House Cup Points WAs Re: First potions lesson/Harry getting special treatment

[M.Clifford]

No: HPFGUIDX 145959


> Chris:
> I do.  It was extremely unfair. DD awarded points and
> knowingly admitted that the trio were out of bounds
> and breaking the rules.  This would send a terrible
> message to the other houses that they could break the
> rules.  

Valky:
Wooh, Chris, you make a strong argument here, it's very impressive. I
have a few remarks to make in response though. To the above, I have to
agree, the trio were out of bed against the rules of the school, but I
disagree that it is such a terrible message to the other students.
After all the conditions of getting these points for rule breaking
were that the rulebreakers also take on a set of seven deadly
protections set by fully fledged adult wizards and then confront the
most evil and dangerous wizard known to the world to top it off. Not
everyone is going to see any value in this trade off are they. <g>

 

> Chris:
> First the cloak, although technically legal in
> Hogwarts, was in bad taste.

Valky:
I don't think Dumbledore really had a choice in this matter. The Cloak
belonged to Harry as inheritance from his father, it wouldn't have
been right to keep it. Additionally, Dumbledore knew that Harry was in
danger from the moment he set foot out of his Aunt's home, not all
kids live in that much danger day to day either, and the cloak can
protect Harry. It's fair and right to give Harry his own possession
especially if denying it from him could mean denying him protection
that he most sincerely needs.

 


Chris:
>  DD told Harry after the
> mirror incident that he should not be wandering out
> during off hours (I don't have the book in front of
> me).  Any other student would have been punished (like
> Draco later in the book) and any other teacher would
> have done the punishing. 

Valky:
Any other teacher would, yes. But would Dumbledore to any other
student? In COS we clearly see Tom Riddle spoken to kindly and sent to
bed by Dumbledore when he is out of bounds. And lets not forget
Dumbledore's merciful attitude to Draco standing over him with a wand
pointed at his heart. I don't think DD was being unfair by going easy
on Harry, he was just being himself.



> Chris:
> Second, Filch, Snape and Quirell ran to the library to
> find the student out of bed and I received the
> impression that it was extremely urgent, more urgent
> then the loyalties of Quirell. (I may be mixing up the
> movie here).

Valky:
Yep, you are. The conversation with Quirrel takes place in the forest
in the book. 


> Chris:
> Third, we don't know if Hagrid told DD that the trio
> knew of Fluffy or that they knew how to pass him.  We
> also do not know if Hagrid told DD that an unknown
> person knew of how to pass Fluffy.  If Hagrid kept
> this to himself, he was extremely irresponsible. If he
> did tell DD any of it, DD then allowed the events to
> take place by not changing the traps.  These things
> are known as negligence in our world and are
> prosicutable the same as the crime that was committed.

Valky:
A well made point. I doubt Hagrid did tell anyone of his slips of the
tongue, and that was clearly irresponsible of him. But then the twist
in the story is that Dumbledore knew Voldemorts will, he wouldn't have
blamed Hagrid and really couldn't have. I don't think Dumbledore was
underestimating Voldemort by leaving the responsibility in the hands
of Hagrid, he took the ultimate responsibility on himself because his
protection was the mirror. 

Chris:
> The trio did not defeat LV, and neither did Harry, he
> just expelled a demon.  Also, the reasons DD gave for
> awarding the points was pathetic: 'Cool use of
> intellect', 'the best game of chess Hogwarts has ever
> seen', 'Pure Love'.  I question I ask is who saw all
> these to know?

Valky:
Good question. My guess is that Hogwarts saw it and Dumbledore read
the signs or asked the silent observers (portraits, ghosts etc) By the
way, it was "pure nerve and outstanding courage." not pure love. 

> 
> Personally, Ravenclaw should have been up in arms over
> the intellect points, any chess player and the chess
> club should have been up in arms over the chess points
> and the whole school should have regected the pure
> love points.  I saw awarding Harry the points for pure
> love as a telling the rest of the school they are not
> worthy of that kind of love.  

Valky:
I think the reason that the other houses weren't up in arms about it
was that thet were already up in arms about Slytherin winning *again*.


Chris:
> There is a fanfic out there that deals with Snape's
> view of this matter (and it sucks that I lost it too).
>  Basically, Snape laments that he had been working to
> wean the Sliths away from their parents dark pasts
> slowly over 7 years.  In that one move, DD practically
> handed all 7 years of Sliths over to LV on a silver
> platter, and I think with the story being handed down
> several more generations were lost.  He basically told
> DD that by favoring Harry, DD was creating LV's army.

Valky:
Oh, this is going to get rotten tomatoes I am sure, but I think that
fanfic writer has entirely missed the point. The Slytherin house was
already well on their way to becoming something less that they should
be in PS/SS and Snape was definitely *not* helping them realise their
positive potential. He was handing out and taking away house points
all year under his own set of nepotistic rules, which clearly
delineates him from being their most ardent moral adviser. 



> Chris:
> How could Sliths expect to be treated with anything as
> good as indifference after that stunt.  DD told almost
> 100 Sliths and about 200 others that no matter how
> good they are or how hard they work, 

Valky:
The Slytherins didn't work hard for their win that year though, so how
could this at all apply to them?



Chris:
> He all but says that standing up for what is right is
> good, but not nearly as good as breaking the rules and
> putting lives in danger aka "It's ok as long as the
> world is saved".

Valky:
Din' you agree with that? :) The trio put their own lives in danger, a
totally self sacrificing act, and they did it to save others. The way
I see it DD is saying there is standing up for what is right, and then
there is *standing up for what is right!*.




> Chris:
> LV's world in which Sliths are in charge and see as
> respectable, if only from themselves, looks awefully
> good.  

Valky:
Does it? You know the Slytherin code is to be resourceful and cunning
for your chosen ends. By that code *anything* is respectable as long
as it gets you what you want. This a large part of how they won the
house cup that year, they did anything and everything within their
power for extra points, no holds barred on rule-breaking, scheming or
hurting others, as long as you kept your sights on the goal of getting
points and making others lose them. 

Now before the smelly fruit gets hurled, I do believe in the good
Slytherin, I do I do :). But I can't say I agree with the notion that
a world run on the Slytherin principles would be better than
Dumbeldore's way. 


Valky
*shivers*