Jo's OWN Words/Harry using Crucio/I am about to Rant/Danger Designating the

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 174156

> Kemper now
> 
> "Bad" groups aren't described as cunning.  Manipulative or 
deceitful,
> maybe.  An honorable adversary can be described as cunning.
> Strategies can be cunning.  For sure, both Allies and Axis powers
> hoped their strategies were.  It's a human virtue.

Magpie:
I think bad groups actually have historically been described as 
cunning. (The meaning of "cute" is totally out of context in this 
instance, I think.) I think the word has a far more dodgy history 
than something like loyalty or courage. You've dismissed the 
Puritans as aribiters of Virtue, but I don't think you can just 
throw out what seems like much of the history of western thought on 
the topic, particularly when Harry himself liked to think of 
Gryffindor as chivalrous. I only mentioned Puritans because they had 
a habit of naming their children after what were already considered 
Christian virtues, so the names make up a pretty good list. Yes the 
Puritans considered all virtues by how they gloried God--but that 
doesn't completely disconnect us from them historically. There was a 
time when most Western thought did that, I would think. Nowadays we 
might have a different view, but I think the history still does 
carry some weight, especially since JKR isn't turning that history 
on its head here.

It is not that cunning is always bad--it can be used in ways that 
are positive. But I have never in my life heard it put on the same 
level as something like courage as a personal quality:

"Cunning... is but the low mimic of wisdom." (Plato)

"Cunning is the dwarf of wisdom." (William R. Alger)

"Cunning pays no regard to virtue, and is but the low mimic of 
reason." (1st Viscount Bolingbroke, Henry St. John)

"Cunning is none of the best nor worst qualities; it floats between 
virtue and vice; there is scarce any exigence where it may not, and 
perhaps ought not to be supplied by prudence." (Jean de la Bruyere) 

I'm not saying these quotes are the be all and end all of what the 
word means--it can be used as a good thing, especially in certain 
contexts. There are situations where people will be counseled to be 
cunning to succeed. But I at least also associate with the word with 
negative ideas: "a cunning criminal" is a common combination, 
and "fiendish cunning" and "low animal cunning." Low and animal, for 
me, do naturally cling to the word in certain contexts, and this is 
certainly one of them given the way the Slytherins are presented. 
That was the connection I made way back in PS/SS, and I'd be 
surprised if JKR didn't do it on purpose.

Ambition is more obviously associated with personal advancement. It 
can of course lead to success, but with that quality too there's 
also a long history of stories about the pitfalls of ambition 
(the "folly of ambition" also being a phrase that comes to mind, one 
which I think fits easily into this story).

Kemper:
> 
> As I've said, this story is in the Gryffindor perspective, with
> Gryffindor values.

Magpie:
True. So I probably didn't even need to say all that about the way 
cunning and ambition seem to me to be a little more suspect than the 
virtues of the other houses. Because regardless, this story is a 
Gryffindor story that praises Gryffindor values, which the author 
seems to readily assert she agrees with. Not Slytherin values. I 
don't see how the way things might be in a totally different story 
has much bearing on this one. If Voldemort were writing the story 
Harry would be the villain. What bearing does that have on the story 
we're discussing?

 
> Kemper now:
> How is Snape redeemed and praised for being brave?  Harry tells
> Voldemort that Voldemort's been artfully deceived by Snape's 
cunning.
> That's how I read it.  Sure, Harry talks about Snape's love (which 
no
> House claims as a virtue).  But Voldemort is more interested in
> Snape's dexterous skill and subtle planning.  It is what Harry 
seems
> to be impressed by as well.  No where does he laud Snape's courage.

Magpie:
Snape is praised for being brave by Harry saying he was brave--and 
by JKR also saying that he was brave. His love for Lily was what 
inspired him to be so. I don't see Harry at all more impressed by 
Snape's subtle planning than his bravery (the last thing he says 
about Snape was that he was brave). JKR also included Snape and 
Dumbledore talking about bravery and Snape not being a coward.  
 
> > Magpie:
> > Yes, I think it's Harry's perception, the reader's perception and
> > Dumbledore's perception. The Slytherin perception is not 
presented
> > as equally valid.
> 
> Kemper now:
> Because it's not a Slytherin story.  It's a Gryffindor's.

