But
everybody has to go into one of the four houses.
> > If Gryffendors are all
> > brave, explain Wormtail.
>
> Are we sure that was his house?
>
> > If Hufflepuffs are all "a bunch of duffers",
> > explain Cedric Diggory.
>
> I don't think that is the official criterion.
No. But it is how Hufflepuffs are first introduced to Harry, by
Hagrid. And it is an indication of how we cannot take every bigoted
remark that gets thrown around, even by the good guys, as gospel truth.
These people are fallible, and are caught up in a House system which
encourages rampant prejudice and ill feeling, as Hermione and the Hat
keep pointing out, though nobody listens to them.
> > Remember, Harry nearly ended up in Slytherin. The Sorting Hat is
> > certain he would have been a good fit there. Would Harry have
> > instantly turned into a person incapable of self-sacrifice the
> > moment he ended up in Slytherin House? I don't think so.
>
> He would not have changed;
EXACTLY MY POINT.
>the Slytherinish traits are already
> there.
EXACTLY. And if he had gone into Slytherin, his self-sacrificing
traits would still be there. Agreed?
> > Take Regulus Black. He might not be dead, I admit. But he
> > certainly SEEMS at this point to have sacrificed his own life,
> > or at least gravely risked it, in order to defeat Voldemort.
> > Judging from his note, he died _willingly_, in the hope that
> > his sacrifice would someday serve the greater good.
>
> I don't see it that way at all. He tried to quit the Death
> Eaters, but you don't do that. They were after him, and he
> expected them to catch him sooner or later.
In otherwords, he took actions which he KNEW would result, eventually,
in his death. And he took them anyway, for the sake of doing the right
thing, and saving other innocent lives in the future. How is that not
self-sacrificing? He died the year Harry was born, when V was winning.
It was in his own interests to stick with the winner. But instead he
did the right thing AGAINST his own interests.
> >>There are only two ways out of this contradiction: Snape is truly
> >>loyal to Voldemort, or Dumbledore did confide in someone, and
> >>Snape knows it.
> >
> > I don't think you can rule out self-sacrificing behavior just
> > because someone is a Slytherin.
>
> Show me a Slytherin who has done a truly altruistic act.
Regulus Black.
And from the above, I'm sure we both agree that had Harry gone to
Slytherin, his altruistic qualites would not have merely evaporated
into thin air.
As it is, we don't know much about Slytherins in general, because Harry
doesn't. But if you think that Rowling is writing this bigotry and
stereotyping into the novels as a way of PROMOTING it, rather than
(through Hermione and the Hat) to criticize it, then you have a poorer
opinion of her than I do.
T.M. Sommers
> T.M. Sommers wrote:
>
>>karn...@cs.com wrote:
>>
>>>T.M. Sommers wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>>>Spoiler space for HPB
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>>certain he would have been a good fit there. Would Harry have
>>>instantly turned into a person incapable of self-sacrifice the
>>>moment he ended up in Slytherin House? I don't think so.
>>
>>He would not have changed;
>
> EXACTLY MY POINT.
We were talking past each other there. I merely meant that being
put in a house does not change the person's fundamental nature.
That does not mean that a Harry sent to Slytherin would be the
same as the Harry we have, because the Harry we have would not
have been sent to Slytherin. A Harry who would not say "Not
Slytherin" to the Hat would not be the same Harry. Remember
Dumbledore's words to Harry on the subject at the end of Chamber.
>>>Take Regulus Black. He might not be dead, I admit. But he
>>>certainly SEEMS at this point to have sacrificed his own life,
>>>or at least gravely risked it, in order to defeat Voldemort.
>>>Judging from his note, he died _willingly_, in the hope that
>>>his sacrifice would someday serve the greater good.
>>
>>I don't see it that way at all. He tried to quit the Death
>>Eaters, but you don't do that. They were after him, and he
>>expected them to catch him sooner or later.
>
> In otherwords, he took actions which he KNEW would result, eventually,
> in his death. And he took them anyway, for the sake of doing the right
> thing, and saving other innocent lives in the future. How is that not
> self-sacrificing? He died the year Harry was born, when V was winning.
> It was in his own interests to stick with the winner. But instead he
> did the right thing AGAINST his own interests.
We don't know the exact circumstances, or his motivations.
Perhaps he had been given an assignment that was so dangerous
(killing Dumbledore, for instance), that he thought his chances
were better running away.
karn...@cs.com
Harry said "not Slytherin" because both Ron and Hagrid had painted
Slytherin black for him as the House of Voldemort which produced so
many Dark Wizards and Witches. If he had come to the Sorting either
completely ignorant, or if he had been told different things, or if
he'd encountered some bullies on the train who happened to be in
Gryffindor and whom he very much didn't want to run into again, the
Sorting might have gone very differently.
Now looking at Regulus; Say he is an eleven-year-old boy coming to
Hogwarts. His older brother Sirius who 1) doesn't like him, and 2) is
a horrible bully, is in Gryffindor. So let's pretend the Hat is trying
to decide between Slytherin and Gryffindor and little Regs is thinking
"not Gryffindor, not Gryffindor". Does this make him incapable of
sacrificing his life ten years later?
While I can accept that certain personality traits might be established
by the age of eleven, I very much dislike the idea that one's essential
moral worth is established by that age, and to me that is what claiming
that Slytherins are incapable of self-sacrifice really amounts to. I
really doubt that this is what Rowling is trying to get at.
Slytherin's might be more cunning, and Gryffindor's more impulsive. I
can well believe that these are intrinsic qualities somewhat
established by the age of eleven, or even to some extent genetically.
But there is calculated Good and impulsive Evil. Calculated good would
be Regulus sacrificing his life, but making sure to do it cleverly, so
as to sell his life as dearly as possible. Impulsive evil would be
what the twins did to Montague last year. Impulsive Good Guys would
probably get killed a lot more than cunning ones, for obvious reasons,
and thus get a rep for being more self-sacrificing. But cunning good
guys could be just as willing to sacrifice themselves WHEN NECESSARY,
but would just end up having to do it less often.
>Remember
> Dumbledore's words to Harry on the subject at the end of Chamber.
Yes I do. He said that it is our choices which make us who we are. Do
you really interpret that people who get Sorted into Slytherin at age
eleven cannot choose as adults to be self-sacrificing? That sounds the
very opposite of what D was trying to say.
> >>>Take Regulus Black. He might not be dead, I admit. But he
> >>>certainly SEEMS at this point to have sacrificed his own life,
> >>>or at least gravely risked it, in order to defeat Voldemort.
> >>>Judging from his note, he died _willingly_, in the hope that
> >>>his sacrifice would someday serve the greater good.
> >>
> >>I don't see it that way at all. He tried to quit the Death
> >>Eaters, but you don't do that. They were after him, and he
> >>expected them to catch him sooner or later.
> >
> > In otherwords, he took actions which he KNEW would result,
> > eventually, in his death. And he took them anyway, for the
> > sake of doing the right thing, and saving other innocent
> > lives in the future. How is that not
> > self-sacrificing? He died the year Harry was born, when V
> > was winning.
> > It was in his own interests to stick with the winner. But
> > instead he did the right thing AGAINST his own interests.
>
> We don't know the exact circumstances, or his motivations.
> Perhaps he had been given an assignment that was so dangerous
> (killing Dumbledore, for instance), that he thought his chances
> were better running away.
Perhaps. Perhaps he slithered out of the situation completely and is
alive and well. Frankly, I think he did. But do you seriously rule
out the possibility that it could have been otherwise just because he
got put into Slytherin when he was eleven?
T.M. Sommers
You are missing my point. It is not important whether or not
Harry said "Not Slytherin". What is important is whether he is
the kind of person who *would* say that, given the chance.
> While I can accept that certain personality traits might be established
> by the age of eleven, I very much dislike the idea that one's essential
> moral worth is established by that age, and to me that is what claiming
> that Slytherins are incapable of self-sacrifice really amounts to.
You keep getting it backwards. Being put in a house does not
affect one's character. One's character afffects what house one
is in. It is not that Slytherins are incapable of altruism, but
that people incapabele of altruism are Slytherins.
Remember that we are talking about magic here, and not the real
world. Sorting would not work reliably in the real world because
of limitations on available information, but a magical sorting
mechanism can surmount those limitations.
>>Remember
>>Dumbledore's words to Harry on the subject at the end of Chamber.
>
> Yes I do. He said that it is our choices which make us who we are. Do
> you really interpret that people who get Sorted into Slytherin at age
> eleven cannot choose as adults to be self-sacrificing? That sounds the
> very opposite of what D was trying to say.
Again you are reversing cause and effect. It is not that
Slytherins cannot choose altruism, but that those who will choose
altruism are not Slytherins.
>>>In otherwords, he took actions which he KNEW would result,
>>>eventually, in his death. And he took them anyway, for the
>>>sake of doing the right thing, and saving other innocent
>>>lives in the future. How is that not
>>>self-sacrificing? He died the year Harry was born, when V
>>>was winning.
>>> It was in his own interests to stick with the winner. But
>>>instead he did the right thing AGAINST his own interests.
>>
>>We don't know the exact circumstances, or his motivations.
>>Perhaps he had been given an assignment that was so dangerous
>>(killing Dumbledore, for instance), that he thought his chances
>>were better running away.
>
> Perhaps. Perhaps he slithered out of the situation completely and is
> alive and well. Frankly, I think he did. But do you seriously rule
> out the possibility that it could have been otherwise just because he
> got put into Slytherin when he was eleven?
No. Being a Slytherin does not prevent him from being
altruistic. Not being altruistic caused him to be a Slytherin.
karn...@cs.com
> karn...@cs.com wrote:
> > T.M. Sommers wrote:
> >>karn...@cs.com wrote:
> >>>T.M. Sommers wrote:
> >>>>karn...@cs.com wrote:
> >>>>>T.M. Sommers wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Spoiler space for HPB
> >>>>>>Spoiler space for HPB
> >>>>>>Spoiler space for HPB
> >>>>>>Spoiler space for HPB
> >>>>>>Spoiler space for HPB
> >>>>>>Spoiler space for HPB
> >>>>>>Spoiler space for HPB
> >>>>>>Spoiler space for HPB
> >>>>>>Spoiler space for HPB
> >>>>>>Spoiler space for HPB
> >>>>>>Spoiler space for HPB
> >>>>>>Spoiler space for HPB
<snip>
> >>We were talking past each other there. I merely meant that being
> >>put in a house does not change the person's fundamental nature.
> >>That does not mean that a Harry sent to Slytherin would be the
> >>same as the Harry we have, because the Harry we have would not
> >>have been sent to Slytherin. A Harry who would not say "Not
> >>Slytherin" to the Hat would not be the same Harry.
> >
> > Harry said "not Slytherin" because both Ron and Hagrid had
> > painted Slytherin black for him as the House of Voldemort
> > <snip>
>
> You are missing my point. It is not important whether or not
> Harry said "Not Slytherin". What is important is whether he is
> the kind of person who *would* say that, given the chance.
So if Harry had encountered Gryffindor bullies and a couple of good
natured Slytherins, and so had asked the Hat to put him into Slytherin,
the Hat would have refused. It would have said, "I know best, and you
are just not the "kind of person" to want to go into Slytherin, you are
just misinformed."
In short, that what Harry ASKED the Hat to do had no REAL effect at all
on the Hat's behavior?
Is this correct?
