Dissin' the Slyths

[judyserenity]

No: HPFGUIDX 38395

Dicentra wrote:
> OK. I'm takin' on both Judy and Marina at once. 

Yeah, but are you doing it with one hand tied behind your back???

> In the context of Book 1 alone, there is no strategic mistake
> because there are no DEs, no resurrected Voldemort, no path of 
> darkness for the Slyths to follow except one of their own making.

No resurrected Voldemort *yet*.  But, Dumbledore has good reason to 
think that Voldemort will be back (and, in fact, Voldemort is already 
present as Quirdemort.)  If Dumbledore doesn't think Voldemort's 
return is a serious possibility, he should just have handled 
Quirdemort himself; the rationale for letting Harry face him is that 
Harry needs to learn to cope with Voldemort. If Dumbledore *does* 
think Voldemort's return is a serious possibility, then he needs to 
worry about alienating Snape and the Slyths.  

Dicentra then said that to be sure Dumbledore had alienated the 
Slytherins, she
> would need to see evidence that the Slyths and Snape took it [the 
> Cup Switch] any harder than Neville did when he ate the canary
> creams.

The whole story is told from Harry's point of view.  The Slyths could 
be screaming bloody murder, and unless Harry happens to overhear them, 
we'll never know about it.  

>From what we know of Snape, he would take deliberate humilation by 
Dumbledore very, very, very, hard indeed, even if he didn't show it 
outwardly.


Dicentra also said:
> Slytherins have fully earned their reputations... They're disliked
> for the way in which they treat other houses....Granted, maybe not
> all Slyths are as bad as Harry thinks they are, but many of them 
> really are that bad. And worse....

No argument from me there.  I'll leave this one for Marina.


I said:
> > [it's not] OK for Dumbledore to stoop to the Slytherin students'
> > level; he is supposed to set an example for them. As someone said, 
> > Dumbledore is Headmaster and therefore should be impartial.

And Dicentra responded:
> According to whom?  WE certainly think he should remain neutral in 
> the House rivalries, because that's our idea of fair and proper...

How about according to the same person who said "many of [the 
Slyths] really are that bad. And worse"?  In other words, you and I 
seem to have no problem agreeing on a moral code of conduct that 
applies to the Potterverse as well as the real world.  Otherwise, 
there'd be no point in your arguing that the Slyths are bad and this 
whole conversation would be pointless.  You don't *really* believe 
that there's no good and evil (only power and those too weak to seek 
it), do you? 

Anyway, even if you and I agree not to apply our own moral standards 
to the Potterverse, I think one can easily argue that the "House Cup 
Switch" violated *Dumbledore's* own moral standards.  That's why I say 
it was out of character. 


Dicentra posited:
> Maybe JKR didn't have her chops down yet in Book 1, so Dumbledore's 
> "tactical error" is actually hers.

Well, JKR says she had the main plot mapped out before she started.  
So, I'd say she had Dumbledore do something that heightened the drama 
of her story, even though it was out of character for him. Or to put 
it this way, I don't think the Cup Switch was right, but it did look 
good in the movie.


-- Judy, who wants to convince everyone that poor Snapey-poo is 
unfairly maligned