[HPforGrownups] Re: Slytherins: selfish, not evil + Ariana raped?

[Lenore]

No: HPFGUIDX 172791


At 08:33 PM 7/25/07 +0000, you wrote:
> > >Magpie:
> > >Exactly. Though I don't think Snape's quite so much a success
>story
> > >as you say. He's not the only Slytherin to sacrifice himself--they
> > >just sacrifice for reasons that mean something to them even when
> > >they're doing the sacrificing. So even Snape's redemptive
>sacrifice
> > >was, imo, a personal one that didn't go beyond himself as it could
> > >have. He sacrificed himself and saved himself. I don't happen to
> > >find the "it takes all kinds so learn to live with the assholes" all
> > >that inspiring myself, but that definitely seems to be the message
> > >of JKR's Christ-figure.
> > >
> > >Julie:
> > >I think this is an unfair assessment though. In reality there is
>some
> > >measure of self-interest in *everything* we do. We give to a cause
> > >or help build a house with Habitat-For-Humanity partly because
>the act
> > >makes us feel good about ourselves. Snape's sacrifices were in
>part
> > >motivated by selfishness (assuaging his guilt over Lily's death)
>but
> > >especially as time went by, he acted selflessly on numerous
>occasions.
> > >It didn't benefit him in any way whatsoever to keep helping
>Dumbledore
> > >defeat Voldemort once he knew Harry would be sacrificed--*saving*
>Harry
> > >to honor Lily was his original "selfish" motive. It didn't
>benefit him
> > >to save a man he truly despised (Lupin). Too many things Snape
>did were
> > >not motivated by pure self-interest, as supposedly befits a
>Slytherin,
> > >IMO.
> > >
> > >Julie, who thinks the whole concept of Sorting is directly
>opposed to
> > >Dumbledore's belief that it is our choices which define us.
> >
> > Lenore:
> > Exactly!  Thank you Julie for bringing a bit more balance into the
>discussion.
> > The qualities of the four houses *must* be in all of us; the
>problem is how do
> > we harmonize and integrate them.
>
>Magpie:
>I'm not sure if I'm one of the ones considered to be imbalancing the
>conversation--I agree with you here, but I'm calling it the way I
>see it in canon. I don't think anything was integrated, the personal
>redemption of brave Snape notwithstanding. I was just agreeing with
>you (before you actually said it) that I didn't think this was
>resolved. I guess to me, as soon as Slytherin was introduced the way
>it was, that was obviously the problem that needed to be solved, the
>one Voldemort was just a symptom of. I felt the book did it
>backwards, getting rid of the metaphor without ever much considering
>the way I expected them to handle it. And looking at interviews
>after the fact, JKR never seemed to expect them to.  I don't have a
>problem with self-interest, myself, but I wasn't on the same page
>about Slytherin either.
>-m

Lenore:
No, I wasn't impugning anyone at all; I just thought Julie had made
a point I had not seen anyone else make.  However, I'm way behind
on reading posts so I could be mistaken.  I agree with your point
about LV being a symptom of this deeper problem, and it felt strange
for me too, to have the "metaphor" of LV disposed of but nothing else
was really resolved.

I would argue that the LV metaphor (as I see it) cannot be disposed of
unless the underlying issues are met honestly by all the houses. We are
left with a situation where another perhaps even more terrible LV could
easily arise.  It's like so much in our world, where the symptoms of ills
are treated and driven underground, while the causes remain to fester
and proliferate.

Lenore, who hasn't seen any of the new JKR interviews