Potion Puzzle/loathsome Dursleys/House assignments/Wizards lack logic

[Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)]

No: HPFGUIDX 47576

Scheherazade wrote:

<< if there was only enough potion for one person, how come Quirrel 
and Harry had enough to drink? >>

I always assumed that the potion bottles refilled themselves, just as 
the chess pieces set themselves up again.

<< whose short posts somehow come out longwinded anyway >>

When the reward for telling the story in such a way that it isn't 
finished by sunrise is that you don't get your head cut off, I think 
that counts as positive re-inforcement for being longwinded.

Robert Gonzalez wrote:

<< I think Dumbledore knew [growing up with loathsome Dursleys] would 
make him humble not pround and cocky. >>

If Dumbledore knew just how badly the Dursleys would treat Harry, it 
was foolish or desperate of him to leave Harry there, or wizards' 
psychology is different from that of Muggles, dogs, and cats. The 
kinds of beings that I know about, bring them up in constant abuse 
and no example of goodness, and they grow up either broken terrified 
cowards who'll do anything to (something like Pettigrew in GoF) or 
cynical tough guys who'll do anything to triumph (something like Tom 
Riddle). Neither is good preparation for being a hero to rescue the 
wizarding world.

Chthonia wrote:

<< Given that a major theme in the books is that racism and prejudice 
are stupid and wrong, isn't this somewhat contradicted by the ways 
character traits seem to run in families in the Potterverse? >>

Yes. I suppose this is a case of JKR's message and/or personal 
beliefs being swamped by either the plot or the literary form of the 
story she's telling or the archetypes that she has, perhaps 
unintentionally, invoked.

<< (Should Percy Weasley not have been a Slytherin? ;-) >>

And Hermione been a Ravenclaw -- or another Slytherin, as she is 
depicted not merely enjoying to learn stuff, but also ambitious to 
learn stuff. If the Sorting Hat doesn't just assign kids to whichever 
House they already wanted (we haven't heard from any student who 
wanted to be in glorious Gryffindor, with its prestigious reputation, 
and instead was put in Slytherin, or Hufflepuff), it must have some 
complicated decisions to make. 

In Percy's case, I imagine it found him ambitious, and studious, and 
rule-biding, and also courageous, and sufficiently honorable that, 
push comes to shove, if he had to choose directly between his ethics 
and his ambition, he'd choose his ethics. 

I suspect that rather than having some magical brain-wave test, it 
just ASKS the student which heesh would choose. That could explain 
Pettigrew: maybe he *thought* he'd die rather than betray his friends 
until the wand was actually at his throat... 

<< I wonder if JKR is allowing us to accept all the anti-Slytherin 
comments only to turn our own assumptions against us later on... >>

I hope so, but I doubt it.

<< Incidentally, IMO the technology/magic split has a major impact on 
the respective social structures. I reckon one of the reasons that 
the MoM seems so shambolic (ref earlier discussions on lackadaisical 
judicial procedures, etc) is that in a world where physical problems 
(such as building structures) can be solved by the wave of a wand, 
logical problem solving wasn't that important (hence Hermione's 
comment on wizards' lack of logic (PS/SS Chap 16)). The kind of 
systematic mindset necessary for efficient organisational structures 
just wouldn't evolve, or be valued or taught. >>

I admire this new idea! I never before connected the lack of 
engineering with the lack of command-and-control.