Harry and Snape's Salvation/Danger in Designating the Other

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 174051

> > Magpie:
> > Again, not exactly a sophisticated examination of compassion at 
all. 
> > It's a perfectly good development in the story, but no, I don't 
read 
> > this section and think it's a great lesson in compassion. 
Kreacher's 
> > psychology sounds a bit more canine than the average human to me.
> 
> Carol again:
> I think maybe you don't like the whole idea of house-elves wanting 
to
> serve human beings. You probably hated that line about wanting to 
ask
> Kreacher for a sandwich at the end! 

Magpie:
It's true it seems weird to me to have Harry as a slave-owner. But in 
this case I just mean I don't think it's a particularly meaningful 
message about compassion--although I agree that kindness is a good 
way of dealing with people in general. I thought Dumbledore's speech 
in OotP was incredibly condescending to Kreacher but of course it 
turned out he was right--he may look like sentient being, but it 
really does just come down to being nice to him and all his supposed 
beliefs and loyalties go up in smoke. As a House-Elf, he's just what 
wizards have made him--wizard supremacy in this case is real. 

Carol:
I was a bit surprised by it, but
> what I meant by Hermione understanding the psychology of house-elves
> is that (as I read it) something in their natures makes them want to
> serve wizards. Not that they're inferior in loyalty or courage or
> intelligence or magical ability, just that it's their nature.

Magpie:
They're a lot simpler than humans if this is their psychology. By 
which I don't mean wanting to serve--I used to think that Kreacher 
was a far more interesting character, like a human with a certain 
personality who was proud to be a servant. He's really not like a 
human, or at least the kind of human I thought he was. Would Mrs. 
Danvers have switched loyalties to the second Mrs. DeWinter if she'd 
given her one of Rebecca's old gowns? I don't think so. 

Carol: 
> Also, Harry has to understand not only to be kind to Kreacher (which
> is not enough initself to transfer his allegiance) but to respect 
and
> honor Kreacher's devotion to Master Regulus. Giving him the locket
> acknowledges that it's okay for Kreacher to love and honor the
> Slytherin turned Death Eater who turned against Voldemort and died 
to
> avenge Kreacher by subverting Voldemort. 

Magpie:
I am glad that there was the Regulus respect there. But Master 
Regulus was "one of us" by that point. Of course it's okay for 
Kreacher to love and honor somebody who's fulfilled all the criteria 
for love and honor Harry himself holds. 

Carol: 
> At any rate, it may not be the attitude that you want Harry to adopt
> toward house-elves, but surely giving a dog a clean kennel and
> treating it with kindness is better than letting it live in filth 
and
> treating it with contempt? 

Magpie:
Of course it's a good thng to do, but I believe (iirc) that I brought 
it up to say basically that giving a dog a clean kennel and treating 
it with kindness rather than letting it live in filth and treating it 
with contempt wasn't exactly an example of exceptional and Christ-
like compassion to humans. I mean, it's great Harry doesn't treat 
Kreacher as Lucius Malfoy treats Dobby--but I would assume anyone 
reading the book would do the same. 

> Carol:
> Sorry about that. My own complex sentence structure, wanting to 
bring
> in the people to whom I think he's shown compassion or empathy,
> tripped me up. What I meant to say is that I don't think ist's his
> compassion per se that makes him a Christ fiugre if he is one. It's
> his willingness to sacrifice himself for the WW. 

Magpie:
There I agree. I think that's Harry's thing, and what JKR is focusing 
on. It seems to go along with the way death is dealt with in the 
series. Personally, I think Harry (of the "saving people thing") 
would have done that in PS/SS as readily as he does in DH. Compassion 
that he shows for people like Neville and Luna can come into it in 
the way I think Harry usually sees the battle with regard to them, 
but I don't think Harry's compassion for either is too exceptional in 
itself. He is, I think, very committed to ridding the world of 
Voldemort even if it means his own death. He does have some moments 
in the series where he improves in the area of compassion, but not to 
the point where he becomes particularly exceptional to me. Not 
because I'm the great bastion of compassion, but because even with 
the average amount I have I'm always far beyond Harry.

This could make Harry even more compelling of course, watching 
someone not naturally that compassionate have to learn it, but 
because of the way its done I never feel him having to struggle for 
him at all. To the point where it doesn't seem like what I would 
consider a real lesson in compassion isn't JKR's real point in what 
she's saying. It always stays within a comfort zone.

colebiancardi:

well - Phineas Nigellus is of a different era - it wasn't like he was
headmaster within recent memory.

What was commonplace to use to describe *people* back then are slurs
today. Just look at a few decades ago - The US had a border program
where it caught illegal Mexicans and sent them back to Mexico in the
1950's - I won't mention the name, but you can google it to find out
what they called it. Operation W......(you can fill it in). Today,
no one unless they are racist, would call Mexicans that. But in the
1950's, it was perfectly acceptable.

Magpie:
I don't feel like I can really write that into Phineas' words there. 
First, he's a Slytherin again associated with the word. The word 
seems like it was always derogatory, given the word "mud" in it. I 
don't get the sense it's like Phineas saying "colored." We're not 
hearing it from any other portrait.

-m (who respects parenthetical asides!)