Compassionate hero (WAS Re: Appeal of the story to the reader)

[lizzyben04]

No: HPFGUIDX 175923

> va32h:
> 
> What do you think could have (or perhaps ought to have) happened 
in 
> Deathly Hallows to change this outcome? Would "one good Slytherin" 
in 
> the RoR have been enough to change this tendency to treat 
Slyterins 
> as the "other"?

lizzyben:

Well, in my parallel universe <g>, I thought it would be less about 
a token "good Slytherin" & more about Harry understanding & 
integrating the good qualities of the House itself. Sort of like 
learning about & understanding another culture. It seemed to be 
going this direction in HBP. First, he'd have the P&P-style moment 
of revelation & reversal that would shake his previous world-view 
(Snape is good??? LOLLIPOPS??) Then he'd have to actually work w/the 
guy & get over their differences. So, by actually interacting 
w/Snape & learning from him, Harry would learn how to see beyond his 
(incredibly narrow) Gryffindor-only perspective. (and vice versa for 
Snape). He'd also have to work w/the people like Zacharias & 
Marietta that they've just blown off in the past - again, showing 
reconciliation, compromise, growth.

Also, I thought that we'd see some parallels w/Harry's 
generation "righting the wrongs" of the Marauder's generation - 
Draco saving Hermione the way Snape couldn't save Lily, Draco 
becoming part of the Trio instead of a hated rival. (Yes, 
delusional, I know). Basically ending on a note of reconciliation, 
integration & hope. House Unity, and all. "The other" becomes part 
of "us".

va32h:
> I ask because I have some of the same discomforts you've expressed 
> about the book, and while I've been blaming this particular book 
for 
> being a poor end to the series, I am starting to wonder whether 
one 
> book could do enough to rectify the kind of scapegoating and 
> projecting that has been going on for the past six books. 
> 
> va32h

lizzyben:

It probably couldn't. I've come to the reluctant conclusion that JKR 
wrote the story she intended to write here. IMO, it's basically a 
Calvinist allegory dressed up as a children's fantasy tale - and the 
moral involves a lot of the Elect self-righteously smiting the 
unbelievers. And that moral is sort of abhorrent to me, but there it 
is. The Slytherins were cast, early on, as the "evil people" that 
the Gryffindors can smite. And the Gryffindors were always good & 
right. A lot of us thought that wouldn't end up being the message, 
but we were wrong. Since Slyths are the bad guys, the good guys can 
& do scapegoat them & project upon them, but the text doesn't see it 
that way - because it sees human psychology very simplistic terms. 
The good guys are just good, and so can do bad things to the bad 
guys. There's no sympathy or understanding for people w/different 
perspectives. You are either for Harry, or you are against him. 
Projection & scapegoating are practically encouraged. 

My reaction to the series is sort of similar to Harry's reaction to 
the Prince's potion book - it's so brilliant & creative & 
innovative that you're just awed; then you start noticing that some 
of the spells seem a little mean-spirited - but, hey, it's all in 
good fun, right? Then - SECTUMSEMPRA! And it all explodes into hate 
& ugliness. It's like a beloved pet suddenly turned vicious. LOL. 
And you're shocked, but really the signs were there all along. 


lizzyben