3 little things / father figures / Slytherin

[catlady_de_los_angeles]

No: HPFGUIDX 38029

GulPlum wrote:

> I don't see any implication that McGonnagal went into teaching as
> a career to the exclusion of anything else - after all, although
> she'd have been the right age, she would have been there in 
> Riddle's time...

She would have been a STUDENT in Riddle's time.

Marianne wrote:

> "Who's he to lecture me about being out-of-bounds...after all the
> stuff he did at school?" But, Harry is only mildy miffed at this; 
> whereas had Snape said the same thing to him, Harry would have been
> very annoyed.  

But Harry COULDN'T have said the same about Snape, as he doesn't know 
of Snape breaking any rules as a student.

Elfun Deb wrote:

> Maybe Parvati had always relied on Padma to do the thinking and 
> Padma relied on Parvati to do the talking; both would develop
> better if forced to rely on themselves.

Why didn't the same happen to Fred and George?

Marianne wrote:

> The adult males that he has the most serious disagreements with
> tend to be those men he dislikes, like Uncle Vernon and Snape. 
> Since Harry does not have any warm and fuzzy feelings for these 
> people, he's less likely to see that anything they say or do is for
> his own benefit.

Amanda wrote:

> is the aspect that is least effective anyway, even from our own
> fathers--the "do what I say because I say so" father, the one who
> is totalitarian, authoritarian, dictatorial, <fill in your own 
> expletive from your own teenage years>. This is the father who has 
> the desire to protect a child, and the authority to take steps to
> do so, but the complete inability to connect with the child to 
> communicate anything; thus the efforts generally produce rebellion 
> and estrangement.

I don't share the faith, widelly expressed on this thread, that the 
negative father always has good *intentions* toward the child, much 
less that the child will always grow up to realise that the negative 
father had good *results*. Fathers are human beings, and, as such, 
they can be in a bad mood or even downright evil. Can physically or 
verbally beat up the kid just because they lost their temper because 
of having had a lousy day. Can be trying to defeat the child because 
of viewing the child as a rival. Can torture the child for sadistic 
pleasure. 

I don't think there's any canon evidence that Vernon has EVER done 
ANYTHING which he INTENDED to be for Harry's good. He took Harry 
along to the zoo because he thought leaving him at home would be more 
dangerous for himself, and bought him a lemon ice to avoid looking 
bad to the ice cream vendor. The mean things he says to Harry are 
just cruel, not intended to help Harry turn out well.

Snape HAS done things for Harry's good (countercursing Quirrell's 
effort to knock him off his broomstick for sure; beating him up for 
being "our new celebrity" maybe) but I feel sure that Snape has done 
things that were spiteful to Harry simply out of spite and NOT for 
Harry's own good. I am not convinced that Snape intended to teach 
Harry better judgment than to put himself at risk by sneaking out to 
Hogsmeade; I think Snape was simply relieving his own annoyance at 
Harry.

P Draco386 wrote:

> Just then the door is broken down and there stands Dumbledore, 
> McGonagal...and Snape. Snape?!?! What the... 

Dumbledore with his right-hand woman and left-hand man. McGonagall 
and Snape are Dumbledore's loyal assistants, and don't need to have 
any other relationship to Harry to explain why they protect him  
because Dumbledore said so. (Altho' McGonagall also has the 
relationship of being Harry's Head of House.)

ElFunDeb wrote:

> Might the Sorting Hat be the agent of this plan? The Founders 
> invested the hat with their collective wisdom (and, I'll bet, a
> good chunk of their formidable magical powers). 

I am reluctant to trust a plan that includes Salazar Slytherin's 
wisdom. The other Founders eventually threw him out...  

Heidi as Devil's Advocate wrote:

> And if the Sorting Hat did the same thing it had done for Harry, 
> would some sweet yet ambitious kid end up in Slytherin as a fluke? 
> And what would happen to him once he did? The any means to achieve
> their ends thing would be completely unknown to them when they 
> made their "wish",

Surely the Hat would converse with the child about it. The Hat, which 
can see everything in hiser head, would know that the child wasn't 
thinking of 'any means to achieve your ends' and ask 'helpful' 
questions like, Would you murder a celebrity to get publicity to help 
sales of your books?

> in which they're venturing into morally black areas? I guess 
> possibly the scene where 4 of them dress as Dementors to freak 
> Harry out, but they clearly knew they wouldn't be able to have the 
> power to suck out his happy thoughts and make him see horrible 
> things, and they already knew that Dumbledore would be able to stop 
> him if he fell

I was quite horrified by that scene. I read it as OBVIOUSLY Draco & 
Co were intending for Harry to faint and fall off his broomstick 
(altho', if Draco had had a bad Dementor experience on the train, 
explaining why the twins said he had nearly wet his pants, he should 
be intelligent enough to know that the mere SIGHT of a Dementor would 
not produce the psychological effects). They had no way of knowing 
that Dumbledore would be there to save Harry (he does not attend all 
the matches). And, in addition to being willing to MURDER Harry to 
win the match BY CHEATING, how in Hell did they expect to get away 
without being caught?!