Disappointment and Responsibility (was Re: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables)

[lanval1015]

No: HPFGUIDX 174922



> 
> lupinlore:
> > With regard to Sirius statement that the world is not divided 
into
> > good people and Death Eaters, here the issue is even more 
complex.
> > I understand and acknowledge that, even taking that statement at
> > face value, there are problems with the way that JKR plays the
> > theme out in the text, or fails to play it out as the case may 
be.
> > I reiterate, I do not see JKR as having no responsbility in this
> > matter.
> > 
> > However, it seems to me in this example that some people were
> > wanting her to have said something very different than what, in
> > fact, was literally put down in the text.  That is, they were
> > wanting Sirius to have said "The world is not divided into people
> > who are nice to you and people who hate you and mean you ill."
> > They wanted this to play out particularly, to use loaded 
examples,
> > with the Slytherins, particularly Snape and Draco.  
> > They wanted,
> > it seems, Snape to not REALLY hate and bear ill-will toward Harry
> > -- his cruelty was to have been an act, or a legitimate teaching
> > method designed to teach Harry what he had to know, or an 
artifact
> > of Harry's skewed perceptions.  Draco's attitude likewise was to
> > have been a result of petty, not-serious childhood rivalry and/or
> > Harry's prejudice.  Draco was to have been revealed to have been
> > a boy much like Harry who really just wanted to be friends.
> > Well, the trouble is that ISN'T what JKR said.  Sirius DIDN'T say
> > "The world isn't divided into people who are nice to you and 
people
> > who hate you and bear you ill will."  Regardless of the merits of
> > such a message, that just isn't what's there. Snape DID hate 
Harry
> > and bear him ill-will, if not always in the way Harry believed 
(but
> > usually in the way Harry believed).  Draco DID hate Harry and 
bear
> > him ill-will, almost exactly in the way Harry believed.  In this
> > regard, to say something controversial, JKR might be justified in
> > answering the charge, "You lied to us!" with a rejoinder "Errr, 
no.
> > You lied to yourself."
>  

> lizzyben:
> But we *can*, in JKR's world, neatly divide people into 
> the "good people" and the "Death Eater"/bad people based soley on 
> what House they belong to. We can even neatly divide the 
> saved & the damned w/the same label. So easy. So wrong. This goes 
> totally against Sirius' statement, and the sorting hat's pleas. I 
> don't believe readers were lying to themselves to think that maybe 
> humanity could not be neatly sorted as good or bad based on what 
> tribe they're in - this was what Sirius had said. But it's not, 
> ultimately, what the books said.
> 
> 

Lanval:
Am I the only one who read Sirius's statement as meaning nothing 
more than: there are bad, cruel people in this world who aren't 
Death Eaters, or are in any way associated with Voldemort? As in, 
all DE's are bad, but not every bad person is a DE? 

I don't have the book in front of me, but I seem to remember that 
Harry and Sirius were discussing Umbrigde in this scene, and Harry 
voiced some concern over Umbridge perhaps being an ally to LV, 
because of his scar hurting. The way I remember it, it had nothing 
at all to do with Slytherin or the House System either.

I may be thinking of the wrong scene, of course.

However, as to the statement itself, I *never* read it as a call for 
Harry to open up his mind and see beneath the surface of people, or 
look for the good in Slytherin House, or rethink the Hogwarts 
Sorting System (please, this is Sirius. I love him dearly, but he 
strikes me as a rather unlikely Ambassador of Tolerance.)