Responses of children (Re: In Defense of Molly Weasley (Long))

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 176297

> Alla:
> Jen, I actually find your son's reaction to be very
> interesting. I do wonder if somebody else's kids
> made a similar remark in any way, shape or form.
> Meaning whether they took from Harry naming his kid
> Albus Severus that JKR is saying that Slytherin is
> now good.
> 
> <SNIP>
> 
> Sharon:
> 
> The message my daughter (and I) got from the
> epilogue was that just becuase a category of people
> did some bad things in the past, that doesn't mean
> that all people in that group are bad, or that the
> group itself can't *change*.  Similar to saying that
> Germans initiated the Holocaust, and so as a nation
> did a bad thing, but we don't treat Germans today as
> if they're about to do it again. Times change,
> people learn from their mistakes etc. That's what we
> go out of it anyway. Alo, to me, Malfoys nod to
> Harry signifies his acknowledgement of a truce or
> even of geniality between the two. Harry did save
> Draco's life a couple of times, and Draco, via that
> nod, acknowledges it.


Alla:

Right, this is pretty much a message I got out of it, but what I am 
trying to figure out whether for your child ( or anybody's child of 
that age or a couple years older - you know) it was enough to get the 
message like this out of what transpired in the epilogue. That 
Slytherins can change and will change, etc.

It is funny, I keep going back to the subplot that I consider one of 
the most beatifully resolved subplots in the series. I am talking 
about Molly and Fleur relationship.

I thought that their truce in the infirmary was done **perfectly** 
and sweet and completely believable, etc.

One can say of course that Harry and Slytherins should have had more 
page space than that to be believable, but should it?


Was that subplot that more important than the relationship between 
Molly and Fleur?

What did we have to point out into that direction? Um, as far as I 
remember one Hat song and one interview (that is if we do give 
attention to the interviews, which I do, but many people do not).

Especially since after DH I believe that dealing with death theme 
seems to be the one that JKR is interested in much more than this 
subplot, I think that maybe JKR felt that this subplot was given 
exactly the page space  to show the changes or future changes, it 
deserved in terms of its significance for the author. JMO of course.


> Jen:  I wanted to clarify that it was the entire conversation 
between 
> Harry and Albus Severus, not just the name alone (I didn't explain 
> very well).  His take was Harry-as-parent said it was OK to be in 
> Slytherin, you know?  I extrapolated from there that in his 
> worldview, where he's still dependent on his parents for many 
things, 
> that if a parent who seems to love his child says being in 
Slytherin 
> house is OK, then it really is OK.  A parent wouldn't send a child 
to 
> spend time somewhere if it's a bad place.   An older child might 
see 
> more gray area there of course, or even another 9 y.o.- don't 
know.  
<SNIP>

Alla:

You explained perfectly – no worries, I understood it to be the whole 
conversation.

But what you said made perfect sense, no?

Maybe that is what JKR was going for? Meaning to make sure that 
beloved and respected parent figure tells the kid – it is truly Okay 
to be in Slytherin and then the kids will take out exactly the same 
message your child did?

I mean, Harry is beloved, respected, and all that in WW.

JMO,

Alla