Failed Friendships (was:Re:Draco, Narcissa and Harry)

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 179915

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > You're pointing out the difference between a psycho and a non-
> > pyscho.  But there's not really a difference in the the type of   
> > magic used, as in one uses dark magic and the other does not. 

> >>Pippin:
>  Nobody in the books uses the term 'psycho'  so I'm not sure how it
> differs from 'dark'.   'Dark' seems to be, in part,  the way  the   
> wizards understand what we would call psychosis or sadism.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I disagree.  I don't think there is such a strong defining of "dark" 
in these books.  I wasn't using "psycho" as a stand-in for anything, 
I was labeling Voldemort's driving characteristic.  If he hadn't been 
a wizard he'd have probably been a serial killer.

There have been plenty of posts about what exactly "dark arts" are, 
and what differentiates between "dark magic" and regular old magic.  
That's not what I'm discussing here: mainly because I think there's 
no clear definition and the discussions (IMO) tend to become a bit 
like a dog chasing it's tail.

What I *am* saying is that Harry never clearly states that there is 
magic he just will not use.  He does not clearly state that there is 
a specific form of magic he's fighting against.  And Voldemort 
doesn't make any such statements either.  So this idea that the 
series ends with a definitive statement about magic, I don't see 
where it's coming from.

> >>Pippin:
> The unforgivables are condemned many times by various people
> in the text, so I'm not sure what you mean by saying they're never
> condemned. Harry doesn't condemn himself for using them, but
> people hardly ever condemn themselves in the Potterverse.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
And Harry uses Unforgivables to save the day.  Twice.  Which is 
pretty much the opposite of "condemning" stuff.  The magic just is.  
If Harry needs to use it, he will.  And only fuddy-duddy stick-in-the-
muds will kick up a fuss.  (What, you want Harry to be a saint?)

So again, no definitive statement against "dark magic".
  
> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>
> > The house rivalry still exists and is still important and a      
> > Slytherin and a Gryffindor are never going to be friends.

> >>Pippin:
> Slughorn was friends with Dumbledore, Hagrid, and Lily. HBP!Harry
> thinks that Gryffindor students are supposed to hate Slytherin     
> students on sight, and vice versa, but in DH the Snape/Lily story   
> taught him that things didn't have to be that way, and in the      
> epilogue we see people trying to effect change.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
No we don't.  The epilogue shows our heroes living their happy lives, 
no change required.  Yes, I agree, if a Slytherin recognizes his own 
lack of worth and properly ingratiates himself to the nearest 
Gryffindor, then friendly terms occurr.  But I wouldn't ever 
catagorize Slughorn's and Dumbledore's relationship as one of 
equals.  Nor would I the relationship between Lily and Snape.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>
> > And since Harry doesn't ever question or think about his ease    
> > with dark magic, any questioning or challenging of dark magic     
> > does not occur. Ergo, the end of the series has little to 
> > nothing to say about dark magic and has nothing to do with       
> > defeating it.

> >>Pippin:
> Codswallop, in my opinion <g>.
> Harry puts aside the Elder Wand. At the end of the series,  he's    
> still not using it. Why not use it, except that he's afraid it      
> would make doing dark magic too easy? How did he come to fear that, 
> except by learning how easy it already was? 

Betsy Hp:
Two leaps too many, sorry.  Where does it say that Harry put aside 
the Elder Wand because he was worried about using dark magic?  Where 
do we see Harry frightened by his use of dark magic?

> >>Pippin:
> <snip>
> This is a world where love can be trapped behind a door, and soul
> fragments can be stashed in a bank vault. To quote my favorite
> wizard, the usual rules don't seem to apply. 
> Dark wizards can repent. They can put their souls back together, if 
> they're willing to risk the pain. Grindelwald apparently did so.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Again with the leaping.  Tom Riddle and Grindelwald are two 
completely different men, from what little we've seen.   And we do 
see so little of Grindelwald, comparing the two is an exercise in 
fantasy, IMO.  So no, I don't think there was anything to show that 
Voldemort's repentence was possible.  If there had been, we'd have 
needed to see it through an action of Voldemort's, not some other 
guy's.
 
> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>
> > There's no attempt to change the viewpoints of the WW when it    
> > comes to muggles and muggleborns.

> >>Pippin:
> But that would be a different book.

Betsy Hp:
Exactly! <bg>  As I say, this is not a series *about* bigotry and the 
challenging thereof.

> >>Pippin:
> This book is about Harry learning that there needs to be a change, 
> that fighting evil isn't just a matter of getting rid of the       
> psychos/dark wizards.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Where does Harry learn that?

> >>Pippin:
> Funny, I think the bigoted world view is the one where cultural    
> imperialism is a good thing. We agree to disagree, I guess.

Betsy Hp:
Where we disagree is what we see in the books.  Because I would say, 
based on my reading, that JKR adores cultural imperialism.  But 
that's obviously not what you see.  And I doubt we're ever going to 
meet on that.

> >>Pippin:
> Considering two thousand years of people trying to melt my culture 
> into the dominant one, sometimes with actual fire, I'm more in      
> favor of letting people find their own way to unity. But that's    
> just me.

Betsy Hp:
And I grew up in NYC. <g>  Yeah, finding your own way is good, but 
that's not what the WW is about.  And they're certainly not 
interested in unity.  At all.  Except in the kind where all 
the "lesser than's" unite at their feet to worship and adore.

Betsy Hp