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

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 168278


> > Magpie:
> > Yes, I understood what you meant--though I think that would also 
> translate 
> > to "cool by Harry and on his side."
> 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> I wonder how many times I should repeat myself that **NO** it does 
> not translate  for me in "cool by Harry and on his side"? :) I 
mean 
> you are free of course to not believe me, but then aren't we 
taking 
> each other words as true sort of by default or our conversations 
> sort of become meaningless? When I am telling you - **this** is 
what 
> I mean and you are telling me - no, that is what you Alla, really 
> mean? Sorry, I do not mean to sound annoyed, you know I like you 
> very much, but I do not think that anybody can read my mind better 
> than me :)

Magpie:
I'm not telling you what *you* mean at all. I know *you* just mean 
that the Slytherin would be shown doing noble things whether or not 
they had anything to do with Harry. I was making a comment about the 
way things usually seem to work in canon so far, not on any hidden 
meaning in your post. There are even characters who are basically on 
Harry's side, or at least not against him, who still get slotted as 
not good because they're not good enough on that score. So I realize 
what you're saying, I'm just saying that the way the books have been 
so far we don't usually see people just being presented as generally 
good who don't usually also wind up pretty cool with Harry. Just as 
Regulus, if it turns out he struck a blow for Voldemort, will 
probably be cool by Harry (he is an ally even if he didn't know it, 
and was never an enemy). I know that *you* can appreciate a 
Slytherin doing a good deed without being a friend of Harry. 

 
> > Magpie:
> > And that's where I disagree. They are all the things they seem 
to 
> be. 
> > They're still not all bad and need to be brought back into the 
> school and 
> > rehabilitated. The challenge, imo, isn't to just find some kids 
> who fit the 
> > mould of our heroes and slap a green tie on them. There's no 
> challenge in 
> > that, and it just avoids the problem that's set up. It avoids 
the 
> whole 
> > conflict the story seems to run on. <SNIP>
> 
> Alla:
> 
> My question is again **who** are they? Forget about Draco Malfoy 
for 
> a second and tell me which Slytherin kids you met that are not 
bad. 
> I understand that certainly realistically there are good kids 
there, 
> they just have to be. But where are they in the book? Whom else do 
> we meet but DE kids?

Magpie:
I'm talking about these very DE kids. My point is that you are 
defining "good" as a  kid that you put into the good rather than the 
bad category. I am saying that the kids you consider to be bad--
Draco, Crabbe, Goyle, Montague, Pansy, Blaise, Theo and any other 
faceless kids we have seen, are not simply "bad." That the house is 
defined by these kids we see in it, and that they must be brought 
back into the fold and the school made whole. It's the potential 
good in them that matters to me, not potential other students in 
their house, something I think is backed up by JKR not creating ones 
that break the stereotype much.

-m