Calvinism

[Milz]

No: HPFGUIDX 23640

"Aberforth's Goat" wrote:
> Distinguishing between the elect and the reprobate has always
> proved tricky in our world, since only God really knows what's on 
the
> books--but in Harry's world you would just have to check out a guy's 
school
> transcripts for a read on his fundamental moral status.
> 

This is what fleshes out prejudice theme within the books. The House 
System has a tendency to ingrain certain ideas about the characters. 
Hufflepuff and Slytherin are the two maligned houses compared to 
Gryffindor and Ravenclaw. Hufflepuffs are viewed as "duffers" and 
Slytherins are viewed as evil and morally corrupt. I asked in a thread 
a couple of months ago what was so undesirable about Hufflepuff. Ron 
(a "good guy") and Draco (a "bad guy") both had some sort of 
ambivalence towards the members of that House. Yet if you really 
examine the Hufflepuff characteristics (industriousness and loyality), 
they are admirable too. But in general, readers have been conditioned 
to share the same lower expectations for Hufflepuffs as the book 
characters. 

The question of why Sirius was deemed a highly dangerous criminal is 
always chalked up to the street killing. Take the House System into 
consideration and Sirius' 'crime' becomes much worse. Slytherins like 
the Lestranges' and Rozier would be more-or-less expected to be "bad", 
so their actions wouldn't have the same shock value as a non-Slytherin 
committing similar crimes. Sirius' treatment confirms (to me) that he 
was either a Gryffindor or a Ravenclaw. He wasn't given a trial but 
sent directly to Azkaban, when other Death Eaters were given trials. I 
think it's because the wizarding community was dismayed that Sirius 
not only managed to fool James, Lily and Dumbledore, but he was enough 
of a sociopath at age 11 to fool the Sorting Hat (something even 
Voldemort wasn't able to do).  

The House System sets up an interesting morality caste system in the 
wizarding world. But is that much different than what occurs in 'real' 
society? I don't think so. 

> That leads to the two questions on my mind: (1) Is Potter's world 
really
> this way? I don't see Pettigrew as a sign to the contrary, since 
there's a
> good chance that he'll repent of his evil in time for a hero's 
burial.
> (Calvinism doesn't say the elect can't meander off the straight and
> narrow--they just have a way of finding their home again.) That 
Percy is
> obnoxious and Justin Finch-Fletchley callow is even less of a 
problem.
> ("Elect" and "pleasant" aren't meant to be synonyms.) I'd say Snape 
is the
> closest thing to a negative test case--but only Jo and Amanda can 
figure out
> what's happening in his twisted psyche. Still, this question admits 
to a lot
> of debate. (NB: all the sorting hat says about Slytherins is that 
they're
> cunning, power-hungry and ambitious, not that they're evil.)
> 

Good point. However, in our society, 'cunning' and 'ambitious' are 
characteristics that have a mildly negative connotation. It's not 
desirable to be *too* cunning or * too *ambitious. 

> (2) Would it bother us if the people in Harry's world have a 
fixed--and
> manifest--moral destiny? Would Jo's world be more or less appealing 
to us if
> we knew that the canon Draco is basically and inalterably evil and 
headed
> for the sulfurous pit? Would we be disappointed to assume that Harry 
not
> only won't wander over to the dark side, but *can't*  because he's 
basically
> and inalterably good? This may be more of a philosophical question 
than an
> aesthetic one, but it would certainly impinge on the books' 
universal
> appeal.
> 

Actually, I think the ending will be a cliché no matter what will 
happen. If Draco turns out to be inalterably evil: it's a cliché. If 
he suddenly has a change of heart and becomes "good", it's a cliché. 
In my most pessimistic voice, I think people will term the ending as 
"empty" or "lacking" or "predictable". However, I would only be 
disappointed if good doesn't triumph completely over evil. There's too 
much leaving the door open for a sequel these days.

Milz