> > While I can accept that certain personality traits might be
> > established by the age of eleven, I very much dislike the idea
> > that one's essential moral worth is established by that age,
> > and to me that is what claiming that Slytherins are incapable
> > of self-sacrifice really amounts to.
>
> You keep getting it backwards. Being put in a house does not
> affect one's character. One's character affects what house one
> is in.
Yes. One's ELEVEN-YEAR-OLD character and abilities. In short, you are
saying that you DO believe one's essential moral worth is established
by that age, in the Potterverse anyway???
>It is not that Slytherins are incapable of altruism, but
> that people incapable of altruism are Slytherins.
So one-fourth of the Wizarding population is incapable of Altruism from
childhood, and all throughout their lives. Some wizards have the
ABILITY for altruism, and some do not. Those who do not have it all
get put into Slytherin at age eleven.
Is this your argument?
> Remember that we are talking about magic here, and not the real
> world. Sorting would not work reliably in the real world because
> of limitations on available information, but a magical sorting
> mechanism can surmount those limitations.
The Sorting Hat uses the same "sorting mechanism" the original founders
used -- their brains. It can't predict what students WILL do, or what
choices they WILL make. Otherwise it might as well just shout out
"AZKABAN" every now and then and save everyone a lot of trouble.
The qualities Slytherin prized in his hand-picked students were,
according to D / the Hat:
1) "resourcefulness" ("great cunning")
2) "determination" ("great ambition")
3) "a certain disregard for rules" ("use any means to achieve their
ends")
There is nothing about an inability for altruism. All human beings
who do not have the misfortune to be sociopaths have the power to
choose altruism and self-sacrifice.
The Sorting Hat sorts students by ABILITIES and characteristics which
can be observed in their eleven-year old heads, such as cunning, high
intelligence, or the willingness to work hard. But the CHOICE of what
to do with their abilities -- as Dumbledore said -- remains their own.
And NOBODY, not even a True Seer making a True Prophecy, can
infallibly predict what those choices will be - let alone take them
away.
> >>Remember
> >>Dumbledore's words to Harry on the subject at the end of Chamber.
> >
> > Yes I do. He said that it is our choices which make us who we
> > are. Do you really interpret that people who get Sorted into
> > Slytherin at age eleven cannot choose as adults to be self-
> > sacrificing? That sounds the very opposite of what D was trying
> > to say.
>
> Again you are reversing cause and effect. It is not that
> Slytherins cannot choose altruism, but that those who will choose
> altruism are not Slytherins.
1) All children at Hogwarts have free choice. Therefore, they can ALL
choose -- at any time in their lives -- to be altruistic. The Hat can
neither predict their future, nor take away their future choices.
2) There is no evidence whatsoever that the Hat even TRIES to pick
Slytherins for their lack of altruism. Ambition and lack of altruism
are not the same thing.
3) Even if Slytherin's DID get picked for their selfishness, rather
than for the ACTUAL qualities Dumbledore and the Hat have told us
about, NOT every Slytherin would conform to that stereotype, any more
than they would ALL be cunning or ambitious. Each child is a
completely unique individual, and it is a safe bet that ANY child over
whom the Sorting Hat spends even a few moments reflection doesn't fit
into the stereotype of ANY particular House very neatly.
Kish
I agree with nearly everything you're saying, but there's this one part...
Spoilers for HBP.
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
> The qualities Slytherin prized in his hand-picked students were,
> according to D / the Hat:
>
> 1) "resourcefulness" ("great cunning")
> 2) "determination" ("great ambition")
> 3) "a certain disregard for rules" ("use any means to achieve their
> ends")
>
> There is nothing about an inability for altruism. All human beings
> who do not have the misfortune to be sociopaths have the power to
> choose altruism and self-sacrifice.
If the Hat really means use /any/ means to achieve their ends, I'd say
that's a pretty good argument for sociopathy right there. However, that
already seems to not be the case--Slughorn was not prepared to achieve
his ends by knowingly enabling a dark wizard to create Horcruxes, and
Draco Malfoy balked at murder.
karn...@cs.com
Well, clearly not. If one-fourth of the wizarding population were
sociopaths, poor Voldemort could barely get himself noticed.
Of course, using *any* means to achieve your ends doesn't necessarily
make one a sociopath. One could merely CHOOSE to be extremely
ruthless. But that would mean, of course, that one had the power to
choose NOT to be ruthless as well.
I take the Hat to mean the same thing that Dumbledore meant -- that
(many) Slytherins think outside the box, and (often) are prepared to go
to extreme lengths and use unorthodox methods to accomplish their
objectives. But nothing prevents these objectives from being
Altruistic ones.
>Slughorn was not
> prepared to achieve his ends by knowingly enabling a dark wizard
> to create Horcruxes, and Draco Malfoy balked at murder.
And Sirius said his family initially supported Voldemort, but "got cold
feet when they saw what he was prepared to do to get power". If even
the BLACKS can back off of accomplishing what they think is a good
objective due to scruple about methods, well, I rest my case.
Alex R. Mosteo
Not directly related to your argument, but I think the lack of a truly
likeable character in Slytherin is a drawback of the series for me, in
the same way that the Dursley are irrationally cruel. The effort to make
them the bad guys results in that they're pathetically plain in
character. In that respect, Malfoy's lack of will to kill DD comes a bit
to little, too late. Slughorn supposes a bit of fresh air, but then he
is a narcissist...
(This makes me think -- In what house was MadEye?)
--
Take the Snape polls: http://snape.mosteo.com [Updated 16/05]
karn...@cs.com
> > Spoilers for HBP.
> >
> > 20
> >
> > 19
> >
> > 18
> >
> > 17
> >
> > 16
> >
> > 15
> >
> > 14
> >
> > 13
> >
> > 12
> >
> > 11
> >
> > 10
> >
> > 9
> >
> > 8
> >
> > 7
> >
> > 6
> >
> > 5
> >
> > 4
> >
> > 3
> >
> > 2
> >
> > 1
>
> truly likeable character in Slytherin is a drawback of the series
> for me, in the same way that the Dursley are irrationally cruel.
> The effort to make them the bad guys results in that they're
> pathetically plain in character.
I felt this way at first. In fact, at first I never bothered to read
past book one for this very reason.
But now I think Rowling is doing this on purpose. She is not trying to
make them Slytherin pathetically plain "bad guys" so much as she is
showing how Harry sees them that way. Remember when Dudley was
attacked by Dementors, and Harry was soooo suprised that his cousin had
feelings? Or his "deep shock" to find Draco actually crying?
But in FACT, Gryffindors and Slytherins are not that different. In
book one, Draco is parroting the politically incorrect views of his
family, (which of course makes him "evil"), but when Harry talks to
Hagrid about it, Hagrid assures him that the Malfoys are "bad blood" --
which is the EXACT SAME bigotry, but coming from a "good guy". I don't
think Rowling did that by accident.
Nor do I think that it is unintentional that Draco Malfoy is turned
into a ferret for trying to jinx Harry from behind (a "stinking,
cowardly, scummy thing to do"), where in the VERY SAME BOOK the twins
jinx *Malfoy* from behind, and of course Harry and his friends neither
object nor seem to notice anything wrong. I noticed, though.
So I don't think Rowling sees them as "bad guys" and "good guys". I
think she sees them all as human beings who are prone to "inheriting
old prejudices" as Lupin put it. And Harry is no more immune to this
than Draco is.
>In that respect, Malfoy's lack
> of will to kill DD comes a bit to little, too late.
Not for me. I thought Rowling had been building up to that scene for
some time. Draco has always spouted the vile bilge he got from his
family a little too loudly; as though he was trying to convince
himself. I also thought the scene at the World Cup was suggestive. It
was almost as though he was trying to warn Hermione off, when it would
have been more properly Evil to try to convince her to stick around.
If I work from the assumption that Harry's views don't necessarily
represent those of the author, Draco is a lot more interesting. But
one has to look for clues, because Harry is only interested in Draco
as a nemesis and Dudley-replacement that he can triumph over, not as a
person.
The major clue comes from D in book one, where he compares Harry/Draco
to James/Snape. And sure enough, Draco is the one who has come off the
worse in their relationship; He got beat up two-on-one by Harry and
George (Harry holding a snitch, no less), while Fred had to be held
back from making it three-on-one even after Draco was already on the
ground; Draco's been jinxed to a pulp and sent home to his mother a
pathetic oozing glob two years in a row; and, to top it off, Harry
nearly killed him, and nobody in Griffindor was shocked at Harry, just
angry that he had detention and couldn't play Quiddich.
Not to mention that nobody but Hermione expressed concern -- let alone
moral outrage -- when Montague was brain damaged and nearly murdered by
Fred and George.
Looked at from a Slytherin pov, it is Griffindor House which is full of
one-note bullies and bad guys. And if they use this to justify their
own bad behavior, they are only doing the same as James, or Harry, or
the twins.
I will be REALLY surprised if Rowling isn't doing this intentionally.
I think we are supposed to be taking our moral cues from Hermione and
the Hat here.
I also think that although Petunia is indeed "irrationally cruel", she
has her reasons. So far in this story, the "good guys" have cursed
Dudley with a pig's tail (because VERNON said something mean about
Dumbledore, no less), and swollen his tongue to four feet as a joke.
Even though in BOTH cases Dudley was already terrified and trying to
keep out of the way. I have a sneaking feeling that the "good guys"
were no more pleasant to Petunia when Lily was at Hogwarts.
drusilla
<karn...@cs.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:1126271106.6...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Alex R. Mosteo wrote:
> > > Spoilers for HBP.
> > >
> > > 20
> > >
> > > 19
> > >
> > > 18
> > >
> > > 17
> > >
> > > 16
> > >
> > > 15
> > >
> > > 14
> > >
> > > 13
> > >
> > > 12
> > >
> > > 11
> > >
> > > 10
> > >
> > > 9
> > >
> > > 8
> > >
> > > 7
> > >
> > > 6
> > >
> > > 5
> > >
> > > 4
> > >
> > > 3
> > >
> > > 2
> > >
> > > 1
> >
> one-note bullies and bad guys. And if they use this to justify their
> own bad behavior, they are only doing the same as James, or Harry, or
> the twins.
Gryffindors's character has a 'dark side'. THey like to boast (James,
Sirius, Ron, Harry, Hermione, etc...), very much like "Ha! look how brave I
am!". Slytherins are smoother. Remember when Wood had to find escort for
Harry and his Firebolt, and how they mocked at him wiht his 'Potter sucks'
buttons? Is the same but they go for another kind of intimidation.
chimaera
a lot of what you cite in your post. (I was always particularly
horrified by Hagrid's putting the pig's tail on Dudley -- what a
horrifying and cruel thing to do to an 11-year-old. It required
surgical removal. Good ol' warm-hearted Hagrid! And what Fred and
George did to Montague should have been an expellable offense, if not a
jailable one.)
May I toss some of what I consider Dumbledore's bullying or unfair
behaviors into this? These few pop into my head -- there are probably
more.
- He humiliated the Slytherins by very publicly snatching away their
victory at the last minute by awarding massive points to Gryffindor at
the House Cup awards ceremony in PS/SS.
- He abetted and excused Harry's breaking of school rules througout the
series. But it's Snape's favoritism that's supposed to outrage us.
