Special treatment - yes or no/Rules

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 146021

> Chewie now:
>   Do you not think that if the points in the end of term feast, 
> awarded to the Gryfs., were given out prior to the end of term 
that some teacher *caugh- SNAPE -caugh* would have found a way to 
take them away again? 

Magpie:

No, I don't, because he would not have had a chance to do that and 
the other teachers would have hardly allowed a jillion points taken 
away from Gryffindor right after Dumbledore's big award go by 
unchallenged.  Give the other teachers and Dumbledore a little 
credit!  I still think DD's motivation is surprising Harry and 
little else. 

> Chewie now:
It has nothing to do with the 
> points being awarded fairly throughout the year or not.  They may 
> have been, or may not.  It does not matter.

Magpie:

There I agree--that was my point.  

Valky:
:) The banners show that their win was anticipated to be announced 
and made official, or else why was DD entitled to give points prior 
to the announcement. And by the same token as you said, Gryffindors 
win was fair because *they* won, was it not?

Magpie:

Yes, I did not ever suggest that the Gryffindors winning was not 
fair.  Point taking and giving is completely arbitrary and the 
reasons given for their points at the end certainly qualify.  I (and 
others) have said that allowing the hall to be decorated in 
Slytherin banners so that they could be taken down and replaced was 
a dramatic move to give a surprise to Harry unnecessarily singled 
out Slytherin and would undoubtedly have annoyed all the kids in 
that house. I think Dumbledore just wanted to make his points a 
surprise which involved a big PSYCH to Slytherin.

Valky:
I am not sure how to answer that. I don't understand what authority
you have that on, Magpie. There *is* a subplot of Slytherins playing
unfairly in the House cup challenge.

Magpie:
It is canon that Snape takes points away from Gryffindor for petty 
things sometimes and that we never see him take away points (or give 
points, that I remember) to his own house.  It's also canon that in 
later years Slytherin is able to lose the cup despite Dumbledore not 
adding points at the last minute without Snape changing. 

The Draco examples you give are all Draco trying to get Harry in 
trouble, but they don't count as cheating in the contest (especially 
the ones that involve no points one way or the other).  Draco may 
have told on Harry and tempted him to break the rules so he'd get 
caught but Harry's points lost for being out of bed are perfectly 
fair if he is out of bed.  A lot of people hated Richard Hatch who 
won the first Survivor for the way he played, but he wasn't 
cheating.  

And I'm sure every single student mutters about how students in 
other houses don't get points taken away as much as their house 
does. Gryffindor always sees itself as the most virtuous and the 
most victimized by unfair calls.  That's not an objective 
observation.

Valky:
All said, Draco did set out that night with the full intention to 
earn Slytherin a lead in the House cup by being a rotten little 
snitch, right? And he managed it. He could have chosen to do 
something great instead, and if he had done then I'd be with you 
that Slytherin should have retained their win.

Magpie:

Whether Draco was primarily interested in points or not what he did 
still isn't cheating.  Pointing out somebody else breaking the rules 
is perfectly within the rules of the contest.  You've made it clear 
that you think his actions mean the Gryffindors *deserve* to win 
more because they're better people doing better things, but I have 
never said that Slytherin should win, especially not based on their 
personal characters.  Dumbledore's gesture with the banners and 
Gryffindor winning are not dependent on each other.

Valky:
There are enough references to the difference between MacGonagall and
Snape. MacGonagall is going to give fair ones to anyone that 
impresses her and take fair points from thos who do wrong, end of 
story. Snape OTOH is going to give points as he sees fit and take 
points only from rivals. Thats how the story goes. It's pretty 
obvious that there is ill-gotten points in Slytherins Hourglass and 
undeserved points taken from Gryffindors.

Magpie:

And yet McGonagall and Snape seem to enjoy a friendly rivalry with 
each other.  If Snape is just cheating I don't think that would be 
the case.  I think they're both awarding and taking points based on 
their own values.  I also don't think we have any canon of Snape 
awarding points to Slytherins (the man loves to TAKE points).  I'm 
sure it's "pretty obvious" to many other students that there are ill-
gotten points in Gryffindor's hourglass (perhaps many due to being 
starstruck about Harry) and undeserved ones taken from their own 
glass (I'm sure Hufflepuff has thought that a lot, but that's jmo). 
Occasionally teachers have been known to give points to Harry for 
handing over a watering can as a cover for something else.  Teachers 
are allowed to give points because they think somebody's great or 
they think somebody else is a jerk.  I see no reason to believe that 
it doesn't even out in the end every time (in fact, one of the 
things that signals the return to normalcy in OotP is that the 
hourglass is more even again).  

Valky:
However, I disagree that it can be called a veiled criticism at all, 
it was more like holding up a mirror to them, allowing them, if they 
so will, to question heir own methods.

Magpie:

No, it isn't like holding up a mirror to them in the least.  
Dumbledore says, "Well done, Slytherin," in acknowledgement of the 
points they've won, and then turns to award more points to 
Gryffindor.  To hold up a mirror to them he'd probably be looking at 
them and be focused on them.  Of course Dumbledore is praising the 
actions of Harry & Co. above the everyday things that earn school 
points, but that doesn't translate into saying Slytherin is being 
shamed for things they've done during the book.  If Ravenclaw won I 
think DD would have done exactly the same thing and used the exact 
same words, "Yes, well done, Ravenclaw, but there are some more 
points to tally up..."  The Slytherins have been brushed aside 
(which is humiliating), not held up for criticism.  The spotlight is 
not on them at all, imo.

Steve:

To many people (though perhaps not you) argue that
Harry is always getting away with things that they think other 
student would never get away with. They tend to be 'moral 
absolutests'. They tend to take a very 'Percy' view of the rules, 
and make the assumption that rules are absolute and can never be 
broken. 

Magpie:

Actually, many people who feel Harry is always getting away with 
things are *not* moral absolutists or anything like Percy but are 
accused of such perhaps because it would make things easier if they 
were just neurotic that way.  But really many people who support the 
idea that sometimes rules should be broken still have trouble with 
rule-breaking in the books.  In order to understand the concept of 
when it's necessary to break the rules, you must respect and 
understand when rules are a good and necessary thing, and that 
concept is rarely if ever presented because not caring about rules 
at all often seems to be considered a virtue in itself.  (A 
character might, for instance, keep a genuine moral qualm to himself 
to avoid "sounding like Percy.) There's a huge grey area between the 
two extremes, and sometimes JKR falls just further to one side.

I have come to the conclusion now that perhaps the reason for this 
is that JKR sees it as important for people to always make choices 
based on what they want to do, right or wrong, and never based on 
something outside of themselves.  The DEs are all sort of childish 
in their dependence on Voldemort to tell them right and wrong. So I 
think Rowling just may see it as important as everyone to feel above 
the rules at times--by which I don't mean they should demand special 
treatment, but that her people always make choices based on what 
they want and not what someone else thinks is right.  Hermione is 
never so silly sounding as when she's saying people should do 
something just because it's a rule, and I can't remember her ever 
explaining the rule to show that she sees the point of it and 
therefore supports it, or explain school rules in themselves as 
something that are there for logical reasons.  (Wait, I'm wrong--she 
explains why she handed over the Firebolt and it's one of the only 
times her standing up for the rules is defended in canon since it 
comes down to protecting Harry.)  Even Lupin only comes to say that 
Dumbledore's rules about his behavior at school were to protect 
*him* instead of emphasizing that his breaking those rules put 
others in danger.  

-m