Further Notes on Literary Uses of Magic and Anti-Globalization( VERY LONG )

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 168252

> Alla wrote:
> > Well, yes, I agree with what you are saying RL wise. I do not
> > necessarily agree about that in Potterverse. I always believed 
that
> > JKR draws quite strong barriers between those working for good 
side
> > and those working for bad side and that **she** gets to decide 
which
> > side is good and which side is bad, you know?
> 
> Miles:
> Maybe there's a difference between the actions of adult and 
adolescent
> characters?

Alla: 
Point well taken, actually.
 
Miles:
> I think you are right concerning the kids - it's a major point of 
criticism
> concerning the actions of the characters that it's only important 
whether
> s/he is good or evil - not what they do. The DA exclude Slytherins 
per
> definition - that's good. The IS consists exclusively of 
Slytherins - that's
> bad. Harry makes Kreacher working against Draco - which is a 
torture for
> him, but it seams to be ok, Hermione brands Marietta as a sneak - 
well
> done.... To be continued.

Alla:

Ah. But you see but to me it is not a major point of criticism at 
all, it is more a surprise for me in a sense that usually literary 
choice like that sends me straight on the road of rooting for the 
characters author wants me to hate or seems to want me to hate 
anyways.

The easiest example is of course about Slytherin.  Here is my long 
explanation of why the fact that Slytherin seem to be portrayed as 
bad house does not bother me at all.
I mean, really when I stop and think, there is no way the eleven year 
old who comes to school can be evil, right? I mean, no matter how 
much of evil philosophy they absorbed at home, this is absolutely not 
possible that one quarter of WW youngsters, who come to Hogwarts are 
future DE.

Sure, there are bad kids, even at eleven year olds, kids who kill, 
who do evil things, but it is just absurd that every year Hogwarts 
gets steady stream of little evils coming in IMO.

So, I should feel for them, pity them, right? Oh, but in this 
instance, it is SO wrong. I mean wrong for me, not for anybody else. 
I will never buy the argument that JKR is a bad writer in large part 
because she manipulates me so very well and I still think that she 
plays fair, heheeh.

What does JKR do with House Slytherin? The first kid she makes me to 
meet is Draco Malfoy. I hated him on the spot, hated him, hated him, 
hated him. Oh, and in case anybody wonders that initially had so very 
little to do with Harry, it is not even funny. I despised him, I 
think first and foremost for passing a judgment on the person 
(Hagrid) he never even met, I despised him for being a snob and of 
course it increased and increased and when he was happy to 
participate in Buckbeak travesty, I would not have shed a tear if he 
dropped dead.

And then in CoS we learn that the founder of that great House decided 
that muggleborn kids who were in the most need of protection in dark 
times of persecution, in most need of learning the craft, etc, well, 
were not just deserving of his house, but Hogwarts just should not 
have admitted them at all. Wonderful guy that Salasar was. Of course 
I am writing as I see his views, not anybody else. Oh, and let's not 
forget that he left a little snaky in Hoggwarts when he left to kill 
Muggleborns. 

So, after I have all of this information, and again, if Salasar's 
name was misused, etc, I will be happy to reevaluate, but so far I do 
not have any information to the contrary, for the life of me I cannot 
think of other houses attitude towards Slytherins as prejudice, I 
think of it as defensive reaction to future killers, to bigots, etc. 
I mean, after all JKR makes sure to make "muddblood" as password to 
their dorms even in our days.

And here again, this thought that all Slytherin kids just cannot be 
bad, even if their founder had evil philosophy, but what does JKR do? 
Does she make me meet **any** of those kids, who are not wanting to 
follow Voldy and Co? Well, no she really does not. All whom we see is 
Draco Malfoy and his cronies, no?

That is why while my rational mind realizes that all Slytherin kids 
just cannot be bad, I cannot have one iota of sympathy for them as 
literary characters, because well, I never met them.

Sure in real life I will make damn sure that I meet the other kids 
besides the likes of Draco Malfoy before I pass a judgment on the 
whole House of them, but in the book, I cannot help but think that 
maybe I never met them, because JKR means for Draco Malfoy to be the 
typical representative of Slytherin house and if this is true, boy I 
find this house to be very bad.