Magpie:
Yes. So I don't understand what changes because this is a Gryffindor 
story. The Gryffindor story is the only story. I don't think JKR 
just picked that randomly. Those are the values the story is putting 
across. 

 
> > Magpie:
> > Luna is valued for her own bravery and is associated with her
> > friends, the Gryffindors.
> 
> Kemper now:
> She is valued for her bravery by Gryffindors who value bravery and
> who's perception we see most in the books.  The first book could've
> been called SuperGryffindor and the Philospher's Stone.  Just like
> none of the books could be called EveryHouse Potter and the Deathly
> Hallows.

Magpie:
Well, yeah. If the pov of the books is to value bravery, that's the 
values the author is writing about. That shows in the story. It's 
not EveryHouse and the Deathly Hallows. It's Gryffindor House and 
Gryffindor Values. Because that's what JKR wanted to write.


> > Magpie:
> > I think it would be in [Luna's] character to admire Snape for his
> > courage, sure. But I don't think that changes things one way or 
the
> > other.
> 
> Kemper now:
> If we are assuming off canon as I did up thread, then Luna would
> admire Snape's intellect and appreciate his cunning (as the two are
> linked) over his courage.

Magpie:
I don't understand what "assuming off canon" means exactly. The fact 
that you can imagine that Luna might value Snape's cunning has no 
bearing on the story one way or the other. 


> > Magpie:
> > The opinions of none of these people are presented as correct in
> > canon, so what does it matter what they admire? Snape is 
redeemed by
> > being couragous, not for his personality and values in other 
areas.
> > The Slytherin pov is not being presented as equally valid.
> 
> Kemper now:
> It maters based on what we've seen in canon.  It is not seen that
> Snape is redeemed by his courage.  He is redeemed by his love for
> Lily.  It is what Harry tells Voldemort and the spectators in the
> Great Hall.  Nothing about Snape's valor.

Magpie:
What does it have to do with the story that you can imagine all 
these things outside the story? (And Snape is redeemed by his love 
for Lily yes, in that, imo, that's the thing that makes him do the 
stuff that Harry the Gryffindor can admire.) 

I am honestly confused at what you're getting at. Gryffindor values 
are the ones everyone is judged by because this is the Gryffindor 
story. But there is no other story. It's the only one we're talking 
about--the only one there is. The one the author wanted to write.

Beatrice:
I'm sorry, but who is exactly being condescending here?
It is my understanding that this is a discussion board and that
disagreement over one's interpretation / reading of the text is
allowed, but that respectful disagreement is key. My comment stems
from several posts in this thread where people indicated that they
wanted to see a fully redeemed Slytherin house, which yes led to me
*gasp* theorizing as to why people might have wanted this. 

Magpie:
You were, I thought, which is why I said so. But I tried to be 
specific about what exact argument felt condescending and why, and 
didn't assume you were doing it on purpose. Not because you 
disagreed with me, but because you suggested what I thought was a 
dismissive motive behind peoples' dissatisfaction. Theorizing about 
why people might have wanted this was exactly what I objected to. 
Nobody generally likes it when somebody else suggests motives for 
them, especially when it's a bit silly. Isn't that what ad hominem 
is?

Beatrice:
My comment stems
from several posts in this thread where people indicated that they
wanted to see a fully redeemed Slytherin house, which yes led to me
*gasp* theorizing as to why people might have wanted this. Perhaps,
because I think as many others indicated that this type of "fairy
tale" ending would have been difficult to swallow for many of us -
myself included. It is however unclear what specifically you are
disagreeing with my "interpretation."

Magpie:
I think the "fairy tale" ending as I assume you're using it is a 
mischaracterization of what anyone wanted--though of course, given 
the book ended with the evil wizard killed by the super magical 
wand, I'd say we got an ending that was at home in any fairy tale 
anyway.

I didn't say what I specifically disagreed with in your 
interpretation of the character because I didn't think it wasn't 
relevent and it seemed pointless to go off on a tangent on the minor 
ways we might see that one character differently, and I wasn't 
really interested in discussing the character himself.

Sistermagpie:

> The argument here just really seems to be jumping around in
> sometimes contradictary ways, so that you agree that Slytherin is
> presented in this negative way, then defend it as if the author was
> trapped into presenting it that way when really she knew it was
> something else, then say it really did contain the things people
> want but they weren't written in, but if that doesn't work maybe
> there's something wrong with you.

