House points and Trio accomplishments

[Amy Z <lupinesque@yahoo.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 51136

I also think the last-minute usurpation of Slytherin is troubling, 
but not because the Trio didn't earn their points.

Tom wrote:

> I do not perceive the trio's success 
> on the "obstace course," as Maria referred to it, 
> to be any great accomplishment at all.  In fact, 
> the first time that I read PS/SS, I thought that 
> the stone's protections were pretty lame, and that
> anyone could have gotten through them.
> 
> -The trio did zero to beat Fluffy, as not only did 
> Hagrid gave them the answer, but they didn't even 
> have to strum an out-of-tune guitar, 'cause Quirrell 
> had already taken care of it for them via enchanted 
> harp.  

Granted.

> -Recognizing Devil's snare should be no big deal for 
> any experienced wizard, so no great shakes there.

Is the question here whether Sprout designed a lame obstacle, or 
whether the Trio did something deserving of lots of points?  Since 
it's the latter, the relevant point is that they *weren't* 
experienced wizards.  They were first-year students, and they had to 
recognize it while it was actually trying to strangle them.  Quick 
reflexes, and thinking, on Hermione's part.  
 
> -They didn't even have to really think to figure out 
> what key opened the door, since the wings on the 
> correct key were already broken by Quirrell when he 
> went through the first time.  All Harry had to do 
> was use his eyes and a minor bit of logic. 

And catch it.  "Not for nothing was Harry the youngest Seeker in a 
century"--which implies that it wasn't easy to catch at all.

Ron's logic was also helpful--he narrowed down the search by 
observing that old keys match their locks.  (He should be an interior 
decorator when he grows up.)  It was after that that Harry noticed 
the "limping" key.

> -The only serious skill involved, as far as I'm 
> concerned, was Ron's chess game.  And even *that's* 
> ridiculous, that he could beat McGonagall, if chess 
> is indeed, a strength of hers.  Unless JKR wants us 
> to somehow believe that at eleven years old, Ron 
> Weasley is a magical Bobby Fischer. <contrived>

Contrived it may be, but Ron is definitely supposed to be very good 
at chess.  I don't see what's so contrived about it, even if he *is* 
a magical Bobby Fischer.  Bobby Fischer exists, why not Ron 
Weasley?.  But in any case, we have no idea whatsoever whether 
McGonagall is good at it or not.  Also, it isn't just chess strategy 
that gets them across--it's Ron's willingness to die for the cause.

You left out Hermione's logic.

> -And, for all his bravery (give credit where credit 
> is due, I say,) Harry's victory was also pretty 
> lame.  He didn't, after all, really *DO* anything, 
> unless you consider "being" to be action, which some 
> do, to be comprehensive in my coverage. 

Yep, I do.

> Quirrell died 
> as a result of Harry's special protection, and 
> Voldemort *wasn't* that stong anyways.  Harry basically 
> just stood there and held on.

The book is about the courage of *character,* not just physical 
guts.  Harry got the Stone when Quirrell couldn't because there was 
no selfishness in Harry's desire to find it.  As for "just standing 
there and holding on," that's fairly impressive against a powerful 
wizard (or is that *two* powerful wizards?) who makes your head feel 
like it's splitting open when he's even looking at you, still less 
touching you.  Dumbledore makes it clear that he, at least, thought 
Harry almost died.

> And timing? I'm
> 100% with Elkins and Maria here. *Humiliating* is not
> the word for what Dumbledore did to the Slytherins.

I'm with you there.  Dumbledore should've awarded the points as soon 
as he learned what they did.  Then Gryffindor would've been the 
champs going into the final feast--disappointing for Slytherin, but 
not humiliating.

Tom wrote:

> Doesn't anyone think it's ODD that Slytherin was on a 
> seven year winning streak and only started losing once 
> Harry 'n the gang showed up? I do. Extremely odd. And 
> if it doesn't point more to favoritism than the other 
> evidence, then I don't know what does. 

I'm confused.  If Slytherin's win for 7 years wasn't a result of 
favoritism, why are Gryffindor's subsequent wins the result of 
favoritism?  Harry has definitely turned his House's luck around, but 
that's to do with little things like being a great Seeker, saving the 
Stone, and rescuing Ginny from the Chamber of Secrets.  He didn't get 
all those points for having a pretty face.

Maria wrote:

> And BTW there is *no* canon that Snape gives them
> points for nothing.

No, but there is canon that Snape deducts points from Gryffindor for 
nothing.

Amy