Harry / Inquisitorial Squad / HH-GG-RR-SS/

[nrenka]

No: HPFGUIDX 121579


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)" 
<catlady at w...> wrote:

*combined answers*

> Nora wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/121431 :

<< have you noticed how the opportunistic and self-interested seem to
be at the very, very bottom of the moral slagheap in JKR's world? >>

> Voldemort is that bottom, and you have argued that Voldemort is
> sincere.

Ummm, yes?  I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by this 
comment.  I was thinking of Voldemort as the epitome of self-
interest, Peter as another model of self-preservation, and the 
Slytherin claque as being on their way there.  They care for their 
own power and ability to dominate the other students more than for 
the school as a whole or treating other people decently.

> Nora wrote in 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/121431 :
> 
> << That subplot, IMO, really torpedoed the idea (prevalent in fanfic
> and other outre realms) that the Slytherins were oh-so-deeply loyal 
> to Snape. >>
> 
> Not unless there is an example of the Inquisitorial Squad tattling 
> on Snape to Umbridge -- I don't recall there being one. While I 
> *suppose* that canon!Draco is loyal only to his parents, and canon 
> Draco's clique are loyal only to Draco, canon has not *shown* us 
> that they didn't think they were helping Snape, that Umbridge would 
> give him a very high evaluation for having such useful students in 
> his House. 

I was arguing more on the lines that I think it's generally fairly 
easy for students to pick up on how their teachers think of 
administrators, and that Snape is not exactly covert in his scorn and 
dismissal of Umbridge.  This scorn may come through most clearly post-
formation of the Inquisitorial Squad, but I do think it matters that 
that Slytherin claque is willing to be the toadies of Umbridge even 
when their Head of House is not a fan of her.

> << JKR has told us (per interview, natch) that the DEs go back 
> aways, as the "Knights of Walpurgis" >>
> 
> But her interview DID NOT say that the Knights of Walpurgis were
> devoted to racism before Voldemort got a hold of them. Probably they
> were, but for all WE know they were scholarly researchers into
> immortality. 

She didn't, but the way it is phrased, and the comments she has made 
about the Death Eaters and their philosophies seems to incline more 
towards the "There has always been an anti-Muggleborn pro-purity of 
blood faction in the WW, in some way/shape/form".  Given the German 
name, is this our hidden connection to the ever-enigmatic and utterly 
unknown figure of Grindelwald, another Dark wizard?  Whatever they 
were, it was, ummm, likely not benign, especially with those 
connotations of militarism.

I'd bet on them being more like that rather than the 
researchers/Gnostics/whatever that I have seen them argued for as.  
That is a possibility, given Voldemort's desire for immortality, and 
I can't rule out that what we have is a Voldemort-driven corruption 
of an organization.  Against that is the presentation of how deep and 
long-running ideas of blood purity are in the WW.  I still think it's 
one of The Big Issues, as the plot of an entire book revolves around 
it--we're just not quite sure how to read it yet.

-Nora notes that's not even to mention that the title of the next 
book has some reference to it, to boot