Victory for TEWWW EWWW

[lupinlore]

No: HPFGUIDX 173185

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "houyhnhnm102" <celizwh at ...> 
wrote:
>
> Alla:
> 
I think that JKR really places a lot on being 
> > a **nice** person as in being genuinely nice to others 
> > and Hagrid being nice is deemed more worthwhile to live 
> > than Snape, even though I find Hagrid as character to be 
> > rather blah, as I also mentioned.
> 
> houyhnhnm:
> 
> So Snape is not good in spite of "all that brave deeds 
> in the name of Lily Potter and saving the world" because 
> he was not *nice* to Harry.  Even I wouldn't accuse 
> Rowling of being that banal.


Banal?  What in the name of God's Green Goodness is banal about it?  
You seem to imply that being nice is an easy thing of no moral 
significance.  I'd say that's far from the truth.  In fact, the daily 
grind of being nice to people is one of the most morally significant 
thing a person can do, and one of the most difficult.

Nice is not the same as good?  Oh yes, I would and do say, it is.  Or 
more to the point nice is a necessary but not sufficient condition 
for being good.  It is possible for a nice person to be a 
manipulative schemer.  But it is impossible, I think, for a nasty 
person to be good.

As to whether Rowling is or isn't saying that, I don't know.  It 
might be a good thing to address to her in a web chat.  But I do have 
to say that she has said a lot of other things people have said would 
be incredibly banal -- such as that Harry and company are justified 
in their various moments of summary justice, that OBHWF would become 
a reality, that Snape loved Lily, and many other things.

Lupinlore