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

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 175120

> 
> lizzyben:
> 
> I actually thought about Kingley's statement, with a sigh, after
> finishing the novel. Because this is a clear case where the
> superficial message goes against the actual message of the novels.
> It's very clear that every life does *not* have the same worth in the
> Potterverse, and this is my main objection to the House sorting. JKR
> herself says that she hopes she would be "worthy" enough to be in
> Gryfindor, meaning that Gryfs are superior to people in other houses,
> w/Slytherins as the "unworthy."

Pippiin:
When Harry's about to be sorted, he worries that he isn't worthy of *any* 
of the Houses.  I'm not sure where this exclusivist take on Jo's words
is coming from. She could just mean that she hopes her desire to be
counted among the  brave and chivalrous would be judged sincere.

Besides, 'every life is worth saving' is hardly the same thing as
'every group is worth joining' or 'every belief is worth having.'

Lizzyben:
 Are we really asked to find something
> to value in Pansy Parkinson, Crabbe, Yaxley, etc? No. 

Pippin:
Draco was ready to be burned alive with Goyle rather than abandon him.
I'd be proud to have a friend like that, wouldn't you? We're given to
understand that he'd have done as much for Crabbe if he could. So
yeah, I think we're supposed to understand that those lives were
valuable. Draco, that little crud, the kid Harry judged was
the wrong sort and wouldn't shake hands with, was willing to lay down his
life for his friend.  That tells you something about Draco, and
something about his friends too.

But the most telling thing for me is that Voldemort didn't realize
Narcissa was lying when she told him Harry was dead. And as 
there's no canon that Narcissa  possesses Snape-ian powers of 
occlumency, one must guess that Harry's magical protection from 
Voldemort extended to her too. 

Lizzyben:
People are trying really, really hard to find an admirable Slyth, but I think
> that's going against the canon as JKR has written it. You've stated
> earlier that Slytherin is supposed to represent the "less noble" human
> qualities - envy, cunning, etc. and Lupinlore basically says that
> Slyths are the "bad guys" of society. I agree that that's the message

Pippin:
That's *a* message. I'm not sure it's *the* message. 

I think Jo gave us some advice on how to interpret her novels with
Beedle the Bard (whom I keep wanting to call Bard the Beatle.)
It's  like the Tale of the Three Brothers, IMO. The trio first reads it
as a fairy tale with a simple moral.  Two brothers were bad, one 
was good.

That's not *wrong*, but Harry is pretty sure that it's not the 
reason Dumbledore wanted him to know the story. Harry has an
idea that deeper thinking will be rewarded, despite Hermione's
insistence that there's nothing there to think about.

Eventually Harry comes up with a less obvious moral. The real reason 
the cloak is valuable is that you can use it to protect other people, 
not just yourself.  But notice what that does to the story. The "good" 
brother left the others to their fate and never used the cloak to help 
anyone but himself. Like the others, he never realized the true value 
of his gift. 

Meanwhile, Dumbledore offers yet another interpretation, attempting
to tease out a 'historical' meaning from the mythic one. In his version,
the brothers are gifted, dangerous wizards  whose three powerful
inventions are, as he says, a lure to folly even in the hands of
the best. 

So, Rowling seems to suggest, we are invited to interpret her work in
multiple ways: as fairy tale, a novel of morals, and/or an imaginary
history.

But only in fairy tales is the world divided into good brothers and
bad ones, and only in the fairy tale interpretation, IMO, are we meant to
take this division literally.

   
> 
> lizzyben:
> 
> It's nice that Harry tells his child that it's OK to be in Slytherin,
> but even that message is subverted when he also tells (encourages?)
> his child to select a different house. 

Pippin:
Where does he say this? He says Albus *can* select a different house.
It's up to Albus to decide which house, or even if it matters. Harry
says it doesn't matter to him and Ginny. There's no denying it's 
going to matter to other people.  Harry's changed his opinion of
Slytherin, but not everyone has. And there are still some things
to be concerned about, though Harry seems to feel it won't be
anything Albus Severus can't handle. 

It's the price of freedom, in a sense. If we give everyone the
political and spiritual freedom to teach their beliefs to their children,
then some children are going to be taught things that others find
abhorrent. Even damnable. 

