Danger in designating an "Other" / Bad magic

[montavilla47]

No: HPFGUIDX 174219

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at ...> wrote:
>
> Montavilla47 wrote:
> > The problem is not what JKR says, but what comes through in the
> books.  The message regarding Slytherins in DH is that they 

<snipping examples of what they do and do not>

> Carol responds:
> I think we need to consider why that might be the case. 
<snipping examples of why those dos and don't make perfect
sense.>

Montavilla47 (in reply):

Carol, I agree with you that the motivations and actions of the 
Slytherins make sense, given their position as children of Death
Eaters (although JKR has said that they are not all children of 
Death Eaters), that they their esteemed teacher is the Headmaster
of the School, and that they were never invited into the D.A. in 
the first place.

I wasn't pointing out those things in order to in order to say that
the Slytherins should have done differently than they did.  I pointed
them out to show that these actions are indications to the reader
that the Slytherins don't belong on the side of the good guys.

That moment when the three other houses rise up to defend Harry
is thrilling.  But it only works if the Pansy's threat is meaningful.

Yes, I think JKR does give the Malfoys points for not fighting
on Voldemort's side.  Then she cuts those points in half by 
making it all about finding their son.  So, what we are left with
is compassion for them because they are a family that loves each 
other, tempered with contempt because they still never really did
anything that wasn't based on their most immediate and selfish 
needs.

I think she also gives Draco points for not betraying Hermione
and Harry when they are in Malfoy Manor--not that it helps them
one little bit.  But she cuts those points in half--at least--when
she has Draco coming back with Crabbe and Goyle to capture
Harry for Voldemort--the very thing that Pansy Parkinson 
suggested, and the reason that McGonagall cast the Slytherin
students into exile.

Of course, being primed by two years of analyzing Snape's 
moves, I can read into Draco's actions that he's trying to help 
Harry by keeping Crabbe from killing him outright.  But it's
very ambiguous, and I can't help feeling that I'm fanwanking 
that interpretation.

The message I draw from all this is that the Malfoys, 
and the rest of the Slytherins, contemptible as they
are, aren't quite evil enough to bother to kill.



> Montevilla:
> > It wouldn't have taken much to show Slytherin "playing a part."  For
> example, we could have  had a Slytherin Flag in the RoR.
> 
> Carol:
> Can someone point me to the page where this description occurs? I
> could be mistaken as I haven't yet memorized the book <g>, but, IIRC,
> the RoR is replicating the DA headquarters, and no Slytherins were
> admitted to the DA, so of course it would contain no Slytherin flag.

Montavilla47:
I've only read this part twice, but my understanding was that the RoR
was acting as a refuge for any student fighting against the horror that
was the Carrows, the Ministry, and the Death Eaters.

That they are fighting more than the Headmaster is shown by Neville's
tale of Luna being dragged off the train to be used as hostage and
the Death Eaters going after Neville's grandmother.  

If there *are* non-Death Eating Slytherin children and their parents
are being targeted, then shouldn't at least one or two of them be
helping out this D.A., even if they weren't in it the first time?  Don't
they have a stake in the outcome of this conflict?

If they aren't--if they don't, then the implication is that they are 
all on Voldemort's side.  

> Carol:
>As for Theo, at least he didn't become a
> Death Eater like his father as Draco did or fight to avenge his arrest
> (and death?). I'd say there's hope for his redemption or rather his
> future since he doesn't appear to have committed any crimes.

Montavilla47:
I agree.  There's hope for Theo.  I think there's hope for all of
them.  But, at the end of the battle, all it is is hope.  A glimmer.
A *chance* that not all Slytherins are Voldemort's lackies.

> Carol:
> But to generalize from Slytherins sitting out the battle to Slytherin
> = evil seems a big jump to me. Sure, the students from other Houses
> turn on Pansy Parkinson, but unlike her, they see Harry (rightly) as
> the WW's only hope. We can't expect Pansy, who has always seen Harry
> as someone to laugh at, along with his "Mudblood" and "blood traitor"
> friends, to suddenly change her view of Harry. And we didn't see the
> rest of the Slytherin table cheering her or melodramatically crying
> "Seize him!"

Montavilla47:
I'm not saying that Slytherins are evil.  I'm saying that we are not given
any--even the smallest, meanest crumb of a clue that they aren't.  No,
we don't see her table cheer her on.  We don't see the Slytherins react
at all.  So, we can interpret that to mean that maybe they aren't in 
agreement with her--but if any were in disagreement, the time to 
say so would be immediately afterwards, when 3/4s of the school have
voted.  That no one does so is a lost opportunity to suggest a glimmer
of non-Voldemortness in the Slytherins.

Carol:
> This scene occurs *130 pages* before Harry publicly vindicates Snape,
>  who has been killed three hours before according to LV. Until Harry
> makes that speech, the students from the other three Houses thought
> their erstwhile headmaster was a murderer and a Death Eater and that
> his House was the Death Eater's House. Harry's speech is undoubtedly a
> wake-up call for students, staff members, and ordinary citizens who
> three hours before thought there was no such thing as a good Slytherin.

Montavilla47:
Exactly.  That's the wake-up call for everyone.  I believe that's why JKR 
keeps out any hint that the Slytherin students harbor anything but support
for Voldemort and his evil ways.  To give us a "good" Slytherin before
that moment would take away from the shock of learning that Snape was.

It makes that moment more effective.  It makes Narcissa's moment more
effective.  But it does so at the cost of tying up the set-up for House Unity.
It mitigates the idea of Slytherin having intrinsic value to the community.

Which is something I seem to remember JKR saying years ago when 
asked about Slytherin.  That they were nasty people, but you can't just
get rid of people because they're nasty, can you?

I hate how bitter this all sounds, because I don't really feel bitter.  Maybe
I invested too much in characters like Draco.  Maybe I invested too much
in the idea that, because the Hat said the Houses needed to unite, that 
there was something intrinsically valuable and necessary in Slytherin
House.  That the battle couldn't be fought without all the Houses.

But that's what JKR does, doesn't she?  She draws these characters that
we fall in love with, think about, dream about.  They're so vivid that 
they seem real.  Then, she turns them on us--killing off minor characters
and breaking our hearts.

Montavilla47