Unfinished Business (was: did Lupin kill Sirius)

[arrowsmithbt]

No: HPFGUIDX 83139

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" <nrenka at y...> wrote:
>
Much snipping
 Nora:
> Well, call myself unadventurous, then, but I prefer a stable and 
> justified hermeneutic exegesis to wild speculation, however amusing 
> it may be.  I also get the gratification of not having to completely 
> and utterly junk my thoughts every time the canon changes.  I don't 
> think there are enough facts to make good statements about a number 
> of things, and the Prank is sure one of them.
>

Kneasy:
I thought we were into hermeneutic exegesis. Exposition of theory, or 
theoretical exposition, no? If you wait  until the canon is complete, 
theorising is no longer possible.  Only facts will remain. Or perhaps 
my vocabulary is not up to date with modern usage.  Mind you, 
alluding that JKR is Gospel is going a touch too  far IMO.

Ah, the joys of changing your mind. Better than a massage, sometimes.
Having an alter ego (Kneasy), I find it very easy to change  my mind. 
I certainly changed it on reading the last book, didn't you? No previous
theories or readings that needed modification in the light of fresh
information?

>Nora: 
> No, but my point has been missed.  Cynics are just as bad as 
> Polyannas; they're simply the negative face.  They're deluding 
> themselves into thinking that everything is *wrong* with the world 
> and people, rather than right.  All people may have some degree of 
> self-delusion, but there's a flaw with degrees and nuance, which 
> demands a nuanced response.  It's like the statement "All politicians 
> are corrupt."  It's not only cynical but quite simply wrong, and 
> easily provable as such.

Kneasy:
You seem entirely negative about cynics and cynicism. 
Almost...hmmm...cynical by your own definitions.

 
>Nora: 
> First of all, cynics can be intense and focused; frankly, they're so 
> focused on their cynicism that they only see through that lens, under 
> the delusion that that's seeing clearly.  And this may come as a 
> surprise to you, but it took Kant's complete rethinking of ontology 
> and epistemology to get out of Hume's skepticism that doomed the 
> possiblity of empirical knowledge.  So, quite well, I'd say.
> 

Kneasy:
Hope the List Elves are looking the other way. Be back on topic in a
minute, honest.
Kant stood up quite well for a hundred years. Then niggles started.
By the time Bochvar, von Neumann, Birkoff and all the other new 
logics had been considered, Kant's idea that "logic admits to no
further alteration." was heading for the dustbin marked 'Seemed like
a good idea at the time." The logics of Quanta are liable to be the 
final straw that reduce him to historical footnote status. I consider
his application to the study of Harry Potter largely irrelevant. I'd be
delighted to utilise multi-logic systems in the interpretation of the
characters, but unfortunately my maths isn't up to  it.


> > Kneasy previously:
> > It was quite a common opening gambit in Grammar Schools 
> > in the UK, certainly in the 50s when I attended one. Students 
> > (and society) were so much less fragile then.... 
> > Hogwarts would be entirely recognisable to those of  my 
> > generation in its organisation, teachers, teaching systems, 
> > modes of address and school ethic, including division into 
> > four Houses. 


Nora: 
> Understood; doesn't make it at all any less loathsome.
> 

Kneasy:
Oh, it wasn't loathsome. Uncomfortable sometimes. But a Snape-like
teacher was a standard fixture in most schools. At that time teachers
weren't employed to be  nice. Their job was to make sure the students
learned what they were teaching. They were effective, too. Any 'nice'
teacher was immediately considered to be untrustworthy by the pupils.
The boys then saw it as their function to bait him until he showed his
true colours. Hey Presto! Another Snape. We salivated when informed
that student teachers were coming for a term. Fresh meat! Fun and
games, boys! Put him through the mill. Educationalists today would 
be horrified. Schooling was mostly a form of trench warfare  between 
staff and pupils with occasional cease-fires. Why else is there a plethora 
of books published between 1900 and 60s, set in Boy's Schools and 
depicting the battles with such humorous relish? From Stalky & Co,
through  Bob Cherry, Jennings and culminating in the magnificent
Molesworth.

Consider the teaching methodologies at Hogwarts:

McGonagall - brisk, fairly strict diciplinarian, does not allow 
interruptions or distractions. First class teacher.

Sprout - practicals only, so discipline looser, cajoling type.
Mediocre teacher.

Flitwick - goes for paternalistic encouragement, but note that
the pupils know he was a duelling champion. That would impress.
Fair teacher.

Trelawney - uses mysticism to hide her inadequacies. Fails when
students start probing her facade. Poor teacher.

Binns - dead loss. Uses boredom as a terror tactic. Poor teacher.

Hagrid - enthusiasm personified. But unable to communicate well.
Only physical presence keeps many of the students in line.
Poor teacher.

Lupin - communicates and engages well.Keeps 'em interested.
Good teacher.

Lockhart -  blowhard. Ego gets in the way of him realising that
he is useless as a teacher.

Crouch!Moody - impressive (to students) teaching methods. Aura
as Auror also impresses. Viewed as a master of his subject.
Pity he was a fraud, he'd be an outstanding teacher.

Quirrell - reputation as weak and ineffectual, nervous wreck.
Not apparently up to the job, even without the burden of Voldy. 

Snape - master of his subject, diciplinarian, expects perfection. 
Treats students as he would adults.

So we are presented  with an entire spectrum of teaching personalities
and associated teaching strategies, from ineffectual to perfectionist.
Some are there as wallpaper to the plot, but there are those that are
plot drivers and those that are plot driven (either initiate action threads
or respond to action threads).

Snape has been both. Antagonist and protagonist.Much tension has 
been generated by casting him as the obstructive  bane of the students. 
Much, much more than if he were, say, cast as a Lupin type teacher. 

The plot needs a Snape, otherwise it might as well be Nancy Drew, not
Harry Potter. 

I repeat, satisfying baddies are hard to find; and sometimes they turn out
not to be so bad after all.

Kneasy