JKR's Messages (was Re: Hermione In Trouble?)

[cubfanbudwoman]

No: HPFGUIDX 120990


Neri:
> ******************
> Year 4, November:
> 
> Harry's ears were ringing. The injustice of it made him want to 
> curse Snape into a thousand slimy pieces. <snip> Harry sat there 
> staring at Snape as the lesson began, picturing horrific things 
> happening to him... If only he knew how to do the Cruciatus 
> Curse...  he'd have Snape flat on his back like that spider, 
> jerking and twitching...
> ******************
> 
> OK, we know that righteous anger is not enough to make the 
> Cruciatus work, so forget about the Cruciatus for a moment. Just 
> give Harry here a baseball bat, and assume he doesn't have to fear 
> retribution from Snape or anyone else. What would Harry do? Is 
> this Harry's heart that wants to hurt Snape? Is this 
> anger "innate" also? And does Harry have no choice but to follow 
> it?    

SSSusan:
An excellent example to bring in, Neri.  Straight from canon, 
Harry's NOT some little saint who never has "bad" thoughts or is 
never tempted to act out of anger.


SSSusan:
> > So the question is *did* they choose this system?  Or is that 
> > what's innate [an inner light?]?
 
Neri:
> By that "or" you seem to be saying that "innate/inner" means no
> choice. So are the trio actually robots? I'll have to disagree. 
> I've known them closely for several years now and I'm sure they are
> persons, so I have no doubt they chose the system. 

SSSusan:
No, I don't think "innate/inner" means no choice.  Not at all.  I 
think, as I believe Pippin spoke about a day or two 
ago, "innate/inner" means a tendency is present; it doesn't mean 
automatic anything.  It has to be developed and built up to be 
maintained or advanced, and it can be "overridden," but I do believe 
it speaks to a tendency, a starting point as it were.  

As for your other point, "or" was a poor way to start off the 
sentence, because it DID imply that I was thinking only of all-or-
nothing, choice or a total given.  In my mind, truth be told, I was 
back to JKR's comment when I wrote that, wondering in what sense she 
was using the term "innate." 


Neri:
> Excuse me, but who is this JKR and why do you give so much weight 
> to that "innate goodness" expression of her?

SSSusan:
Hee.  I'm not saying I'm giving her so much weight, but I do admit 
to having difficulty getting her out of my mind.  I'm saying she's 
the one who made the statement that got this thread started and so 
she's the place I was returning to.  

But seriously.  IIUC, you're saying you prefer to just ignore JKR's 
words, is that correct?  And to just look yourself at these 
characters you've gotten to know so well, to make the judgment for 
yourself?  Or maybe you're just saying you're choosing to 
define "innate goodness" in a way which is consistent with how 
you've seen these characters behave.


Neri:
> A "reader"? A "character"? A "story"?? Oh, you mean this is all 
> just fiction??? Well, in this case it's obvious that Percy is not 
> as innately good as the trio. Why d'you think they are the heroes 
> and he's just a secondary character?

SSSusan:
You may mean this just to be rather a smart-ass remark [so hard to 
read tone in e-format, you know], but I think it's part of what's 
bugging me about this thread as well as the one about "double 
standards."  When all is said and done, it's a pretty simple premise 
for a story we have here.  

There's this kid, and he's Really Good.  And he's the WW's only hope 
against this Evil guy, Lordy Voldythingy.

I mean, JKR has made it brilliantly complex in many ways, but did 
she really think, in advance, about all the myriad of ways people 
were going to analyze her Potterverse?  And about all these people 
with Ph.D.s in all sorts of disciplines [or just lots of life 
experience] stepping in to critique her "system"?  Maybe it's *not* 
perfect.  Maybe there are "deficiencies" or inconsistencies.  Maybe 
she speaks off the top of her head sometimes.  Maybe that's why (I 
think) you're arguing that we should ignore this JKR person who 
called the trio "innately good" and just decide for ourselves what 
we think?

Have I finally got *that* much right, Neri?

Siriusly Snapey Susan, feeling quite deficient indeed at the moment.