House points and Dumbledore

[Andrea <ra_1013@yahoo.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 51148

--- Tom wrote:
> -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.  

I think someone's been infected by the movie. ;)  In the *books*,
Harry brought along the flute Hagrid gave him for Christmas and played
it to get Fluffy to sleep.  There was, IIRC, a discarded instrument of
some sort nearby to show Quirrel had already gone through, but the
Trio themselves did something active against it.
 
> -Recognizing Devil's snare should be no big deal for 
> any experienced wizard, so no great shakes there.

Yes, but these are three 11/12 year olds at the end of their first
year of study. (Two of them, it should be noted, were Muggle-raised
and thus knew *nothing* of magic a year before this.)  We also don't
know just how common Devil's Snare is -- it might be like many other
things we learn in school, remember long enough to pass the exam, and
then few adults ten years later could remember it. ;)  Also it was
very much a case of keeping one's head under pressure, which is not an
easy trick!
 
> -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. Actually,
> I'm much more interested in figuring out how Quirrell
> found that key.

They DID use logic to figure it out.  Ron is the one who determined
that the key would be silver, old and rusty like the handle.  That's a
very good deduction I'm not sure *I* would've thought of.  And then
there was using Harry's Seeker skills to *catch* the key, which was
really the point of the test!
 
> -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>

For one thing, we don't know that McGonagall has any particular skill
at chess beyond the average.  Her skill was at Transfiguration.  We've
never even *seen* her play chess.  And for all we know, the point of
the whole game was that the pieces would manuever the players so one
would have to be willing to make a sacrifice for the mission.  A test
of character, not of skill. 
 
I note that you left out the potions test, another case of
movie-taint.  THIS is what Hermione recieved her points for, if you'll
recall, not the Devil's Snare.  As she pointed out, many wizards were
hopeless at logic, so it was a strong accomplishment for the world she
lived in to be able to solve the puzzle.  Again, there's an element of
sacrifice and courage involved in it -- several of the bottles were
*poison*.  You have to be pretty confident in your skills, and again
under pressure!

> -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. 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.

Go back and reread Harry's speech just before the Trio goes down in
search of the Stone.  He shows a bravery and maturity of character
that most grown wizards don't equal.  While most in his time are
afraid to even call Voldemort by name, Harry went down to face him for
the simple reason that it was the right thing to do.  Harry was able
to resist enormous temptation and coercion in the process of "just
holding on", which is impressive for ANY wizard, much less an 11 year
old boy!
 
> And for *that*, Dumbledore awarded Gryffindor enough 
> points to win the House Cup? Hogwash. And timing? I'm
> 100% with Elkins and Maria here. *Humiliating* is not
> the word for what Dumbledore did to the Slytherins.

I will agree that the way the points were distributed was very
humiliating for the Slytherins, but I think Dumbledore had his reasons
for it beyond sheer favoritism.  The events were apparently fairly
well known ("so naturally the whole school knows"), so Dumbledore was
probably trying to show the school the qualities that would get them
ahead in school and in life.  Keeping a cool head under fire, being
willing to sacrifice one's self for one's friends and a cause,
standing up for what's right even when it's not the easy or safe thing
to do, standing up to your friends when you think what they're doing
is wrong.  These aren't easy qualities to learn, but they ARE
extremely commendable, and more importantly, extremely IMPORTANT in a
world where Voldemort has returned!  These children will be right in
the middle of the next Voldemort War, and they will need these
qualities just to *survive*.  Dumbledore chose to make a bigger deal
out of it than simply awarding points immediately after it happened,
as if they'd just gotten a tough answer in class or won a Quidditch
match, because these qualities ARE a big deal, they ARE hard to learn,
and they ARE vastly important.  Making that a centerpoint of the Feast
is hardly deplorable.



Andrea