Dumbledore's attitude (was Re: On lying and cheating)

[lupinlore]

No: HPFGUIDX 165549

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" <justcarol67 at ...>
wrote:
>
<SNIP>
>
> Are we supposed to think that Slytherinis tactics are not so bad, that
> cunning in a good cause is not only acceptable but necessary (think
> DDM!Snape as double agent)?

<SNIP>

> Carol, who still doesn't approve of Harry the Hero stealing someone
> else's glory, which has no connection in *Harry's* mind with the war
> against Voldemort, but fearing that DD and JKR might justify it for
> exactly those Slytherinish reasons
>

Well, that raises several points.  First of all, it raises the point of
how deeply JKR is thinking in any given scene.  I suspect it is very
dangerous to assume that a given scene or set of actions has any
necessary resonance with deep themes or developments.  I know that JKR
has talked a lot about how much she has thought about things, but
frankly there are all too many points in the books when character is
sacrificed for purposes of making the plot go the right way.  JKR's has
thought a lot about her plot, but not so much about keeping her
characters consistent and believable, and I seriously doubt she has
thought about themes and "morals" to the extent that many would like
her to -- indeed, she has often implied that she has not, given her
professed horror of preaching and her denial that she sets out to teach
any particular lessons with a given book.  I think she is being at
least disingenuous with many of her denials (she reminds me of lay
preachers I know who proclaim their horror of preaching all the way
down the aisle to the pulpit where they fully intend to give an
impassioned sermon) but still it may be very dangerous indeed to read
too much "theme" into any given development.  For instance in this case
she needed to get Slughorn's memory introduced into the plot and the
scenes with DD urging Harry on may well be just convenient devices to
accomplish her goal, greater themes be d***ed.

It also raises the question of just exactly what is meant by
a "Slytherinish" reason?  We are given two different views of Slytherin
by none other than the Sorting Hat.  One view is that Slytherin is the
house of ambition, the other that it is the house of pure blood.  (We
are also given two very different views of Hufflepuff, but that's
another issue.)  Neither of those views necessarily has much to do with
how one approaches the rules.  It is entirely possible to be very
ambitous and respectful of the rules (although I grant that the best
example we have of that, Percy, is not a Slytherin, although if you
want to argue for the adult Snapey-poo, hotay) and entirely possible to
value pure blood and also respect the rules.

In terms of Gryffindor, the house of courage, it is entirely possible
to be brave and no respecter of the rules (almost all the heros match
this) and entirely possible to be brave and treasure the rules (McG, I
suppose).

Even craftiness, although associated with the serpent that is the
Slytherin emblem, is not necessarily a trait that matches either
description of the house.  One can be very ambitious and not at all
crafty or clever (I grant you we are back to Percy,), and one can be
very brave and extremely crafty (Hermione fits this bill).  Needless to
say pureblood and craftiness need not go together at all (Crabbe and
Goyle).

So does this mean very much?  I personally doubt it.  I think that JKR
had at best only rather vague ideas of the houses in mind when she
started, her protestations notwithstanding.  Judging by the early notes
we have seen (the ones where Neville was a Hufflepuff), she originally
intended to have iconic characters from each house (Neville the
Hufflepuff, probably Hermione the Ravenclaw, and wasn't that Weasley
cousin originally going to be a Slytherin? -- maybe Percy picked up a
storyline that originally went to her), but when it became more
practically efficient to group all the heros into Gryffindor and all
the antagonists into Slytherin the foci of the houses became --
blurred, shall we say.

<Shrug>  House unity will probably figure somehow into DH.  Maybe Ron
and Hermione will be Head Boy/Head Girl (with Harry and Ginny filling
those roles once Harry returns to Hogwarts after Voldy's death).  That
would give them something to do other than trailing around after Harry
as he hunts horcruxes.  But I doubt in the end whether the unity theme
will make the house characteristics very much clearer.


Lupinlore, who thinks that JKRs putative original formulation, although
somewhat cookie-cutter, might have had a lot going for it