Gryffindor & Slytherin roles (was Villain!Dumbledore)

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 177737


> 
> Magpie:t. 
> 
> 
> I guess the problem is "the lie" that Lizzyben mentioned. Adam 
> pointed out that "the lie" is not a lie, because Slytherin really is 
> bad. There was no turnaround where we learned that Slytherins only 
> seemed bad through the lense of our heroes. 

Pippin:
But there is a turnaround where we learn they're not as bad as
they looked through the lenses of our heroes. Only Riddle is, and 
he's no longer human.  Yes, Snape hated  James and misunderstood 
Harry to the bitter end. But Snape did not betray Dumbledore 
and no longer was disgustingly indifferent to  Harry's death. Draco  
did not become a nice person. But he grew brave enough to risk 
death in order not to abandon Goyle --in contrast to his behavior in 
HBP, where he did nothing about the fact that he'd let Fenrir into the 
school and put his friends at risk.  Slughorn openly chose to fight for 
Hogwarts despite the reluctance he'd stated in HBP.  Regulus, of the 
family that beheaded House Elves when they were no longer useful,
chose to die rather than let an injured  Elf suffer agony a second time.

At the same time we learned that Gryffindors aren't as good as 
everyone thinks. Harry can do a cruciatus curse, Dumbledore may
have been a murderer and spent five years  watching
innocent people die whom he might have saved. Remus was a
coward who would have abandoned his pregnant wife and unborn
child, Sirius was indeed cruelly indifferent to his House Elf's
needs. And of course Harry was wrong to think that Snape was
a murdering traitor and a coward.

 People can ignore or rationalize everything that 
contradicts their prejudices in the Potterverse just as they do in 
real life. It's to Harry's credit that he didn't do that in DH, even if we 
didn't get to see a moment where he slaps his forehead and goes 
OMG, I was sooo wrong about Snape. <g>

It was not a spectacular turnaround, but it was a turnaround. The
text doesn't hit you over the head with it because hitting people
over the head with a message is not argument, it's propaganda.

A spectacular turnaround for Draco, where he not only keeps his 
soul but becomes a model citizen and brings his parents over
to the good side would make Dumbledore's actions *less*
about saving Draco's soul and more about gaining useful
allies for the good side.  

 It's not as though readers who don't notice that Harry
was prejudiced against Slytherins (despite the fact that Lupin 
says so flat out) are going to think prejudice is okay. The
story won't work, even as consolation,  if you think prejudice 
is okay, and if the story doesn't work for the reader,  it will 
have no power and no influence.

On the other hand, if the reader doesn't need a consolation 
story, then its absence shouldn't be a problem. But it seems
that what's missing for some is the absence of of a consolation
ending  in which the good guys keep their goodness and the 
Slytherins are revealed to be just as good. 

But in  that case,  all the evil would seem to have stemmed from Lord
Voldemort, and there would be no social commentary at all,
nothing about the way in which cultures and institutions can
influence those who belong to them, for good or bad. The
trick, canon seems to be saying, is to be like a goblin sword
or like Harry's wand, and imbibe only that which strengthens
you. 

I don't get the theory that  if Snape "imbibed" to
use JKR's word, the Gryffindor quality of courage that 
shows he's only good to the extent that he's lost his 
identity as a Slytherin, whereas if Dumbledore imbibes 
"a certain disregard for rules" (a quality which Harry realizes 
he can't have had as a student or he'd have found the room
of Hidden Things) that's just a useful adjunct to
his Gryffindor-ness and his identity is not threatened.  Why?


Magpie:
Actually, maybe it does say things about bigotry, 
> just not things I really think are true or challenging. I mean, if 
> you're a regular middle class British kid you've pretty much got 
> nothing to learn. You get rid of the kids bullying you and then you 
> take your correct place in society.

Pippin:
This doesn't take into account how powerless  kids, even
regular British middle class kids, really are. They don't need
to be made to feel they are evil for having vengeful thoughts 
about the bullies or wishing that they could know in advance 
who the bad people are. That is the way kids think, it's
normal for them to think that way, and it's the reason we
don't put them in charge. 

Pippin