- He bullied the terrified Dursleys in the scene in HBP where he came
to fetch Harry. To me, in that scene Dumbledore was just an extremely
powerful person terrorizing much weaker people he knew were both afraid
and helpless against him. I suppose the "point" is that this was their
comeuppance for their treatment of Harry, but to me, it just showed a
kind of tit-for-tat cruelty that I didn't enjoy and didn't think
reflected well on DD's character.
Where I'm not sure I agree with you is that JKR is going anywhere with
this other than that it's okay to be nasty to bad guys if you're a good
guy. Kind of a "boys will be boys" thing.
Alex R. Mosteo
I can just hope that you're right. Maybe we'll see in book 7 a big
reconciliation between parties, but IMHO this would be very forced after
current depictions.
> Nor do I think that it is unintentional that Draco Malfoy is turned
> into a ferret for trying to jinx Harry from behind (a "stinking,
> cowardly, scummy thing to do"), where in the VERY SAME BOOK the twins
> jinx *Malfoy* from behind, and of course Harry and his friends neither
> object nor seem to notice anything wrong. I noticed, though.
Same here.
> So I don't think Rowling sees them as "bad guys" and "good guys". I
> think she sees them all as human beings who are prone to "inheriting
> old prejudices" as Lupin put it. And Harry is no more immune to this
> than Draco is.
We have a clear example where this is explicit when Harry sees the worst
memory of Snape. He's *shocked* to learn that indeed his father was a
bully of the worst class. He risks talking to Sirius because of this.
But then, it seems we must understand that Snape was the freak and it
was right to abuse him, and it's normal the handsome guys abused the
strange marginal one. Snape is a freak and a horrible person, thus he
wears unclean underwear. In the same way that Dursley is not only an
umpleasant guy, he's /fat/ oh my god.
There's never in the books an example I can recall where there's some
genuine effort, attempt to reconciliate good guys with bad guys. There's
neither hints that someone is having long, durable mental doubts caused
by these happenings (my memory is bad. I'd accept gladly
counterexamples). There's the question of DD to Harry in HBP: "do you
feel sorry for Tom Riddle?" or something like that. But it's a drop in a
vast ocean of black'n'white encounters. Draco was a jerk from moment
one. If Snape turns to be bad (either loyal to voldy, or being a killer
just by interest) he will too have been a "simply bad" guy. It would be
bothersome (it won't be. I hope the "inhuman face" of Snape when called
coward means some moral conflict and not simply hurt ego).
I can accept black'n'white for the main villain, which has to be killed
in the end, and is simply depicted as an insane, incapable of any
empathy person. But rest of people? I have been young too, and I don't
remember people were like that.
>>In that respect, Malfoy's lack
>>of will to kill DD comes a bit to little, too late.
>
> Not for me. I thought Rowling had been building up to that scene for
> some time. Draco has always spouted the vile bilge he got from his
> family a little too loudly; as though he was trying to convince
> himself. I also thought the scene at the World Cup was suggestive. It
> was almost as though he was trying to warn Hermione off, when it would
> have been more properly Evil to try to convince her to stick around.
It's true that Draco gets some human moments in HBP, when he's with
Myrtle and all that. But, after so many books (and after the brutality
at the beginning of HBP in the train), I still see it forced. Let's
think how will he feel now. Will he feel remorse for having failed? Will
he try harder from now on? Or will he suddenly respect Harry and the
mudbloods? Will start to question himself? When someone has put himself
so strongly in a status of mind, recoiling is hard and requires great
moral attitudes. That's why politicians are never wrong, and always is
the fault of others. Admitting own errors is not a business of mediocre
minds. I just can't reconcile the general feeling I've got until now
with these new, complex moral dilemmas. So I'm not sure how everything
will turn in the end.
> If I work from the assumption that Harry's views don't necessarily
> represent those of the author, Draco is a lot more interesting. But
> one has to look for clues, because Harry is only interested in Draco
> as a nemesis and Dudley-replacement that he can triumph over, not as a
> person.
Again, I hope you're right and JKR will surprise me once again. Sadly,
the narrative isn't in first person, but in third, and furthermore the
descriptions of the Dursley aren't always from harry state of mind, but
normally are simply descriptions, from the point of view of nobody. So
the frontier where the harry's POV ends and the narrator begins is
sometimes blurred (for me). Note that I don't deny you carry reason,
specially because I'm not native english reader and I seem to lost a
good deal of nuances. Indeed, reading in another language not mastered
is a process I see akin to osmosis sometimes: there's some deal of
inexplainable absortion of concepts (often with the wrong undertones).
> The major clue comes from D in book one, where he compares Harry/Draco
> to James/Snape. And sure enough, Draco is the one who has come off the
> worse in their relationship; He got beat up two-on-one by Harry and
> George (Harry holding a snitch, no less), while Fred had to be held
> back from making it three-on-one even after Draco was already on the
> ground; Draco's been jinxed to a pulp and sent home to his mother a
> pathetic oozing glob two years in a row; and, to top it off, Harry
> nearly killed him, and nobody in Griffindor was shocked at Harry, just
> angry that he had detention and couldn't play Quiddich.
>
> Not to mention that nobody but Hermione expressed concern -- let alone
> moral outrage -- when Montague was brain damaged and nearly murdered by
> Fred and George.
>
> Looked at from a Slytherin pov, it is Griffindor House which is full of
> one-note bullies and bad guys. And if they use this to justify their
> own bad behavior, they are only doing the same as James, or Harry, or
> the twins.
>
> I will be REALLY surprised if Rowling isn't doing this intentionally.
> I think we are supposed to be taking our moral cues from Hermione and
> the Hat here.
Your points are good and I can't express these things better myself. I
too notice that the "good guys" are several times as nasty as the bad
ones and, what is worse, it seems we must indulge on them because they
are the good guys. Instances that come to my mind right now: In book
one, Gryffindor wins the <whatever points are for> just at the end,
because they're awarded points by Dumbledore. I feel really bad about
this kind of cheat, but I suppose the kids reading the book are supposed
to be cheering because the good guys have won in the end. For me is
lame. In the third book (albeit I don't remember clearly) Snape is
acting at the end in a wrong assumption but nobody cares for taking him
out of his error, just to humiliate him another time and without giving
him any explanation. It seems as if we, as (kid) readers, should simply
consider that the villain of the play deserves it, and the good guys
deserve to triumph in the end.
Plus all the instances you cite. I hope you're right and somehow this is
a plan to show that the good guys aren't that different from the others,
and that this can propel some interesting moral problems. But I'm not
sure if this is the case, or if it can fit well in the series this late,
with only a book left and shorter than book 6 (in principle). For me it
reads simply as "iconic bad guy" --> It's ok if he is abused by the good
guys.
> I also think that although Petunia is indeed "irrationally cruel", she
> has her reasons. So far in this story, the "good guys" have cursed
> Dudley with a pig's tail (because VERNON said something mean about
> Dumbledore, no less), and swollen his tongue to four feet as a joke.
> Even though in BOTH cases Dudley was already terrified and trying to
> keep out of the way. I have a sneaking feeling that the "good guys"
> were no more pleasant to Petunia when Lily was at Hogwarts.
After rereading my bits, I don't want to sound too negative. In fact, I
enjoy the books immensely (or I wouldn't be here). It's just recapping
now that it seems my position is very negative, but it really isn't so.
I tend to skip over these things, and I think that you explain it the
right way. I'll hold judgement until book 7 is published ;)
Another thing is the SPEW. Here we see Hermione in a clear "politically
correct" crusade. But is she being PC or simply being right? Thinking of
current standards, she's doing the right thing. However, nobody takes
her seriously. It's hinted that elves are like this, that magical world
is another thing. It seems just as a cover for JKR for having invented
slaves for the wizards. Well, I don't know.
Alex R. Mosteo
> I like your observations and have been bothered throughout the books by
> a lot of what you cite in your post. (I was always particularly
> horrified by Hagrid's putting the pig's tail on Dudley -- what a
> horrifying and cruel thing to do to an 11-year-old. It required
> surgical removal. Good ol' warm-hearted Hagrid! And what Fred and
> George did to Montague should have been an expellable offense, if not a
> jailable one.)
>
> May I toss some of what I consider Dumbledore's bullying or unfair
> behaviors into this? These few pop into my head -- there are probably
> more.
>
> - He humiliated the Slytherins by very publicly snatching away their
> victory at the last minute by awarding massive points to Gryffindor at
> the House Cup awards ceremony in PS/SS.
I've just written this :) I was worried nobody felt it a strange way of
closing the gap between houses :?
> - He abetted and excused Harry's breaking of school rules througout the
> series. But it's Snape's favoritism that's supposed to outrage us.
>
> - He bullied the terrified Dursleys in the scene in HBP where he came
> to fetch Harry. To me, in that scene Dumbledore was just an extremely
> powerful person terrorizing much weaker people he knew were both afraid
> and helpless against him. I suppose the "point" is that this was their
> comeuppance for their treatment of Harry, but to me, it just showed a
> kind of tit-for-tat cruelty that I didn't enjoy and didn't think
> reflected well on DD's character.
>
> Where I'm not sure I agree with you is that JKR is going anywhere with
> this other than that it's okay to be nasty to bad guys if you're a good
> guy. Kind of a "boys will be boys" thing.
--
Tim Peters
<snips>
>> May I toss some of what I consider Dumbledore's bullying or unfair
>> behaviors into this? These few pop into my head -- there are probably
>> more.
>>
>> - He humiliated the Slytherins by very publicly snatching away their
>> victory at the last minute by awarding massive points to Gryffindor at
>> the House Cup awards ceremony in PS/SS.
[Alex R. Mosteo]
> I've just written this :)
This is getting hard to follow ;-) I bet you mean this (snipped from a
different message):
[Alex]
>>> In book one, Gryffindor wins the <whatever points are for> just at
>>> the end, because they're awarded points by Dumbledore. I feel really
>>> bad about tis kind of cheat, but I suppose the kids reading the book
>>> are supposed to be cheering because the good guys have won in the
>>> end.
> I was worried nobody felt it a strange way of closing the gap between
> houses :?
Oh yes! The kids certainly deserved a lot of points, but the _way_ in which
it was done was cruel. D could have (and should have) awarded the points
before the end-of-year feast. The number of points, and the order in which
they were awarded, seemed calculated to maximize Slytherin disappointment
too. That is, Gryffindor was 160 points behind Slytherin. D gave 50 each
to Ron and Hermione, leaving Gryffindor 60 behind. I was adding in my head
as it went along, and I bet Draco was too ;-). At that point, I thought
"OK, he'll give 50 to Harry too, and Slytherin will still win by 10, but
Gryffindor will get very close -- fair enough.".
But no, D gave Harry 60 points instead, leaving the houses tied. And then
another surprise:
"There are all kinds of courage," said Dumbledore, smiling. "It
takes a great deal of bravery to stand up to our enemies, but just
as much to stand up to our friends. I therefore award ten points
to Mr. Neville Longbottom."
If what Neville did took "just as much" courage as what the others had done,
why did Neville earn only 10 points instead of the others' 50 or 60? It
doesn't make sense. Instead I read that little speech as "And now that I've
manipulated you Slytherins into thinking you're going to have to settle for
a tie, guess what? I'm not done yet! You lose. Nyah, nyah, nyah."
At that point I was more than half hoping Snape would award each Slytherin
one point for good sportsmanship in the face of their humiliating loss,
putting Slytherin back in the lead ;-)
gjw
>Alex R. Mosteo wrote:
>> > Spoilers for HBP.
