Enabling the Slyths/ MW vs WW

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 46172

Pipsqueak quoted in message 46025

Pippin about the `Dissing the Slytherins Leaving Feast' scene, 
Chapter 17 PS/SS: 
> Um, are you saying that if some other House had been 
leading, 
> Dumbledore would have curbed his taste for the dramatic? 
> Because otherwise, I don't see how Dumbledore was being 
> exclusionist. To be inclusive, Dumbledore has to treat the 
> Slytherins as if they were just as capable of bearing the 
> reversals of fortune as anyone else.

Pip!Squeak:
>>Actually, yes, I do think Dumbledore would have curbed his 
taste for the dramatic if another house had been in the lead. 
Impossible to prove, of course ˆ though he curbs himself quite 
nicely when judging in the Triwizard Tournament.

The events the Trio and Neville are awarded points for actually 
took place about a week before the leaving feast.
Other examples of points being given or, in the case of Snape, 
extensively taken away show that points are awarded as close 
as possible to the event. Dumbledore could have awarded the 
points in advance of the Leaving Feast ˆ then made much the 
same speech, giving the reasons behind the points' award.<<

We never see points awarded or taken away from a student in 
the Hospital Wing. I can't think Madame Pomfrey would like it. 
Too much excitement, for one thing, plus the danger of injured 
students being afraid to seek treatment for fear of punishment.  
Dumbledore might have been constrained by the rules of the 
contest, or Madame P's wrath. But suppose you are right, and he 
just waits so that he can trick the Slytherins into thinking that 
they'd won. It's glaringly obvious to everyone else that the 
Slytherins don't *deserve* to win--so why does the trick work? 
Why don't the Slytherins themselves offer to give up the Cup? 

That would seem to be what is expected of a proper Wizard. The 
Slytherins  like nothing better than jeering at Harry, who's famous 
for having done nothing more than survive. Ravenclaw, which 
was playing against a team with no Seeker and could have won 
all the points it liked in the Quidditch final, is still in second
place going into the Feast. They choose an honorable second 
rather than a questionable first.   Then there's  Harry and 
Cedric's Alphonse and Gaston routine with the Tri-wizard Cup -- 
all of it shows that by the standards of the wizarding world, a 
victory  won by default deserves no praise, and everybody knows 
it.

Yet the Slytherins, who claim to know the ways of their world 
better than anybody else, just don't get it, clapping and cheering 
for themselves (and banging a mug on the table) even though 
Dumbledore's announcement of the point standings is met by 
silence from the other Houses. In Britain, where a snub 
can be wielded like a rapier, this is a blow with a blunt axe. But 
the Slytherins don't notice that they're being dissed until 
Dumbledore rubs their noses in it. 

What blinds them cannot be ambition.  They would get far more 
glory and respect for their House by ceding the Cup than they 
could ever win by claiming it. That may be a bit sophisticated for 
eleven year old Draco to grasp, but the older Slytherins should 
be able to understand this. Krum would. Or Lucius, certainly. 

I  think it's something else, something that reveals the peculiar 
nature of Slytherin House. It is not ambition which is the ruin of 
Slytherin, nor the desire for power in itself, nor is it some unique 
susceptibility  to evil.  What Slytherins are susceptible to, I
think, is *addiction.*  

The Sorting Hat holds the key: power*hungry* Slytherin, Harry's 
"nice thirst" to prove himself, Harry, released to Gryffindor 
because he said no.  It seems that what Slytherin was looking 
for in his pupils, besides cunning and resourcefulness and that 
certain disregard for rules, was an addictive personality. 

This, then, explains the  self-destructive behavior. The Slytherin 
leadership, having won the House Cup seven years in a row, are 
now addicted to winning. It doesn't occur to them that under the 
circumstances winning would not be a good idea. They are as 
foolish as Hagrid, drinking  with strangers though he knows he 
has a secret to protect, or Harry, coming again and again to the 
Mirror. The Slytherins are more likely to succumb to  Dark Magic, 
not because they are more apt to evil but because it has an 
addictive quality "when a wizard goes over ter the Dark Side, 
there's nothin' and no one that matters to 'em anymore." 

It will do no good for Dumbledore to have one of his famous little 
talks with the Slytherins and explain all this, even if he 
understands it.  You can't argue someone out of an addiction.  
What you can do is refuse to shield them from the 
consequences of their destructive behavior.  Dumbledore is not 
about to become an enabler.

No doubt some of the Slytherins felt put upon, and blamed 
Dumbledore for shaming them in public, even though they had 
already shamed themselves far more badly. That is one of the 
perils of leadership.   I am sure, to relate this to the New 
Testament thread, that some of the people who got told that they 
were no better than the adulteress did not take it well, and 
wished that they could do something about That Troublemaker.

********
 I am not sure that Jesus would have advised the wizards to 
reveal themselves for the sake of stimulating anybody's  sense 
of wonder  He was very scathing about people who needed 
signs and wonders in order to believe. As for good works, they 
were to be done in strictest secrecy. Personally, I really wouldn't 
want the wizarding world to reveal itself to us Muggles. Magical 
technology (wands) doesn't work for us, and Muggle technology 
doesn't work around them--why should I trade my laptop for a 
magic wand that  I can't use?

Pippin