Beatrice: I really enjoy the someting "wrong" with me bit. 

Magpie:
There is no something wrong with you bit. I'm sorry if I was 
unclear, but it never occurred to me to say that anything was wrong 
with you. I was referring to theorizing that people were 
disappointed because they wanted something out of fanfic. Iow, I 
thought that suggested that the problem wasn't with the story, it 
was with those readers having unrealistic expectations(and I agree 
that's not a very pleasant thing to have told to you). I wasn't 
saying there was anything wrong with you, I was saying that argument 
sounded like that's what you were saying about other people (albeit 
unintentionally).

Beatrice:
As this
again seems to go against the spirit and the etiquette of this
discussion board. And my argument isn't jumping around in
contraditory ways, although admittedly, I could spend a lot more time
fleshing it all out. 

Magpie:
I hope my explanation of it makes it clear there was no insult to 
you at all intended in it. I did feel like the argument jumped 
around, which is why I had a hard time responding to it. It seemed 
like different parts of it were arguing against slightly different 
positions.

Beatrice:
I agree that the qualities / attributes of
those individual characters who are sorted into Slytherin are in many
ways the anthesis of Harry, et al within the novels. Thus we and
Harry are locked into a stereotyping that sometimes proves true and
sometimes does not. But because the narrative of the story is bound
so tightly to Harry's perspective, it isn't possible for the reader
to see much further beyond that narrative viewpoint. And as such
would it be plausible given Harry's history and perspective to
completely heal the rift between Slytherin and the other houses?

Magpie:
I don't know how completely the rift could be healed, but sure I 
think it would be plausible to have written a story where some 
healing began, even in Harry's perspective. He would be more 
challenged in it, but that wouldn't be impossible. That's not what 
JKR was writing, and she doesn't have to, but I don't think it would 
be an impossible story to write. 

Magpie:. To quote Sydney's great metaphor, it's
> not like JKR's filming a documentary here and she just doesn't have
> the footage to give the impression she wants. The impression Harry
> has of the Slytherins is all we have, and I see no reason to think
> it's so skewed I as a reader don't have an accurate picture of
> Slytherin.

Beatrice: Pardon the cliche, but you hit the nail on the head "to
give us the impression she wants." You assume two things 1. JKR's
impression is the same as Harry. You may be correct, but it is not
really in keeping with contemporary practices of Literary Theory and
exegesis. 2. maybe it is an accurate picture, after all there are
people in the world of great ambition who will do anything and
anything to achieve their ends (this is from the sorting hat's
discription in PS.). But it doesn't mean that it is the ONLY
accurate picture of Slyterin.

Magpie:
I think I agree it's not the only accurate picture of Slytherin 
possible, but it seems to be the one in the book. I don't know what 
the contemporary practice of Literary Theory and exegesis would say 
about it, but it seems like imagining this other view by definition 
suggests something extra. Something certainly worthwhile, but 
slightly different.

Beatrice:
Beatrice: You are twisting my words here. I don't find it abhorent
to give Slytherins a pov, I am suggesting that in the moment of
reading, when Parkinson shouts "there's Potter, let's hand him over
to LV" (not an exact quote as I don't have my text) we as readers
(at least I was )are appalled at her suggestion and touched at how
the other houses come to his aid. What I am pointing out here is
several people have discussed how every member of Slytherin is
characterized as "evil." I am using Pansy to illustrate this, but we
could discuss other characters also. And while one can see Pansy's
willingness to hand Harry over as an act of evil to reinforce this
notion, I simply want to suggest that there are other ways of looking
at her "choices" and even Malfoy's choices instead of seeing them as
acts of evil. 

Magpie:
I agree--but again, isn't that something that relies more on the 
reader questioning things his/herself and filling in on his/her own 
rather than anything the story is really dealing with? Not that the 
reader shouldn't question things, but there's a point where it's not 
always working with the text I guess is the easiest way to say it. 
Like the fanfic issue again.

Beatrice, who loves the discussion, but could do without the 
rudeness.

-m, who did not realize she sounded rude and hopes the 
misunderstanding was cleared up.