>> >
>> > 20
>> >
>> > 19
>> >
>> > 18
>> >
>> > 17
>> >
>> > 16
>> >
>> > 15
>> >
>> > 14
>> >
>> > 13
>> >
>> > 12
>> >
>> > 11
>> >
>> > 10
>> >
>> > 9
>> >
>> > 8
>> >
>> > 7
>> >
>> > 6
>> >
>> > 5
>> >
>> > 4
>> >
>> > 3
>> >
>> > 2
>> >
>> > 1
>>
>I will be REALLY surprised if Rowling isn't doing this intentionally.
Alas, I fear you are giving JKR too much credit.
I agree that the pig-tail incident, for instance, was both cruel and
unjust. However, notice what JKR has said about the Dursleys: "I just
love torturing them..."
Doesn't sound like someone with a hidden agenda.
karn...@cs.com
> karn...@cs.com wrote:
> > Alex R. Mosteo wrote:
> >
> >>>Spoilers for HBP.
> >>>
> >>>20
> >>>
> >>>19
> >>>
> >>>18
> >>>
> >>>17
> >>>
> >>>16
> >>>
> >>>15
> >>>
> >>>14
> >>>
> >>>13
> >>>
> >>>12
> >>>
> >>>11
> >>>
> >>>10
> >>>
> >>>9
> >>>
> >>>8
> >>>
> >>>7
> >>>
> >>>6
> >>>
> >>>5
> >>>
> >>>4
> >>>
> >>>3
> >>>
> >>>2
> >>>
> >>>1
> >>
> > But in FACT, Gryffindors and Slytherins are not that different.
> > In book one, Draco is parroting the politically incorrect views
> > of his family, (which of course makes him "evil"), but when Harry
> > talks to Hagrid about it, Hagrid assures him that the Malfoys
> > are "bad blood" -- which is the EXACT SAME bigotry, but coming
> > from a "good guy". I don't think Rowling did that by accident.
>
> I can just hope that you're right. Maybe we'll see in book 7 a big
> reconciliation between parties, but IMHO this would be very forced
> after current depictions.
I am not confindent there will be a big reconciliation between Harry
and Draco. But I think that the Houses will have to get along, or
Hogwarts will fall from within. Like the Hat says.
<snip>
> > So I don't think Rowling sees them as "bad guys" and "good
> > guys". I think she sees them all as human beings who are prone
> > to "inheriting old prejudices" as Lupin put it. And Harry is no
> > more immune to this than Draco is.
>
> We have a clear example where this is explicit when Harry sees the
> worst memory of Snape. He's *shocked* to learn that indeed his
> father was a bully of the worst class. He risks talking to Sirius
> because of this. But then, it seems we must understand that Snape
> was the freak and it was right to abuse him,
This is not what I understood. I thought Rowling was trying to say
that the bullying had evil, long reaching effects; that it caused
"wounds too deep for healing", as Dumbledore says of Snape.
Black was killed, in part, by his own crimes returning to him -- his
mistreatment of both Snape and Kreacher. But he became a bully in the
first place because of the abuse that HE recieved from his family. And
because Sirius died, Harry's hatred of Snape reached nicely lethal
proportions. It's a vicious cycle.
<snip>
> There's never in the books an example I can recall where there's
> some genuine effort, attempt to reconciliate good guys with bad
> guys.
I think that is what the Triwizard Tournament was supposed to be
accomplish. But "Moody" messed it up by giving Hogwarts TWO champions,
so they ended up fighting amongst themselves anyway.
>There's
> neither hints that someone is having long, durable mental doubts
> caused by these happenings (my memory is bad. I'd accept gladly
> counterexamples).
The Hat, particularly in Book 5; It says Slytherin and Griffindor were
great friends, and that the ending of their friendship was a tragedy;
that Slytherin leaving the school created a rift that has never been
repaired. It pleads for the students to stand together. It even says
it is only sorting the students because it has to, but really has moral
objections to the whole business.
Hermione has been having problems since Book 4; when she is the only
one alarmed by the way "Moody" treats Draco. In OotP, she complained
about Quiddich causing bad feeling between the Houses (which caused
Harry, Fred and George to look at her with "disgust"). The scene where
Mr. and Mrs. Montague come to the school to see their brain-damaged son
shows Hermione wondering if they ought to tell Pomfrey what happened to
Montague, in case it can help her cure him. (The boys' response is
basically, "Who cares whether his brain damage is permanent or not? He
shouldn't have tried to take points from Gryffindor." Arrgh! I refuse
to believe this is Rowling's attitude.)
<snip>
> It's true that Draco gets some human moments in HBP, when he's with
> Myrtle and all that.
"People bully him too," Myrtle says. Rowling is telling us that Draco
sees HIMSELF as the one being victimized. This implies that she knows
perfectly well that, well, he IS being victimized.
>But, after so many books (and after the
> brutality at the beginning of HBP in the train), I still see it
> forced.
Draco's brutality on the train is FAR LESS that Harry's brutality to
him: Our Heroes left him oozing like a slug on a luggage rack in Book
5, and kicked his unconscious body around after jinxing him from behind
in Book 4. As payback goes, I thought Draco's actions were fairly
restrained.
Draco's humanity is no more forced than Harry's is. They BOTH behave
horribly, but they are both human beings. Draco hasn't exactly shown
his human side in front of Harry, but it has always been there.
>Let's think how will he feel now. Will he feel remorse for
> having failed? Will he try harder from now on? Or will he suddenly
> respect Harry and the mudbloods? Will start to question himself?
> When someone has put himself so strongly in a status of mind,
> recoiling is hard and requires great moral attitudes.
I agree that Draco is in no easy position. I see no promise of a
bright future for him. But I think part of Rowling's point is that
bullying, abuse, and inherited hatreds leave DEEP scars. It would
minimize the importance of what she is trying to say if her characters
could overcome these things easily.
<snip>
<snip>
> I too notice that the "good guys" are several times as
> nasty as the bad ones and, what is worse, it seems we must indulge
> on them because they are the good guys. Instances that come to my
> mind right now: In book one, Gryffindor wins the <whatever points
> are for> just at the end, because they're awarded points by
> Dumbledore. I feel really bad about this kind of cheat, but I
> suppose the kids reading the book are supposed to be cheering
> because the good guys have won in the end. For me is lame.
Well, yeah. But compare it to the scene in OotP, Chapter 38: Similar
favoritism (McGonagal awarding Gryffindor loads of points), and similar
deliberate cruelty (she went out of her way to make sure that Draco was
there to watch Harry get rewarded for putting Draco's father in
Azkaban).
But the TONE of the scene is entirely different. Harry just walks
away. He and Draco are no longer eleven-year olds, and they don't care
about the Cup anymore. Sirius is dead, Lucius is in jail, their hatred
has reached a whole new level, and all McGonagal can think to do is
stir the flames. (What made her think Harry wanted to be rewarded for
accidentally killing his Godfather anyway?)
The scene reads to me like a criticism of the whole House system, and
particularly the scene you describe. I realize I could be wrong, but
if I am, I am going to be seriously upset.
<snip>
> Plus all the instances you cite. I hope you're right and somehow
> this is a plan to show that the good guys aren't that different
> from the others, and that this can propel some interesting moral
> problems. But I'm not sure if this is the case, or if it can fit
> well in the series this late, with only a book left and shorter
> than book 6 (in principle). For me it reads simply as "iconic bad
> guy" --> It's ok if he is abused by the good guys.
Well, Sirius DID tell Harry, the world isn't divided into Good Guys and
Death Eaters. He said that people like Barty Crouch, who DID think is
was okay to abuse "bad guys", were as bad as the Death Eater's
themselves. [GoF: 27] Dumbledore and Lupin disapprove of the use of
Dementors, even for the worst evildoers. Harry thinks the trick the
twins played on Dudley is funny, but ARTHUR is furious. And Dumbledore
is consistently compassionate, not only towards Snape, but even towards
Lucius Malfoy and Tom Riddle.
That doesn't make it sound as if Rowling thinks it is right to abuse
people, even "bad" ones.
<snip>
> Another thing is the SPEW. Here we see Hermione in a
> clear "politically correct" crusade. But is she being PC or simply
> being right? Thinking of current standards, she's doing the right
> thing. However, nobody takes her seriously.
Arthur and Dumbledore do. They agree with her. And Arthur has JUST as
much trouble being taken seriously, when he tries to stand up for
Muggles.
>It's hinted that elves are like this, that magical world
> is another thing. It seems just as a cover for JKR for having
> invented slaves for the wizards. Well, I don't know.
But why would she create Dobby and Kreacher, for whom slavery has been
a horror, if she was trying to say that slavery was okay? Elves "like"
being slaves because they were bespelled that way by Wizards, which was
a pretty evil and disgusting thing for the Wizards to do -- like
putting an permanent Imperius Curse on an entire species. Dumbledore
says so at the end of Book 5.
"Kreacher is what he has been made by wizards, Harry . . . . Yes, he is
to be pitied. His existence has been as miserable as your friend
Dobby's. . . . The fountain we destroyed tonight [the happy House-Elf
staring adoringly at his wizard masters] told a lie. We wizards have
mistreated and abused our fellows for too long, and we are now reaping
our reward." Ootp:27
karn...@cs.com
> I like your observations and have been bothered throughout the
> books by a lot of what you cite in your post. (I was always
> particularly horrified by Hagrid's putting the pig's tail on
> Dudley -- what a horrifying and cruel thing to do to an 11-year-
> old. It required surgical removal. Good ol' warm-hearted Hagrid!
> And what Fred and George did to Montague should have been an
> expellable offense, if not a jailable one.)
>
> May I toss some of what I consider Dumbledore's bullying or unfair
> behaviors into this? These few pop into my head -- there are
> probably more.
>
> - He humiliated the Slytherins by very publicly snatching away their
> victory at the last minute by awarding massive points to Gryffindor
> at the House Cup awards ceremony in PS/SS.
>
> Where I'm not sure I agree with you is that JKR is going anywhere
> with this other than that it's okay to be nasty to bad guys if
> you're a good guy. Kind of a "boys will be boys" thing.
That is an unpleasant possibility. But in defense of my good opinion
of Ms. Rowling, let me point out a few things.
After reading Book 5, the Hagrid/Dudley scene reads a lot differently.
Notice how Hagrid's mistreatment of Dudley starts the moment Hagrid
enters the cabin, and mostly involves calling him fat; "great lump",
"pudding", "pig". He doesn't insult him in any OTHER way that I
recall. And then you find out that Hagrid was a half-giant raised
among humans, whose mother abandoned him for being a runt.
Coincidence?
In Chapter One of OotP, Harry has become the bully, and Dudley is the
one scared of HIM. Harry doesn't think of HIMSELF this way, but we can
see for ourselves. And Rowling deliberatly draws attention to Dudley's
pov through the dementor attack, which makes it clear that Dudley too
has horrors to relive; that he is human. That isn't something that she
would do if she wanted us to see him as Somebody To Be Abused For Fun.
At the end of HBP, Harry is angry at himself, because he ignored the
"increasing nastiness" of the Prince's scribbles, just because he
*liked* the guy. I take this as a hint, from Rowling, that Harry DOES
ignore nastiness from people he likes -- like the twins. If Rowling
wanted us to regard what happened to Montague as a joke, would she tell
us that he was nearly killed? Would she have Draco give us so vivid
and painful a description of Montague's experience from HIS point of
view? I don't think so.