And truly, if she wanted me to feel something for Slytherins in 
general, she could have done so very little and again, they did not 
even have to interact with Harry much.

Like say they played with Slytherins instead of Hufflepuffs, when 
Harry was in the hospital and when they came to visit Harry, his 
friends would have been so very surprised that somebody from 
Slytherin team wanted a rematch because it would not have been fair.
Harry could have been shocked, etc, and even forgotten about that, 
but it could have been planted in reader's mind that yes, there are 
not only Draco Malfoys in Slytherin, but good kids as well, OR again 
somebody from Slytherin could have been chosen in TWT and also 
behaved OK, etc. I mean she did it with Durmstrang, she showed me 
Krumm and Dark Arts or not, I know that good kids do exist there. 
Instead, what does JKR doing with episodic characters? Oh, yes, even 
the one who shows up just to substitute for Draco in HBP says *M** 
word. I think she truly means to show that majority of the house at 
least shows this philosophy.


So, where was I? Just trying to say that what JKR is doing with kids 
does not bother me much, because she is doing it so well IMO.


Miles: 
> JKR is much more demanding concerning the adult characters. Barty 
Crouch is
> definitively on the side of the good. But he is condemned because 
he uses
> draconian means in his fight - Moody is shown as a "good" Auror 
because he
> tries not to kill the DE he catches, whereas Crouch is 'punished' 
for trying
> to do the right things with bad means.

Alla:

I do agree, I guess, but here is another thought. Is she more 
demanding because that is how it meant to be or is it because she 
just wants to show adults generation as more screwed up? Because it 
is kids story, kids are center stage eventually and adults have to 
take a back seat. Maybe precisely that is why there are should be no 
Barties in young generation?





> > Alla:
> >
> > Well, yes, I agree with what you are saying RL wise. I do not
> > necessarily agree about that in Potterverse. I always believed 
that
> > JKR draws quite strong barriers between those working for good 
side
> > and those working for bad side and that **she** gets to decide 
which
> > side is good and which side is bad, you know?
> 
> Magpie:
> Sure--but does her identifying the good side mean she's saying that 
her good 
> side is above reproach and never makes a mistake or does anything 
wrong? It 
> seems to me she does the opposite. James and Sirius seem very 
clearly on the 
> good side to me, but I think she put them clearly in the wrong in 
the 
> Pensieve. She even, I think, seems to have no problem with having 
them be 
> bad *because* of their ideals, like by having James hate Snape for 
his 
> interest in the Dark Arts and perhaps see that as justification for 
his own 
> bullying.

Alla:

Sure, good side is not above reproach, otherwise I would have lost 
the interest in the books real fast, but what I am trying to say is 
that the amount of slack the guys on  the good side getting are more, 
if that makes sense. Their basic character does not change despite 
mistakes they are making, if that makes sense.

James and Sirius are on the wrong side in the pensieve, it is for 
sure, but I believe for example that their reasoning for hating Snape 
as dark arts expert will get more justification in book 7. I could be 
wrong of course.


Magpie:
> So sure there is difference in things that the two characters are 
doing. 
> It's not just that we would like Draco to change sides because he'd 
be 
> coming to the good side, while we don't like Peter for changing 
sides 
> because he was going to the bad side. The two of them are also 
doing 
> different things. Peter was protecting his own skin, for instance, 
and 
> letting his friends die to do it. If Draco had been able to take 
DD's offer, 
> by contrast, he would be rejecting murder for glory while still 
caring about 
> his family.

Alla:

Erm... I was actually comparing Peter and Snape, not Peter and Draco, 
not that you cannot compare Peter and Draco of course, but I believe 
that when we are comparing Peter and Draco, they ARE doing exactly 
the same things with the amount of information we have. IMO of course.

Peter is betraying his friends and Snape is betraying his friends, no?

The **only** difference is to whom those friends are being betrayed, 
no?


Magpie:
> I think JKR has a very clear idea of the good and bad sides--but I 
think 
> she's also very in control of what people are doing moment to 
moment and I'm 
> not sure she thinks the good guys always have to be right. And even 
if she 
> did think somebody was right or wrong, a reader could disagree.