I was kind of hoping, and I think this is where a lot of disillusionment
comes from, that JKR would try to finesse this inconvenient 
truth. Slytherin would be completely rehabilitated, or else the other
houses would discover that it didn't need rehabilitation after all. Just
like The Little White Horse. But JKR is too honest a writer for that,
IMO. 

But as in the Tale of Three Brothers, it's left to the reader to discover,
or decide, that identifying oneself with the 'good' side is problematic. 

> lizzyben:
> 
> I don't, probably you don't, but the books do. "Gryfindor" traits *are
> better* than the traits of the other houses. Snape is viewed a small
> exception to the general rule of Slytherins solely because he exhibits
> a Gryfindor trait - bravery. He's not lauded for his cunning,
> ambition, etc. Or his intelligence or loyalty, for that matter. In
> this world, Gryfindor traits are the yardstick upon which everyone is
> measured.

Pippin:
I disagree. Bravery and love are the yardstick upon which everyone is
measured and Gryffindors haven't got a patent on them. Gryffindors
very often fail to recognize them, especially when they manifest in
unfamiliar ways. 

> 
> lizzyben:
> 
> This is a bit off-topic, but what was with the crying child in the
> King's Cross station? 
<snip> I can't get over that image of DD & Harry
> chatting conversationally while a wounded, suffering, unwanted child
> cries for help. And DD tells Harry that there's no way to help. 

Pippin:
DD says there's no way for him or Harry to help. But that's why
Harry goes back, because he wants to keep more families from being
torn apart, more souls from being maimed. He even tries to help
Voldemort. 

Lizzyben:
 To me, it seemed like a damned soul, and DD
> telling Harry not to help is the Calvinist position that we *can't*
> help. Salvation or damnation has already been pre-destined.

Pippin:
I wondered about that too. But there's nothing in the book to
suggest that the train station is where you stay forever. We're told
a maimed soul can repair itself only by feeling what it's done --
so maybe Voldemort has to suffer because it's the only way he
can be healed. Kind of like Skele-gro. <g>

Maybe Harry and Dumbledore can hear it  because that's
part of their penance, part of repairing *their* souls --for what 
help they could have been in life and failed (or will fail, if Harry
chooses to "go on") to give. 

I think the message is pretty clear: Harry and Dumbledore can't
do anything to help the abandoned and suffering children of this
world, but you, dear reader, can. And to borrow a question from 
my own tradition, if not now, when?

Lizzyben:
> And that wretched creature also reminded me of Merope, and the elves,
> and the goblins, and all the beings that are "stuffed out of sight" in
> this horrid society. If the wizards are going to maintain their
> superiority and their comfort, they're going to have to learn to
> ignore the suffering they cause. DD does - and eventually Harry does
> as well. This allows him to return to his natural position in the
> elect of the Wizarding World, w/o needing to focus on these oppressed
> & unwanted beings anymore. Thus the saccharine empty happy ending.  

Pippin:
This again is taking the fairy tale convention and imposing it on the
novel of morals and social commentary, where as you say it doesn't fit.
Only fairy tales end with all being well in a literal sense. But even the very
youngest children know that in real life nobody lives happily ever after.

In the novel of morals and social commentary, we know there are 
problems for Albus Severus, James,  Rose, Hugo and the
rest to confront. But they have more chance of dealing with them than they
would under Voldemort. "All's well," said the Gaffer in LOTR, "as ends better."

> lizzyben:
> 
> No one was sitting according to House anymore because there weren't
> any Slytherins left! The only Slyths were the Malfoy family, who
> remained huddled in a corner. 

Pippin:
What corner? "Along the aisle between the tables he walked, and he spotted the
three Malfoys, huddled together as though unsure whether or not they were 
supposed to be there, but nobody was paying them any attention.

Oh, and where's Goyle? At least one Slytherin seems to be celebrating. Of
course he's probably too dumb to realize his side lost <g>

And then, when Harry returns to Dumbledore's office, he confronts the
stone Pensieve on the desk where he left it, and Phineas calls out that
Slytherin House's contribution should not be forgotten. So there are
two reminders, on a single page, that we shouldn't overlook the good
in Slytherin. 

Pippin