I'm not sure what was going on with the humiliation of the Slytherins.
Everyone who has talked about D's deliberate cruelty there is right on
target. But what he says to Harry at the end of OotP might throw some
light on it. He said that he had come to love Harry more than he ever
expected, more in fact than doing what was right. Since he was
responsible for this child starving in a cupboard for ten years, it
would be natural to try to make it up to him -- or even possible that
he would get childishly nasty himself with those who gave Harry a hard
time.
gjw
I don't really see the connection. If Dudley had been skinny and
small, then that might have brought the "runt" idea from Hagrid's
subconscious, but being overweight has nothing to do with being small.
The worst part of that scene, from the standpoint of it being unjust,
is that Hagrid attacks Dudley (with the pig-tail) for something his
father said, not for anything Dudley did. It was so obviously unjust
that in the movie version they made Dudley devour Harry's birthday
cake, so that the 'punishment' would seem appropriate.
Personally, I chalk it up to the fact that Rowling hadn't completely
figured out her characters in the first book. Dumbledore, for
instance, seemed to be much more eccentric, possibly even "mad" (as
Ron says) than the Dumbledore we see in the latter books. Hagrid, in
that scene, is supposed to be a looming, giant, threatening presence,
the magical world personified, taking vengeance on the Dursleys for
their cruel treatment of Harry. But it doesn't fit well with the
Hagrid we know later in the series.
But the motive, on Rowling's part, does seem to be pure comical
sadism. She has said on more than one occasions that she can't resist
torturing the Dursleys, and she had done it (to some extent) in almost
every book.
>In Chapter One of OotP, Harry has become the bully, and Dudley is the
>one scared of HIM. Harry doesn't think of HIMSELF this way, but we can
>see for ourselves. And Rowling deliberatly draws attention to Dudley's
>pov through the dementor attack, which makes it clear that Dudley too
>has horrors to relive; that he is human. That isn't something that she
>would do if she wanted us to see him as Somebody To Be Abused For Fun.
Not necessarily. I think she draws a line between what she considers
comical punishment (the pig-tail, the giant tongue), and what she
considers deadly serious dark magic (such as the Dementors, who
represent suicidal depression). The Dementor attack represents the
dark magical world suddenly intruding on Privet Drive, and it
(including the attack on Dudley) is meant to be taken seriously.
Unlike the previous attacks on Dudley, it's not meant to be a comical
scene.
>At the end of HBP, Harry is angry at himself, because he ignored the
>"increasing nastiness" of the Prince's scribbles, just because he
>*liked* the guy. I take this as a hint, from Rowling, that Harry DOES
>ignore nastiness from people he likes -- like the twins. If Rowling
>wanted us to regard what happened to Montague as a joke, would she tell
>us that he was nearly killed? Would she have Draco give us so vivid
>and painful a description of Montague's experience from HIS point of
>view? I don't think so.
In the context of the story, Draco relating Montague's dangerous
experience with the Vanishing Cabinets seems designed to point out
Draco's willingness to take serious risks to accomplish his task.
The Twins are the perfect example of Rowling's occasionally sick sense
of humor overwhelming her normally compassionate nature. She seems to
divide her storytelling into two separate realms: the serious and the
comical. In the serious world, compassion and love are all-important.
But when she is going for gags, they are often fraught with low-level
sadism. While I love the Twins as comical characters (their
confrontation with Umbridge is priceless), I've often thought that in
real life they would be rather horrible people. Their gags are often
frighteningly cruel and dangerous, yet Rowling ignores this aspect of
their humor in order to concentrate on the comedic elements. Like
Peeves, they are comic relief.
A.G.McDowell
<g...@example.net> writes
>
>The Twins are the perfect example of Rowling's occasionally sick sense
>of humor overwhelming her normally compassionate nature. She seems to
>divide her storytelling into two separate realms: the serious and the
>comical. In the serious world, compassion and love are all-important.
>But when she is going for gags, they are often fraught with low-level
>sadism. While I love the Twins as comical characters (their
>confrontation with Umbridge is priceless), I've often thought that in
>real life they would be rather horrible people. Their gags are often
>frighteningly cruel and dangerous, yet Rowling ignores this aspect of
>their humor in order to concentrate on the comedic elements. Like
>Peeves, they are comic relief.
>
my eyes it doesn't look good for Gryffindor. Typically Malfoy says
something nasty and the response is a physical or magical attack: to my
eyes that is an act of aggression against Malfoy without sufficient
excuse: I could almost see him in the role of courageous satirist or
jester persecuted by goons too stupid to respond except with fists or
wands.
But I am a sheltered hothouse plant in a world far removed from the
magical one. Physical cowardice is accepted, if not almost rewarded
(especially if, like me, you have £300 of glass placed just in front of
your eyes). I am sheltered by a small group of people who earn their
living in worlds alien to me - my second cousin the policewoman, and my
schoolfriends now retired from the armed services (at 40, because of the
physical demands of those jobs). The MoM and its department of magical
law enforcement is far less effective.
I wonder if the 18th century is not a better match, when a man's
reputation for bravery was universally valuable, and people we now
revere fought lethal duels. I might then accept a punching telescope
with good humour, while responding with violence to an insult to the
memory of my parents. A wizard with a reputation for backing down may be
a wizard whose children or partners are at risk of their lives, or at
least a target attractive enough that their character encourages rather
than defuses confrontation. To me the single word "respect" conjures up
what may be a modern day parallel: areas where violent death is the fate
of a significant number of young males - but I know too little about
these areas to take the parallel forward.
--
A.G.McDowell
karn...@cs.com
gjw wrote:
<snip>
> >Notice how Hagrid's mistreatment of Dudley starts the moment Hagrid
> >enters the cabin, and mostly involves calling him fat; "great
> >lump",
> >"pudding", "pig". He doesn't insult him in any OTHER way that I
> >recall. And then you find out that Hagrid was a half-giant raised
> >among humans, whose mother abandoned him for being a runt.
> >Coincidence?
>
> I don't really see the connection. If Dudley had been skinny and
> small, then that might have brought the "runt" idea from Hagrid's
> subconscious, but being overweight has nothing to do with being
> small.
He was different/rejected due to his size; largeness among wizards,
smallness to his mother. That seems relevant to me. You feel
differently. That's fine.
<snip>
> The Twins are the perfect example of Rowling's occasionally sick
> sense of humor overwhelming her normally compassionate nature.
Well, we have to agree to disagree there.
karn...@cs.com
> I am currently trying to create a scoresheet of who attacked who
> and to my eyes it doesn't look good for Gryffindor. Typically
> Malfoy says something nasty and the response is a physical or
> magical attack: to my eyes that is an act of aggression against
> Malfoy without sufficient excuse:
<snips a lot>
The attacks against Malfoy have indeed been cowardly and dishonorable.
They have not been Eighteenth Century duels, or Wizard's duels. Those
have RULES. Rather, Malfoy is frequently attacked unarmed, two on one,
or from behind. We have "Moody's" word for it that attacking from
behind, at least, is NOT considered acceptable "courageous" behavior
from a man defending his honor. From Snape's taunt to Harry about
James never attacking unless it was four-on-one, I would venture to
guess that THAT behavior is not admired in the Potterverse either.
Given the general moral context of the series, it seems far more likely
that Rowling is AGAIN telling a story where Harry's perceptions are out
of skew with reality. He simply does not realize what a bully he has
become. He is a very, very angry young man, and it is a miracle,
according to D, that given his childhood he didn't turn out like
Voldemort. But he IS turning out uncomfortably like a Marauder, and
Draco has more and more in common with teen Snape every book.
I trust Harry is due for an extremely unpleasant wakeup call at a
nicely pivotal moment in Book 7. Till then, I would rather not assume
that Rowling doesn't know right from wrong -- or is trying to invent
some alternate morality -- just because her hero has emerged from his
hideously abusive childhood with a raging anger and a tendency to lash
out. That is realistic, and consistent with the way that Rowling has
portrayed most of her abused characters, from Petunia, to Sirius, to
Snape, to Dudley, to Kreacher, to Tom Riddle.
I THINK the message is supposed to be "abuse is horribly harmful and
leads to more abuse", not "abusive behavior is only bad when it is done
by the OTHER guy, but YOU kids can knock yourselves out." I mean --
ugh! In any century.
gjw
>Given the general moral context of the series, it seems far more likely
>that Rowling is AGAIN telling a story where Harry's perceptions are out
>of skew with reality. He simply does not realize what a bully he has
>become.
Again, I fear that you are giving JKR too much credit.
In my opinion, she is simply pandering to her young audience - "giving
the people what they want", if you will. They are simple scenes,
repeated over and over, because they are emotionally satisfying, using
the same basic formula: the obnoxious Draco taunts the innocent Trio,
he finally crosses the line by saying something particularly cruel and
horrible, and then gets his due comeuppance via a well-earned jinx or
a punch. IMO, they are intended to make the audience applaud the
retaliation, not to psychoanalyze it.
karn...@cs.com
<snip>
> >
> I am currently trying to create a scoresheet of who attacked who
> and to my eyes it doesn't look good for Gryffindor. Typically
> Malfoy says something nasty and the response is a physical or
> magical attack: to my eyes that is an act of aggression against
> Malfoy without sufficient excuse: I could almost see him in the
> role of courageous satirist or jester persecuted by goons too
> stupid to respond except with fists or wands.
>
> But I am a sheltered hothouse plant in a world far removed from the
> I wonder if the 18th century is not a better match, when a man's
> reputation for bravery was universally valuable, and people we now
> revere fought lethal duels. I might then accept a punching telescope
> with good humour, while responding with violence to an insult to the
> memory of my parents.
I should have mentioned in my other post that I actually agree with
this in general. The wizards DO seem to be living in another century,
and some of their attitudes seem positively feudal. It doesn't seem
that dueling has been outlawed for that long. (On the other hand, such
touchiness about honor still very typical today. In youth gangs, for
example.)
Arthur and Lucius in the bookshop, or Snape and Sirius in Grimmauld
Place, or any of the many scenes where characters SQUARE OFF against
eachother, would be explained by this mentality.
But most of the attacks we are talking about are cowardly, bullying,
and/or murderous by any decent person's standards, wizards included.
Rowling herself takes the trouble to actually STATE these standards in
the text; through McGonagal ("I have never seen such a disgraceful
exhibition. Two onto one"), "Moody" ("cowardly, stinking, scummy thing
to do"), Snape ("Coward, did you call me Potter. You're father would
never attack me unless it was four-on-one, what would you call him, I
wonder."), Arthur ("I spend my life campaigning aginst the mistreatment
of Muggles, and my own sons . . ."), Hermione ("But what if Montague's
permanently injured", "We've seen a whole bunch of people use
[Levicorpus], in case you've forgotten."), Lily ("You think you're
funny, but you're just an arrogant, bullying toerag, Potter.) etc.
gjw
One also has to consider the fact that these are (at least by
Rowling's reckoning) children's books. As such, most of the characters
seem to behave in much the same way as the young readers would. When
there are disputes to be settled, physical contests are often the
first choice of youth. When youths are insulted or sense they are not
being shown the proper respect, they tend to quickly resort to
physical retaliation or intimidation.
Toon
I like it. Little git gets what for. Perosnally the DA gaining up on
him on the train ride back was a little excessive, but he ultimately
started it. And he's clearly the bad guy. Now, prefect Ron clearly
bully's the youngins when mad.
