[HPforGrownups] Re: Further Notes on Literary Uses of Magic and Anti-Globalization( VERY LONG )

[Magpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 168263

 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.

Magpie:
Oops! But now, when it comes to Peter/Draco I don't see how they're doing 
the same thing based on the info we have. We do have some information on 
what both characters did and Peter and Draco are making completely different 
choices (with different choices about murder) besides just switching sides. 
I can't imagine Voldemort even allowing the choice Draco gets, or Dumbledore 
offering the one Peter makes. I would think that if we are supposed to see 
the good side differently, this is essential. Choosing the good side should, 
imo, involve choosing actual better values, even beyond just not caring 
about blood.

I didn't realize you meant Snape, but even with him, if he did change sides 
the way we're told he did, even with the more limited information we have, 
DDM!Snape's not making the same choice as Peter that I can see.


Alla:
> 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 there are more differences than that, including how they're 
betraying and their motivations for doing it. I don't think Peter and Snape 
have too much in common, personality-wise. And I wouldn't be surprised if 
Lucius didn't hate Snape the way the Marauders hate Peter, if he found out 
he'd switched.

Alla:
> 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:
I agree that Voldemort doing it would be viewed completely differently, and 
he'd have different motivations and probably view the baby differently.

> 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:
That would be really really unfortunate--for me, anyway--if that's what she 
was doing. Because that would suggest (and I've read this criticism) that 
her good guys really weren't very good, that they couldn't stand on their 
own as any kind of role models, and so must be surrounded by extreme cartoon 
bad guys in order to look good. It would also make me worry for the WW once 
the DEs and Voldemort are gone and there's nobody to be worse than them 
anymore.

> 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.

Magpie:
So what kind of light is it, exactly? I mean, the good side doesn't murder 
(though they've been accused of reckless endangerment), but you can get some 
pretty serious ethical problems without murdering somebody. If the good guys 
are the people we're reading about it seems odd to not pay attention to the 
actions they're doing beyond just comparing them to the maniacs. Sure there 
are things the bad side does that the good side never would (and some things 
both sides might do), but if that's the best they can say for themselves, 
that's not all that admirable. That would make them, in the word of Jabootu, 
"designated heroes." They're heroes primarily because they've been 
designated heroes by the story.

Alla:
>> 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.

Magpie:
So just to be clear, which comparison do you mean? Are you saying that 
you're supposed to think, on your own reading it, that Hermione's 
disfiguring Marietta for telling about her club is good on its own, and that 
Draco's assassination attempt is bad on its own? Or that if you think 
Hermione's hex is bad you're supposed to think "but at least it's not an 
assasination attempt--that would be bad." Because it seems like with the 
first JKR just has to write it persuasively or not, and if it doesn't fly, 
it doesn't fly. With the second, I can't really make that work for me. It 
didn't even occur to me to think about any Slytherins when I was reading 
about Marietta and the hex.

I'm not sure what JKR would say about it, actually. She certainly puts that 
kind of logic (though it's not always so logical) into Hermione's own mouth 
when she wants to justify herself. But I never think about her when I'm 
reading. She seemed to write Draco more sympathetically in HBP when he was 
trying to assassinate Dumbledore, and while obviously the attempt in itself 
was never presented as anything but wrong I didn't feel like she was wagging 
her finger at him throughout the story. Thank goodness--she'd be a horrible 
writer if she couldn't ever step into the mindset of somebody different than 
the people representing herself. By contrast, I didn't think Marietta's 
hexing has been presented all that sympathetically. It could be something 
that JKR had fun doing without wanting it to set an example for readers. 
Like she says she has fun torturing Umbridge and writing Snape.

It seems to me that maybe the different ways we're looking at it is where 
the line between good and bad is. In the part I snipped you talked about the 
Slytherins and how we'd never seen any good ones so you didn't mind them 
painted as all bad, that it wasn't prejudice etc.

Where as I have never even really seen why people ever thought there needed 
to be a "Good Slytherin" (by which we mean friends or wanna be friends with 
Harry) because the point for me is that the Slytherins that we already see 
are not all "bad" any more than the Gryffindors are just "good." I think 
that's supported by the Hat talking about the houses needing to unite so 
that Slytherin is no longer the Shadow house that embodies all the negative 
qualities of the society. As the Hat says, just getting rid of Slytherin may 
have quieted things down, but it wasn't a good peace.

That situation does mean that the Slytherins are the negative house. They 
are the ones that really need to change the most--but it's not, imo, about 
just finding better kids for Slytherin. I think your feeling that we're 
supposed to compare the Gryffindors' actions to the Slytherins to see them 
as good supports this idea too. That seems like the way Shadows work.

-m