Alla:

Sure reader can disagree as I believe I said in my previous post. Did 
I give the impression that I was arguing this somehow? I am sorry if 
I did. It certainly was not my intention . But I am not concerned 
with whether reader will disagree with it or not for the purpose of 
this discussion, I am just trying to figure out what JKR is doing, 
that's all. Believe me, I myself have **a lot** more bones to pick 
with Dumbledore for example than I suspect JKR does and this is 
another good example IMO of good guys being given much more slack 
than bad guys.

Let's take another absurd hypothetical, let's imagine that Voldemort 
is putting a baby of one of his followers in abusive home to protect 
this baby's life.

I am having a hard time that Voldemort would be patted on the back by 
either JKR or readers and forgiven for that, because this baby had to 
suffer so much, no?

Why, if you ask me, because Voldemort is evil overlord and that is 
what he is supposed to do, but since Dumbledore is **good** the 
reasons for what he did should stand scrutiny, etc. Ugh. I am 
rambling again, but please ask questions if you lost me.

Magpie:
 For 
> instance, if JKR thought James was awesome in bullying James in the 
Pensieve 
> because she hates Snape, it wouldn't become right just because it's 
her 
> universe. Some things are always going to be subjective.

Alla:

Sure, but all that I care about for the moment is what IS right for 
JKR and what is not.



>> Alla:
> > I mean, why would I ever feel something for Lucius Malfoy, even 
if he
> > loves his son?
> 
> Magpie:
> Heh--well, I feel something for him. But I don't think he's good. I 
feel 
> empathy for the mess he's gotten himself into, though I couldn't 
defend any 
> of his actions. But that doesn't mean when I'm reading about 
another 
> character I'm going to always compare him/her to Lucius in my head 
when 
> judging his/her actions.

Alla:

Ah. But you see I think JKR does indeed have that comparison in mind, 
whether you ( or any reader) are doing it or not. I can be wrong 
obviously, but that is the impression I get. And I am one of those 
readers who find myself making those comparisons often, because I 
feel that JKR intends me to.


> Magpie:
> But is it really a double standard? Because I don't think Lupin's 
forgiven 
> because he's on the right side. I think JKR forgives Lupin's 
mistakes 
> because she understands what he did and why and ultimately finds 
them 
> forgivable. It's hard to find a situation to contrast this with 
because in 
> general the guys on Voldemort's side do bad, often unforgivable 
things they 
> don't regret anyway. But to take an absurd example, I don't think 
Lupin 
> would be forgiven if he had been molesting students during PoA 
because he 
> was on the right side. Umbridge isn't a Death Eater. She isn't on 
> Voldemort's side--the Ministry's position is against Voldemort. But 
she was 
> a bad guy.


Alla:

Sure, I do not think that Lupin would be forgiven for that either, 
but that is why I believe JKR does not make her good guys **murder** 
anyone. (Well there is one debatable event, LOL, but you get my drift)
There are some things that good side just does not do IMO, but the 
mistakes that good side **does** are IMO viewed by the author in the 
different light.

Sure, Umbridge is not DE ( although frankly I will not be surprised 
if she will turn out to be one, hopefully not), but she crossed the 
line in the things that good guys just do not do, no?

She sent dementors on Harry and tried to torture him, etc.



 
> Alla:
> > But do I think that JKR does not intend to judge Hermione as 
harshly
> > as some other characters? Yes, I do, because I absolutely think 
that
> > even if what she did was morally wrong ( and I do not, I just
> > understand the argument), I think it is **nothing** in comparison 
to,
> > let's say, planning assassination attempts.
> 
> Magpie:
> Actually based on things I've read I think many people would be 
fine with 
> Hermione planning an assassination attempt because she's on the 
right side. 
> But I don't think the side she's on covers it. My feelings about 
Draco's 
> assassination attempt and Hermione's hex are completely different 
because 
> there's a lot more factors than just what side they were on.


Alla:

Well, I do not know if many people will be fine with it, I know I 
will not be. I am completely fine with her hexing the traitor, 
because that is how I define what happened, but I certainly will not 
be fine with her killing anybody.

I believe that JKR intends me to make those comparisons, that do not 
mean that any reader should, you know? That hexing a traitor is 
admirable action, even if not perfectly executed and assassination 
attempt is not.

And of course I do not have a private line to JKR, LOL or anything 
like that, I am just curious about her intent and trying to interpret 
it.

JMO,

Alla