Toon
>[Levicorpus], in case you've forgotten."), Lily ("You think you're
>funny, but you're just an arrogant, bullying toerag, Potter.) etc.
Yeah, but Lily loves the "arrogant, bullying toerag"'s who think their
funny, and then grow up.
Toon
>One also has to consider the fact that these are (at least by
>Rowling's reckoning) children's books. As such, most of the characters
>seem to behave in much the same way as the young readers would. When
>there are disputes to be settled, physical contests are often the
>first choice of youth. When youths are insulted or sense they are not
>being shown the proper respect, they tend to quickly resort to
>physical retaliation or intimidation.
>
Whereas some grownups just "liberate" other countries without being
asked to.
gjw
Well, fortunately, most of us don't have access to an army, navy and
air force to play with.
If most (adult) citizens use force to get their way, the cops show up
on their doorsteps and take them away in handcuffs...
gjw
Not at that moment. She tells James "I wouldn't go out with you if it
was a choice between you and the giant squid."
When Harry asks why Lily ever started dating him (mentioning that "she
hated him"), Sirius says, 'She started going out with him in seventh
year. Once James had deflated his head a bit." To which Lupin adds
'And stopped hexing people just for the fun of it.'
Since James learned to hide his feud with Snape from Lily ('She didn't
know too much about it, to tell you the truth,' said Sirius. 'I mean,
James didn't take Snape on dates with her and jinx him in front of
her, did he?') she probably assumed he had changed for the better. And
perhaps he had in some ways...
nys...@cs.com
> I think she draws a line between what she considers
> comical punishment (the pig-tail, the giant tongue), and what she
> considers deadly serious dark magic (such as the Dementors, who
> represent suicidal depression).
It seems to me not quite so simple. Arthur, discussing exploding
toilet seats which Harry finds amusing, says "Oh, it's a simple enough
anti-jinx, [...] but it's not so much having to repair the damage, it's
more the attitude behind the vandalism, Harry. Muggle-baiting might
strike some wizards as funny, but it's an expression of something much
deeper and nastier, and I for one -"
This is, of course, the same Arthur who is completely furious at the
twins for their part in the giant tongue incident. Arthur makes it
clear to the twins that he sees a connection between their conduct and
the muggle-baiting he is campaigning against (which, as he later makes
clear, he sees as connected to something "deeper and nastier"). It is
clear that Arthur, at any rate, does not draw a bright line between the
funny and the deadly.
Arthur is just a character, of course, and his views are not
necessarily those of the author. But it cannot be said that she has
completely ignored this issue. She has used Arthur to raise this
issue, and it seems unlikely that she does not recognize, at least,
that Arthur has a bit of a point.
gjw
>gjw wrote:
>> I think she draws a line between what she considers
>> comical punishment (the pig-tail, the giant tongue), and what she
>> considers deadly serious dark magic (such as the Dementors, who
>> represent suicidal depression).
>
>It seems to me not quite so simple. Arthur, discussing exploding
>toilet seats which Harry finds amusing, says "Oh, it's a simple enough
>anti-jinx, [...] but it's not so much having to repair the damage, it's
>more the attitude behind the vandalism, Harry. Muggle-baiting might
>strike some wizards as funny, but it's an expression of something much
>deeper and nastier, and I for one -"
She isn't criticizing cruel practical jokes here, which she virtually
praises throughout the series. She is criticizing "muggle-baiting",
which in the HP world is a metaphor for racism. These particular jokes
are (Mr. Weasley believes) motivated by bigotry.
>This is, of course, the same Arthur who is completely furious at the
>twins for their part in the giant tongue incident. Arthur makes it
>clear to the twins that he sees a connection between their conduct and
>the muggle-baiting he is campaigning against (which, as he later makes
>clear, he sees as connected to something "deeper and nastier"). It is
>clear that Arthur, at any rate, does not draw a bright line between the
>funny and the deadly.
Again, there's that racism problem again. Similar pranks pulled
against other wizards don't merit the same criticism from him. Since
his job involves protecting Muggles, he's naturally sensitive to any
such harassment, especially when it's done by sons (which could
reflect badly on him).
Toon
>On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 03:28:09 -0400, Toon <to...@toon.com> wrote:
>
>>On 12 Sep 2005 05:25:17 -0700, karn...@cs.com wrote:
>>
>>>[Levicorpus], in case you've forgotten."), Lily ("You think you're
>>>funny, but you're just an arrogant, bullying toerag, Potter.) etc.
>>
>>Yeah, but Lily loves the "arrogant, bullying toerag"'s who think their
>>funny, and then grow up.
>
>
>Not at that moment. She tells James "I wouldn't go out with you if it
>was a choice between you and the giant squid."
But she really meant, sire my child who will defeat great evil one
day, gorgeous.
>
>When Harry asks why Lily ever started dating him (mentioning that "she
>hated him"), Sirius says, 'She started going out with him in seventh
>year. Once James had deflated his head a bit." To which Lupin adds
>'And stopped hexing people just for the fun of it.'
Well, in all fairness, we saw one small segment of one day in their
whole freaking lies. Lily could have admired James from a far, and
got upset when she saw what he did to Snape for no reason. It makes
no sense for Harry to even ask. He knows his parents were in love
(the pics prove it), and people always say things they don't mean in
anger (Hermy and Ron and any of their fights), and he should have
enough common sense to know that seeing one whole incident in his
parents lives aren't enough to contradict established fact oft heir
love, from the photos, his memories, the fact that he exists at all,
etc.
>Since James learned to hide his feud with Snape from Lily ('She didn't
>know too much about it, to tell you the truth,' said Sirius. 'I mean,
>James didn't take Snape on dates with her and jinx him in front of
>her, did he?') she probably assumed he had changed for the better. And
>perhaps he had in some ways...
Well, that explains Snape, now doesn't it. He didn't get to be their
third wheel.
Toon
And sometimes, we actually elect them to office.
nys...@cs.com
> On 13 Sep 2005 19:12:24 -0700, nys...@cs.com wrote:
>
> >gjw wrote:
> >> I think she draws a line between what she considers
> >> comical punishment (the pig-tail, the giant tongue), and what she
> >> considers deadly serious dark magic (such as the Dementors, who
> >> represent suicidal depression).
> >
> >It seems to me not quite so simple. Arthur, discussing exploding
> >toilet seats which Harry finds amusing, says "Oh, it's a simple
> >enough anti-jinx, [...] but it's not so much having to repair the
> >damage, it's more the attitude behind the vandalism, Harry. Muggle-
> >baiting might strike some wizards as funny, but it's an expression
> >of something much deeper and nastier, and I for one -"
>
> She isn't criticizing cruel practical jokes here, which she
> virtually praises throughout the series. She is criticizing "muggle-
> baiting", which in the HP world is a metaphor for racism. These
> particular jokes are (Mr. Weasley believes) motivated by bigotry.
You just made that up, and, in this context, it makes no sense. Arthur
does not know who is behind the exploding toilets. He does not know
what their specific motives are. All he knows is that some wizards are
jinxing muggle toilets to explode. This is exactly the sort of thing
the Twins would do. That's all he knows, and he gives his attitude
towards it. He knows that some people -- even Harry, who is snickering
right at that moment -- think that exploding toilets are funny, and he
is disagreeing.
> >This is, of course, the same Arthur who is completely furious at
> >the twins for their part in the giant tongue incident. Arthur
> >makes it clear to the twins that he sees a connection between
> >their conduct and the muggle-baiting he is campaigning against
> >(which, as he later makes clear, he sees as connected to
> >something "deeper and nastier"). It is clear that Arthur, at any
> >rate, does not draw a bright line between the funny and the deadly.
>
> Again, there's that racism problem again.
"Racism" (as such) had little or nothing to do with the twins motives
for what they did to Dudley, and Arthur knows this well enough. He
disapproves anyway.
> Similar pranks pulled
> against other wizards don't merit the same criticism from him.
> Since his job involves protecting Muggles, he's naturally sensitive
> to any such harassment, especially when it's done by sons (which
> could reflect badly on him).
So now you are arguing that Arthur does not *really* disapprove of the
twins conduct, he's just worried about his job. Same goes for Molly
too, I suppose. I can see that you will have no problem winning this
argument.
karn...@cs.com
Toon wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 05:49:57 GMT, gjw <g...@example.net> wrote:
>
> >On 11 Sep 2005 20:03:55 -0700, karn...@cs.com wrote:
> >
> >>Given the general moral context of the series, it seems far more
> >>likely that Rowling is AGAIN telling a story where Harry's
> >>perceptions are out of skew with reality. He simply does not
> >>realize what a bully he has become.
> >
> >Again, I fear that you are giving JKR too much credit.
> >
> >In my opinion, she is simply pandering to her young audience -
> > "giving
> >the people what they want", if you will. They are simple scenes,
> >repeated over and over, because they are emotionally satisfying,
> >using the same basic formula: the obnoxious Draco taunts the
> >innocent Trio, he finally crosses the line by saying something
> >particularly cruel and horrible, and then gets his due comeuppance
> >via a well-earned jinx or a punch. IMO, they are intended to make
> >the audience applaud the retaliation, not to psychoanalyze it.
> >
> >
> I like it. Little git gets what for.
Well we all have the right to enjoy the parts of the series we
personally like. But if the question is Rowling's intentions . . .
>Personally the DA gaining up
> on him on the train ride back was a little excessive, but he
> ultimately started it. And he's clearly the bad guy.
Yes it was excessive. So was beating him to a pulp two against one
while holding a heavy metal object. So was the first uberjinxing,
which was again perpetrated against an UNARMED Draco, from behind, in
response to verbal provocation.
We agree that Rowling had portrayed the "good guys" behavior as
excessive. The question is whether SHE thinks that your
rationalization, "he's clearly the bad guy", is a good excuse for
excessive behavior.
In general, it seems she does not think so. Sirius was "clearly the
bad guy", so Barty Crouch didn't trouble himself with a trial, but
threw him to the demontors. Sirius was "clearly the bad guy", so
Harry, in a conversation with Lupin, advocated the destruction of
Sirius' soul as just punishment for murder, and then tried to murder
Sirius himself as revenge. Of course, it turned out that Sirius wasn't
_really_ the bad guy at all. There is supposed to be a lesson here, I
think.
People who think that it is okay to treat bad guys any way that they
want just because they are bad guys are, according to Sirius Black,
just as bad as Death Eaters. If we accept that this is _Rowling's_
attitude towards adult murderers and torturers, then it is hightly
unlikely that she condones "admittedly excessive" brutality towards a
young boy. Decent adult human beings DO NOT "pander to" the
inclinations of chidren to abuse other children. And so far most
people who have chimed in on this issue DO have a problem with this
brutality. Even you think that it is excessive. I think Rowling is
giving her readers a lot more credit than some of them are giving her.
Draco actually did -- for once -- start that incident on the train by
attempting to ambush Harry; similar to the way that Sirius describes
Snape attempting to ambush James back when, as REVENGE for the bullying
Snape had received. It seemed to me at the time that Rowling was using
the DE incident to further the parallel between Snape and Draco which
was first drawn by DD in book one. She pushes the parallel even
further in book 6, by having Draco join the Death Eaters. He is,
according to Bellatrix, eager to "prove himself"; eager, in short, to
wipe out the shame and failure of having been repeatedly made a victim.
Again, like Snape. The message here is that evil begets evil, and
hatred leads to more hatred, a theme we see showing up again and again
and again in this series.
