Dissin' the Slyths

[marinafrants]

No: HPFGUIDX 38448

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:
> > They wouldn't have assumed it if last-minute
> > changes were the norm before then.  
> 
> No? No over-confidence? No"Last minute points? Oops! we 
> forgot!" ?

None that we ever see except for that one time.  None of the older 
students say, "Oh, yeah, Dumbledore does that all the time, don't 
know why the Slytherins look so surprised."

> 
>  Marina:
> >>>>Also, the points awarded Gryffindor that year were *not* last 
> minute points.  A fair chunk of time passed between Harry's 
> confrontation with Quirrell, and the leaving feast.  In fact, the 
> confrontation took place before the Quidditch Cup final 
> (Ravenclaw beat Gryffindor because Harry was in the infirmary 
> and couldn't play.)  So the final standings in Year One were 
> actually determined *earlier* than they were in Year Three, yet 
> Dumbledore held back the information in order to perform the 
> switch at the feast.<<<
> 
> 
> Do you really think so? 

Yes.  Do you really think Dumbledore smacked himself on the forehead 
as he was walking into the hall and said, "Oh my gosh!  I forgot to 
award those last 160 points to Gryffindor!  And now the house elves 
have gone and put the wrong banners up.  Dopey me!"

> Let's see what Dumbledore had on his 
> plate during those four days: one dead Professor, one Dark Lord 
> at large, one student at the brink of death, and having to explain 
> to his oldest friends that it's time to line up for the next big 
> adventure. It wouldn't be realistic for him to give much thought 
to 
> Slytherin or the house championship at all. 

C'mon, this is *Dumbledore* we're talking about it.  Of course he 
thought of it.  How much thought does it take to say "160 points to 
Gryffindor," anyway?

>  I do think JKR deliberately arranged for the humiliation of the 
> Slytherins, and they can take it up with her if they like (Could 
this 
> be why Phoenix is late?)  I don't think it was out of character  
for 
> Dumbledore to take advantage of a teachable moment  to 
> illustrate what Porphyria's essay on Job (great work!) calls "the 
> terrible arbitrariness of fortune." There is no  power that can 
> defend against that, and for Dumbledore to humor the Slytherins 
> in their delusion that there is would be a  dangerous lie.

I see no evidence that the Slytherins are laboring under the 
delusion that the world is nice and orderly. The delusion they need 
to be guarded against is "There is no good or evil, only power and 
those too weak to use it."  Dumbledore's actions at the feast did 
nothing to contradict it, and a great deal to perpetuate it.  As far 
as the Slyths can see, Dumbledore humiliated them because he could.

Now, I don't necessarily think it was wrong for JKR to write it that 
way.  It *was* a fine dramatic moment, and it's not like it's 
totally out of character for Dumbledore to make a misjudgement now 
and then.  But I think the overall story would be better served by 
adressing the implications of such a misjudgement then by pretending 
that it's all hunky-dory.  The question of what needs to be done 
about the Slytherins is an interesting one, I think, with a lot of 
dramatic potential to it.  The possibility that Dumbledore 
occasionally mishandles them only adds to the interest.  As the 
books keep getting darker and more complex, I hold out hope that the 
issue will be addressed in a future subplot.



> 
> >>> What the Slytherins need to learn is that they don't need to 
> be the biggest bully in the playground in order to have respect.  
> Instead, they get shown that they do need to be the biggest bully, 
> otherwise a bigger one can come along and take it all away from 
> under their nose.<<<
> 
> Respect has nothing to do with it. 

Respect has everything to do with it.  The Slytherins equate losing 
with humiliation (not the least because they themselves always make 
a point of humiliating the losers), and this is one of the things 
that makes them determined to win at all costs.  They need to get 
out of that mindset.


> There'll always be someone 
> bigger, someone stronger, someone with the power to take it all 
> away. We all get kicked out of the playground sooner or later, 
> respected or not. 

Do you really think that's the philosophy that's going to teach a 
bunch of ruthlessly ambitious children that scrambling for power at 
any cost is a bad idea?  Unless Dumbledore is planning to declare 
himself the biggest bully and to keep the Slytherins in line through 
sheer intimidation (which would be extremely wrong and not at all 
his style), this sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com