Compassionate hero/non-Snape fan/Snape's source

[Zara]

No: HPFGUIDX 176007

Nora and Magpie wrote in:
Compassionate hero (WAS Re: Appeal of the story to the reader)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/175960
> Nora:
> > Canon showed us that with Voldemort in the Ministry, some people 
> > were scared/somewhat offended but they went along with things like
> > Muggleborn registration.  We have the canonical attitude of most
> > members of the House of Black, and the Malfoys.  And so long as 
> > those remain societally acceptable because enough people with
> >  enough power hold them, there remains a place where those who
> > have been inculcated in those ideas can go and be with the 
> >like-minded. 
 
> Magpie:
> That's interesting because that's not really what I got reading the 
> book. I mean, I see it now that you say it, but to me it seems like 
> racism (in the extreme form of the DEs) is presented as socially 
> unacceptable quite often. It's only acceptable in the subculture of 
> Slytherin. The good guys have social power in the books, and they 
> find it vulgar. They are not racists themselves (many readers find 
> them bigoted, but it seems like the text says they aren't). 

zgirnius:
For me, the character of Slughorn in HBP made it clear that in 
Dumbledore's Hogwarts, we were seeing a skewed view of the race 
issue, and that bloodism had more support in society as a whole that 
we might have thought based on what we were seeing from the 
Gryffindors and Dumbledore. (I can't actually recall any instance of 
a Hufflepuff or Ravenclaw condemning the bloodist position, btw.) 

I did not think that Slughorn was a bloodist out of ideology, but out 
of pragmatism. He seemed genuinely fond of Lily, and interested in 
Hermione's potential. So if he collects students of pure bloodlines, 
like the Blacks, it must be because those are the students that, if 
they have anything going for them at all in the talent department, 
are going to be shoo-ins for success. Which is only true if that's 
the way the society *is*. Since he is not ideological, he will also 
take an interest in the odd Muggleborn whose talent and personality 
are so remarkable that they have a shot at breaking through as well. 
So I, at any rate, did not see these attitudes as confined to 
Slytherin, just centered there.

Prepostrus and montavilla47 wrote in
Re: Thoughts on Snape from a non Snape Fan (uh-oh)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/175968
> > Prep0strus:
> >  I'm with you on the Draco thing, which is why Draco's treatment
> > in DH bugs me more than many other things.  I wanted some 
> > addressing of the fact that Dumbledore and Snape 'saved his
> >  soul'.  I guess it's implied... but I wanted Draco to earn what
> > he had been given.

> Montavilla47:
> And you know, it's not that Draco himself disappointed me.  It's 
> that I have to squint and tilt the book sideways to figure out 
> whether or not Draco was "good."  
> 
> As someone said, he was about as helpful to the "good" side
> as a chocolate hammer.  Yes, he refuses to identify the 
> Trio at Malfoy Manor.  That's a big step for Draco, but it
> helps not one little bit.

zgirnius:
To me, Draco's big moment was trying to save Goyle from the fire in 
the RoR, at the risk of his own life. This was an unambiguously good 
action, in my opinion, even though it did not benefit, even had 
nothing to do with, 'the good side'. (Heck, if Goyle is Crabbe-like, 
it had the potential to be damaging to the good side, had the 
conflict lasted longer). The person who did that deserved Harry's 
help to finish the job and get rescued himself, and that person 
earned Dumbledore's intervention. To me, anyway. The Malfoy family's 
arc was not what I expected, (I did expect Draco to help somehow, 
though I guess Cissy did!) but nonetheless worked for me.

There was discussion in this post (snipped) of disappointment that 
Slytherins in the books were only accepted for their Gryffindor 
qualities. To me, insisting that Draco's 'good' actions only count if 
they serve 'the good side' in the story seems to be following a 
similar philosophy. For me Draco proved to be a person capable of 
selfless acts of good, yet not on the 'good side', and I was happy 
with that. 

Random 832 wrote in:
Compassionate hero & karmic justice (WAS Re: Appeal of the story to 
the reader)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/175986
> Random832:
> Anyway, sarcasm aside, Goblins come off here as being pretty 
incompetent
> in legal/financial terms: life tenancy isn't unheard of in property
> rights among humans, though usually applies to real estate rather 
than
> physical items - so there's no reason to think that humans wouldn't
> understand the concept if they were told. That leaves the conclusion
> that Goblins are either too bloody stupid to specify what exactly
> they're charging money for, or they're committing what amounts to 
fraud,
> because the prices wizards are willing to pay, and thus what they 
_are_
> paying, are set on the _assumption_ that they're buying the item 
free
> and clear, and therefore they are paying many times more gold than 
they
> would for a non-transferable lifetime lease. So even if we DO accept
> that the goblins are right about what's ACTUALLY being sold, they 
are
> overcharging by deception.

zgirnius:
The way I take 'goblin fanatic', what I figure is that the goblin who 
sold Godric the sword did understand that the human buyer was buying 
it forever, for himself, his descendants, and any other entities to 
which those individuals might choose to give the sword, for ever and 
ever. And he set the price accordingly. 

But 'goblin fanatics' like Griphook don't think that goblin had the 
right to do so. It goes against his culture and permanently deprives  
other goblins of the item. Which is what makes them fanatical - it 
means they refuse to ever deal with humans on human terms. (A human 
who refused ever to consider buying a goblin artifact for his/her 
life only, or did and then claimed to have bought it for ever, would 
be guilty of same).

Carol wrote in
Re: Snape's "source" (again) (Was: Dumbledore lied to Harry... AGES 
ago)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/175988
> Carol responds:
> It's possible
> that there were only two meetings and that Snape's reference to "the
> source we discussed" simply refers to a suggestion on Snape's part 
("I
> believe that I can obtain information from Mundungus Fletcher, my
> lord") rather than to previous conversations. 

zgirnius:
That is what I believe. And Snape suggested that it would therefore 
be useful to get Dung out of Azkaban, where he was placed in the 
second half of HBP for impersonating an Inferius while committing a 
larceny. Why else would the DEs have bothered when they went in after 
their own, such as the DoM bunch and Stan?