>Now, prefect
> Ron clearly bully's the youngins when mad.
Which makes HIM "clearly the bad guy", I suppose. How brutal is it
okay to be to Ron, do you think?
Draco is the son of a Death Eater who has been raised with atrocious
values, and Ron is the son of Arthur Weasley, easily one of the most
decent and principled characters in the books, and Ron is STILL the
bigger jerk. I don't think that Rowling means for this little fact to
escape us, just because it happens to be evading her hero, He Who Never
Catches On. Readers in this series who wait for Harry to notice
something before they do are going to be seriously out of touch, imho.
zgirnius
karn...@cs.com wrote:
> Draco is the son of a Death Eater who has been raised with atrocious
> values, and Ron is the son of Arthur Weasley, easily one of the most
> decent and principled characters in the books, and Ron is STILL the
> bigger jerk. I don't think that Rowling means for this little fact to
> escape us, just because it happens to be evading her hero, He Who Never
> Catches On. Readers in this series who wait for Harry to notice
> something before they do are going to be seriously out of touch, imho.
zgirnius:
He Who Never Catches On...LOL!
gjw
>On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 21:40:39 GMT, gjw <g...@example.net> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 03:28:09 -0400, Toon <to...@toon.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 12 Sep 2005 05:25:17 -0700, karn...@cs.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>[Levicorpus], in case you've forgotten."), Lily ("You think you're
>>>>funny, but you're just an arrogant, bullying toerag, Potter.) etc.
>>>
>>>Yeah, but Lily loves the "arrogant, bullying toerag"'s who think their
>>>funny, and then grow up.
>>
>>
>>Not at that moment. She tells James "I wouldn't go out with you if it
>>was a choice between you and the giant squid."
>
>But she really meant, sire my child who will defeat great evil one
>day, gorgeous.
>
>>
>>When Harry asks why Lily ever started dating him (mentioning that "she
>>hated him"), Sirius says, 'She started going out with him in seventh
>>year. Once James had deflated his head a bit." To which Lupin adds
>>'And stopped hexing people just for the fun of it.'
>
>Well, in all fairness, we saw one small segment of one day in their
>whole freaking lies. Lily could have admired James from a far, and
>got upset when she saw what he did to Snape for no reason. It makes
>no sense for Harry to even ask.
Well, the point to remember is that they weren't in love (or even
dating) when this incident took place. At that time, Lily did seem to
dislike James. Apparently, she changed her mind later after she came
to believe that he had reformed his ways...
>>Since James learned to hide his feud with Snape from Lily ('She didn't
>>know too much about it, to tell you the truth,' said Sirius. 'I mean,
>>James didn't take Snape on dates with her and jinx him in front of
>>her, did he?') she probably assumed he had changed for the better. And
>>perhaps he had in some ways...
>
>Well, that explains Snape, now doesn't it. He didn't get to be their
>third wheel.
My guess is that Snape's interest in Lily took place after that
pensieve incident but before she started dating James. So her deciding
to go with James probably came as a blow to Snape's fantasy
aspirations.
gjw
>gjw wrote:
>> On 13 Sep 2005 19:12:24 -0700, nys...@cs.com wrote:
>>
>> >gjw wrote:
>> >> I think she draws a line between what she considers
>> >> comical punishment (the pig-tail, the giant tongue), and what she
>> >> considers deadly serious dark magic (such as the Dementors, who
>> >> represent suicidal depression).
>> >
>> >It seems to me not quite so simple. Arthur, discussing exploding
>> >toilet seats which Harry finds amusing, says "Oh, it's a simple
>> >enough anti-jinx, [...] but it's not so much having to repair the
>> >damage, it's more the attitude behind the vandalism, Harry. Muggle-
>> >baiting might strike some wizards as funny, but it's an expression
>> >of something much deeper and nastier, and I for one -"
>>
>> She isn't criticizing cruel practical jokes here, which she
>> virtually praises throughout the series. She is criticizing "muggle-
>> baiting", which in the HP world is a metaphor for racism. These
>> particular jokes are (Mr. Weasley believes) motivated by bigotry.
>
>You just made that up, and, in this context, it makes no sense. Arthur
>does not know who is behind the exploding toilets. He does not know
>what their specific motives are. All he knows is that some wizards are
>jinxing muggle toilets to explode.
Good lord, read the above text from Mr. Weasley: "it's more the
attitude behind the vandalism, Harry. Muggle- baiting might strike
some wizards as funny, but it's an expression of something much deeper
and nastier..." He doesn't know who did it, but he believes that
whoever did it are anti-Muggle bigots.
>> >This is, of course, the same Arthur who is completely furious at
>> >the twins for their part in the giant tongue incident. Arthur
>> >makes it clear to the twins that he sees a connection between
>> >their conduct and the muggle-baiting he is campaigning against
>> >(which, as he later makes clear, he sees as connected to
>> >something "deeper and nastier"). It is clear that Arthur, at any
>> >rate, does not draw a bright line between the funny and the deadly.
>>
>> Again, there's that racism problem again.
>
>"Racism" (as such) had little or nothing to do with the twins motives
>for what they did to Dudley, and Arthur knows this well enough. He
>disapproves anyway.
Again, instead of just jumping to your own conclusion, pay attention
to what Mr. Weasley says at the time: "That sort of behavior seriously
undermines wizard-Muggle relations! I spend half my life campaigning
against the mistreatment of Muggles, and my own sons..."
In both instances, Mr. Weasley is reacting to pranks directed against
Muggles, something he is particularly sensitive to.
If you want to cite examples of people condemning practical jokes in
the books, you'll have to find one's that are directed at other
Muggles. I'm sure that Hermione has condemned the practice now and
then - she seems to criticize everything the boys do at least once.
The problem is that I'm not sure if JKR means Hermione to be the voice
of moral conscience, or if JKR considers Hermione to be a bit too
prissy for her own good. The entire SPEW campaign, for instance, seems
aimed at poking fun at poor Hermione as a naive activist.
nys...@cs.com
> On 14 Sep 2005 01:02:17 -0700, nys...@cs.com wrote:
>
> >gjw wrote:
> >> On 13 Sep 2005 19:12:24 -0700, nys...@cs.com wrote:
> >>
> >> >gjw wrote:
> >> >> I think she draws a line between what she considers
> >> >> comical punishment (the pig-tail, the giant tongue), and what
> >> >> she considers deadly serious dark magic (such as the
> >> >> Dementors, who represent suicidal depression).
> >> >
> >> >It seems to me not quite so simple. Arthur, discussing
> >> >exploding toilet seats which Harry finds amusing, says "Oh,
> >> >it's a simple enough anti-jinx, [...] but it's not so much
> >> >having to repair the damage, it's more the attitude behind the
> >> >funny, but it's an expression of something much deeper and
> >> >nastier, and I for one -"
> >>
> >> She isn't criticizing cruel practical jokes here, which she
> >> virtually praises throughout the series. She is
> >> metaphor for racism. These particular jokes are (Mr. Weasley
> >> believes) motivated by bigotry.
> >
> >You just made that up, and, in this context, it makes no sense.
> >Arthur does not know who is behind the exploding toilets. He does
> >not know what their specific motives are. All he knows is that
> >some wizards are jinxing muggle toilets to explode.
>
> Good lord, read the above text from Mr. Weasley:
I did!
> "it's more the
> attitude behind the vandalism, Harry. Muggle-baiting might strike
> some wizards as funny, but it's an expression of something much
> deeper and nastier..."
> He doesn't know who did it, but he believes that
> whoever did it are anti-Muggle bigots.
Again, you made that up. You assume that "something much deeper and
nastier" means "anti-Muggle bigotry". It seems, however, far more
likely that if X is an expression of Y, then other expressions of Y are
possible.
For instance, he may mean something along the lines of "a tendency
towards abusing the power that one holds over those weaker than
oneself."
The ton-tongue-toffee incident is indeed an example of muggle-baiting.
Dudley is a muggle, and he was certainly baited. When Arthur gets
angry at the twins for their muggle-baiting, they say "We didn't give
it to him because he is a muggle .... No, we gave it to him because he
is a great bullying git." In other words, they claim they were not
motivated by anti-muggle bigotry.
"That's not the point" yells Arthur. But you don't believe him. You
insist that that is the point.
> >> >This is, of course, the same Arthur who is completely furious at
> >> >the twins for their part in the giant tongue incident. Arthur
> >> >makes it clear to the twins that he sees a connection between
> >> >their conduct and the muggle-baiting he is campaigning against
> >> >(which, as he later makes clear, he sees as connected to
> >> >something "deeper and nastier"). It is clear that Arthur, at
> >> >any rate, does not draw a bright line between the funny and the
> >> deadly.
> >>
> >> Again, there's that racism problem again.
> >
> >"Racism" (as such) had little or nothing to do with the twins
> >motives for what they did to Dudley, and Arthur knows this well
> >enough. He disapproves anyway.
>
> Again, instead of just jumping to your own conclusion,
> pay attention to what Mr. Weasley says at the time: "That sort of
> behavior seriously undermines wizard-Muggle relations! I spend half
> my life campaigning against the mistreatment of Muggles, and my own
> sons..."
> In both instances, Mr. Weasley is reacting to pranks directed
> against Muggles, something he is particularly sensitive to.
In part, because he believes it is "an expression of something deeper
and nastier".
> If you want to cite examples of people condemning practical jokes in
> the books, you'll have to find ones that are directed at other
> Muggles.
Why? Muggle-baiting is merely an "expression of something deeper and
nastier." This wording strongly suggests that Arthur Weasley beleives
there are other possible expressions of the same "something deeper and
nastier" (which poorly fits your interpretation).
(For instance, taking advantage of the stupidity of much-younger
children to use them as subjects for dangerous experiments, might be
considered another possible expression of "something deeper and
nastier").
> I'm sure that Hermione has condemned the practice now and
> then - she seems to criticize everything the boys do at least once.
> The problem is that I'm not sure if JKR means Hermione to be the
> voice of moral conscience, or if JKR considers Hermione to be a bit
> too prissy for her own good. The entire SPEW campaign, for
> instance, seems aimed at poking fun at poor Hermione as a naive
> activist.
Well, if Hermione were right all the time, or wrong all the time, that
would certainly be spoilerish, wouldn't it. However, even with respect
to the SPEW campaign, Dumbledore has made statements suggesting that he
thinks Hermione is onto something. Her compassion for the house-elves,
at any rate, is a step in the right direction.
gjw
Read it again. "MUGGLE BAITING".
Yes. Racism. Or, in the context of the book, anti-Muggle prejudices.
>> If you want to cite examples of people condemning practical jokes in
>> the books, you'll have to find ones that are directed at other
>> Muggles.
>
>Why?
That was a typo. It should have read "other wizards". And why? To
eliminate the objections to racism. Criticisms of any prank pulled
against a Muggle or 'Mudblood' can be interpreted as an act of
prejudice, even if that's not necessarily the intent. To demonstrate
that Rowling objects to cruel practical jokes in general, you'll have
to cite instances where the pranks were pulled against their fellow
wizards, and were then criticized (preferably by a respected
individual.)
>Muggle-baiting is merely an "expression of something deeper and
>nastier." This wording strongly suggests that Arthur Weasley beleives
>there are other possible expressions of the same "something deeper and
>nastier" (which poorly fits your interpretation).
Yes. Things like killing Muggles for sport. And extension of the
same nasty prejudices.
>> I'm sure that Hermione has condemned the practice now and
>> then - she seems to criticize everything the boys do at least once.
>> The problem is that I'm not sure if JKR means Hermione to be the
>> voice of moral conscience, or if JKR considers Hermione to be a bit
>> too prissy for her own good. The entire SPEW campaign, for
>> instance, seems aimed at poking fun at poor Hermione as a naive
>> activist.
>
>Well, if Hermione were right all the time, or wrong all the time, that
>would certainly be spoilerish, wouldn't it. However, even with respect
>to the SPEW campaign, Dumbledore has made statements suggesting that he
>thinks Hermione is onto something. Her compassion for the house-elves,
>at any rate, is a step in the right direction.
I agree. I'm just not sure that Rowling does. She seems to be sending
a mixed message when it comes to house elves. On the one hand she has
Dumbledore criticize Sirius for 'mistreating' Kreacher (a miserable
fellow who, in my opinion, deserved much worse than Sirius dished
out), but that follows GoF, where she spent much of the book making
fun of Hermione's efforts to help decent elves.
nys...@cs.com
> On 15 Sep 2005 01:37:28 -0700, nys...@cs.com wrote:
> >You assume that "something much deeper and
> >nastier" means "anti-Muggle bigotry".
>
> Read it again. "MUGGLE BAITING".
I have already read the passage, as you well know. I know you are
surprised that I read the passage different from you, but please stop
telling me to read it again.
Our difference concerns, not so much the meaning of the phrase
"muggle-baiting" but the phrase "something much deeper and nastier".
[You seem (???) to interpret "muggle-baiting" as something like "pranks
targeting muggles motivated by anti-muggle bigotry." Perhaps that is
correct.] You go on to interpret the phrase "something deeper and
nastier" as referring to "anti-muggle racist bigotry". If we translate
the phrase in accordance with this interpretation (yours?), we get ...
"Pranks motivated by anti-muggle racism might strike some wizards as
funny, but they are an expression of anti-muggle racism, and
anti-muggle racism is something much deeper and darker than pranks
motivated by anti-muggle racism."
That seems both redundant and nonsensical. How is bad motive, by
itself, darker and nastier than bad act & bad motive together?
But perhaps I have misunderstood you. Perhaps you do not see phrase
"muggle-baiting" as necessarily motivated by racism. Perhaps, you will
concede that the twins baiting of Dudley was "muggle-baiting" because
Dudley is a muggle, and the twins definitely baited him, even though
they were not motivated by racism. In this case your interpretation
makes more sense. It might translated as follows.
"Pranks targetting muggles might strike some wizards as funny, but they
are an expression of anti-muggle racism, and anti-muggle racism is
darker and nastier than pranks which happen to target muggles."
This makes a little more sense, but if this is what Arthur means, I
have little sympathy with his attitude. If you victimize someone
without adequate justification, it makes little difference to the
victim if he is being targetted because he is a muggle, or simply
because he is weak and defenseless and the attacker wants to hurt
people for fun in order to give himself a sense of power and control.
However, I think the phrasing makes most sense, and is least redundant,
if "something deeper and nastier" is not something inseparably
connected to anti-muggle thoughts or acts. I do not know what it means
because Arthur does not say. But I suggested one possibility that
might make more sense -- a callous willingness to abuse the power one
holds over those weaker than oneself. Thus translated, Arthur's
statement is not redundant at all. It makes sense, and you cannot
prove it does not make sense by howling MUGGLE BAITING at me
repeatedly.
> >> In both instances, Mr. Weasley is reacting to pranks directed
> >> against Muggles, something he is particularly sensitive to.
> >
> >In part, because he believes it is "an expression of something deeper
> >and nastier".
>
> Yes. Racism. Or, in the context of the book, anti-Muggle prejudices.
Yes, I understand that this is your interpretation of the phrase
"something deeper and nastier". I have suggested other interpretations
of the phrase that IMHO make more sense.
> To
> eliminate the objections to racism. Criticisms of any prank pulled
> against a Muggle or 'Mudblood' can be interpreted as an act of
> prejudice, even if that's not necessarily the intent. To demonstrate
> that Rowling objects to cruel practical jokes in general, you'll have
> to cite instances where the pranks were pulled against their fellow
> wizards, and were then criticized (preferably by a respected
> individual.)
Are you suggesting that I shall have trouble coming up with such
examples? Such a list would not be insignificant. But I suspect it
would not satisfy you. You have read the same books I did, and
evidently have decided that the examples don't count, for one reason or
another.
For instance, I have already demonstrated that Arthur disapproves of
the twins targetting of Dudley, even though he accepts their
explanation that their act was not motivated by anti-muggle racism.
You have already found a way to argue that it did not count.
Of course, JKR never speaks directly on moral issues. She speaks only
through her characters. You may readily come to any conclusion you
wish about Rowling attitudes merely by making certain assumptions about
which characters she agrees with, and which she does not agree with. I
assume you will, likewise, have little difficulty with the following
list (it is from memory, so wording is a little inexact):
(1) Dumbledore criticizes the thoughtless cruelty of Sirius toward
Kreacher. Dumbledore concedes that Sirius has no ill will towards
house elves in general; and did not even hate Kreacher; but nonetheless
insists that wrongs motivated by the mere absence of compassion can do
more damage than wrongs motivated by ill-feeling. (This is the
opposite of the attitude you attribute to Arthur -- that wrongs
motivated by ill will are worse).
(2) Harry is shocked and disturbed by James' conduct toward Snape when
he sees it. Dumbledore says that this cruelty has left wounds too deep
for healing.
(3) McGonnagal is horrified when Moody transforms Malfoy into a ferret
as punishment for attempting to jinx Harry from behind.
(4) Lupin expresses regret over his irresponsible conduct as a member
of the Marauders, which could have easily led to tragedy. He says
something like (paraphrase) "We were young and thoughtless and
intoxicated with our own cleverness." (Sounds a bit like the Twins,
yes?).
(5) Harry is severely scolded, by both Hooch & McGonnagal IIRC, for
his "disgraceful" two-on-one attack against Malfoy.
(6) Hermione stands up the Twins and puts a stop to some of their
worst abuses.
That's just off the top of my head. I'm sure there's more.
> >Muggle-baiting is merely an "expression of something deeper and
> >nastier." This wording strongly suggests that Arthur Weasley beleives
> >there are other possible expressions of the same "something deeper and
> >nastier" (which poorly fits your interpretation).
>
> Yes. Things like killing Muggles for sport. And extension of the
> same nasty prejudices.
I would say that "killing Muggles for sport" is an extremely nasty form
of "muggle-baiting", rather than a separate expression of the same
vice. In any event, you will concede, I hope, that your interpretation
is not the only one possible.
> >Well, if Hermione were right all the time, or wrong all the time, that
> >would certainly be spoilerish, wouldn't it. However, even with respect
> >to the SPEW campaign, Dumbledore has made statements suggesting that he
> >thinks Hermione is onto something. Her compassion for the house-elves,
> >at any rate, is a step in the right direction.
>
> I agree. I'm just not sure that Rowling does. She seems to be sending
> a mixed message when it comes to house elves. On the one hand she has
> Dumbledore criticize Sirius for 'mistreating' Kreacher (a miserable
> fellow who, in my opinion, deserved much worse than Sirius dished
> out), but that follows GoF, where she spent much of the book making
> fun of Hermione's efforts to help decent elves.
It seems to me that Hermione is the voice of compassion and concience,
but not necessarily of wisdom.
Hermione has been criticized, by other posters here, for hypocritically
trying to "force" the elves to be free. But there may be a method to
her madness. If she suspects that someone's will were controlled by
Magic, would she not logically expect that this Magic would compel the
victim to resist efforts to free himself from magical enslavement?
Dumbledore later lends support to this theory. He does not consider
Kreacher responsible for his rotten conduct, because he believes
Kreacher is what Wizards have created him to be. He cannot help being
what he is. He says that the ministry fountain -- which includes a
house elf looking adoringly up at a wizard, is a "lie"; and that
wizards have abused their fellows far too long.
Hermione's GoF efforts were likely naive. The damage done to
house-elves by Wizards evidently run too deep to permit them to be
instantly cured by tricking them into picking up articles of clothing.
Poor Winky is stark evidence of that; and even the relatively
well-adjusted Dobby is still a bit of a psychological mess (feels
compelled to punish himself whenever he criticizes the Malfoys).
karn...@cs.com
One that seems tailor made for this discussion is Lily's confrontation
with James. James' cruel humor is at the expense of another wizard.
And he further demonstrates his political correctness
by being outraged when Snape calls Lily a Mudblood, demanding he
apologize to her. But Lily is disgusted by his hypocrisy. "You're as
bad as he is." James is shocked, and protests that he would NEVER use
the word "Mudblood". He seems to believe that his political
correctness makes him an okay guy despite his cruelty, but Lily
strongly disagrees. It is the cruelty which matters to her.
Snape himself seems to provide some commentary on this issue. He seems
painfully aware of his status a mere joke. " . . . been enjoying
yourself, Potter?" "Amusing man, your father, wasn't he."
IIRC, he even describes the murder attempt against himself at school as
a "highly amusing joke, which would have resulted in my death". (As
Montague might well describe HIS ordeal.)
As to Harry, who "knew how it felt to be humiliated in the middle of a
circle of onlookers, knew exactly how Snape had felt". He knows how it
feels because of Dudley and his friends sticking his head in a toilet,
and Aunt Marge's dog chasing him up a tree while the family looked on
and laughed. Neither Dudley's nor Marge's behavior was racist
(anti-Wizard), since they had no idea Harry was a wizard at the time.
It hurt Harry deeply just the same.
It scarcely seems coincidental to me that these painful memories are
dredged up in the same book which reveals his father's idea of a joke
to be exactly the same as Dudley's or Aunt Marge's; Where the twins
(who are often compared to James and Sirius) very nearly kill Montague
for their own amusement; And where Sirius' tragic death occurs, in
great part, due to the unhealed wounds caused by his "jokes" at Snape's
expense many years earlier. The narrative clearly shows that what some
people think to be very "funny" can cause pain and humiliation, serious
and permanent psychological harm, and can even get people killed.
In general, as the books progress, we start to see more and more of the
CONSEQUENCES of what the children may at first take to be funny or
otherwise excusable.
1) The hostility between Harry and Malfoy escalates nastily over time,
resulting in repeated public defeats and humiliations for Malfoy, which
after his father's imprisonment drives him to "prove himself" among the
Death Eaters. This in turn rebounds upon the school as a whole,
maiming Bill Weasley and causing the death of Dumbledore. It may yet
cause many other deaths. (But notice
how Dumbledore's COMPASSION towards Draco elicits compassion in turn,
which in turn causes Harry to feel pity for Malfoy for the first time.
So it works the other way around as well.)
2) Harry holds himself to blame for ignoring the "increasing nastiness"
of the Prince's sense of humor, because he had "refused to believe ill
of the boy who had been his friend, who had helped him so much". This
could describe Fred and George (and Harry's attitude towards THEM) very
well.
3) Bullying turned the witty Prince who was Harry's "friend" into a boy
with an increasingly nasty sense of humor, and finally into a man so
consumed with bitterness he cannot refrain from venting it even upon
children. This has in turn contributed to the death of Sirius, added
to the burden of childhood trauma for Harry and Neville, and helped
encourage the destructive feud between Harry and Draco.