Slytherins/ Dobby /Slytherins /Loyalty & Traitors /Selwyn /Prestige

Sat Oct 6 09:01:39 UTC 2007

No: HPFGUIDX 177768

Steve bboyminn wrote in 
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/177575>:

<< The Sorting Hat sees potential, and the potential to be cunning and
ambitious is not a negative thing. >>

I don't think cunning and ambition define who is Sorted into 
Slytherin. I know the Sorting Hat SAID those are the criteria, but I 
don't see it. The young Slytherins we know best are Draco and Crabbe 
and Goyle and Pansy. Crabbe and Goyle don't seem cunning, nor 
ambitious for anything except maybe to be valued servants of a big bad 
guy, and that's two out of four. 

I'm not sure what trait is shared by all Slytherins. Even 'an
attraction to secrecy' doesn't seem to relate to Crabbe and Goyle. 'A
desire for power' can relate to Crabbe and Goyle as the physical power
to beat people up, to Lucius Malfoy as political power, to Snape as
the power of potions. But I don't think it fits well for a person
whose ambition is to win a Quidditch championship or the most charming
smile contest...   

<< Also, I simply can't believe that /most/ Slytherins don't go on to 
live perfectly normal lives. It is unreasonable to assume they all go 
off and become dark wizards and criminals. >>

"Dark wizard" and "criminal" are not synonyms. A Dark Wizard can be a 
law-biding citizen if he uses only legal Dark spells and only for 
legal purposes.

<< I suspect more likely they become good businessmen and 
entrepreneurs. >> 

I agree with perfectly normal lives, but not that they produce that  
many more entrepreneurs and successful businesspeople than the other 
Houses. Hufflepuff hard work and Gryffindor courage are also useful 
for entrepreneurs. Crabbe and Goyle showed more potential to be 
bodyguards or bouncers than businessmen.

Carol wrote in 
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/177583>:

<< Love takes the form of respect and affection for a house-elf in
Regulus's case--note that Kreacher is inspired by him to lead the
house-elves in the final segment of the battle. >>

Lucius and Narcissa were quite abusive of Dobby, and Dobby said that
when the Dark Lord was in power, all House Elves were treated just as
badly ("treated like vermin"). Regulus, a follower of the Dark Lord,
loved his Kreachur, and Narcissa and Bellatrix treated Kreachur with
enough kindness to move him to betray his owner. Was Dobby just
*wrong* about how non-Malfoy Dark Wizards treat their House Elves? Not
according to Hermione, who said it was perfectly normal for wizards
(not just Dark Wizards) to test a poison on a House Elf...

<< Even Phineas shows love at one point, rushing to 12 GP to search 
for his great-great-grandson Sirius, refusing to believe that he's 
dead. >>

I thought Phineas Nigellus was anxious about the continuance of his 
family name, not about the survival of his great-great-grandson. That 
is, he wouldn't have cared that Sirius died if only Sirius or Regulus 
had fathered a child on a pureblood witch before death.

<< Theo Nott and Blaise Zabini, probably have "human" stories, too, 
and reasons why, unlike Draco, they chose not to join the DEs >>

In Theo's case, readers could draw a connection to the recollection 
that the DE team in the Department of Mysteries left his wounded 
father to die or be captured and put in Azkaban. 

As you know, JKR stated on her website that she had written and 
deleted a scene in which Theo and Draco converse while Nott Sr is 
visiting Malfoy Sr. She stated that "Together these two Death Eaters' 
sons discuss Dumbledore's regime at Hogwarts and Harry Potter, with 
all sorts of stories that the Death Eaters tell about how this baby 
boy survived the Dark Lord's attack." I don't think there's anything 
to indicate that they were debating whether the Dark Lord's return 
would be a good thing (with Draco:Pro and Theo:Con) but I'm under the 
impression that some fans think that was the conversation, indicating 
that Theo disliked the DE thing even before his father was wounded. 
<http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/en/extrastuff_view.cfm?id=5> 

Betsy Hp wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/177620>:

<<  I think this can be an interesting discussion. It's not one that
the series ever entertains though, IMO. Which is too bad and I think
an example of us fans deepening what was, in the end, a rather simple
tale. JKR could have used Marietta's story (or Sirius's or Regulus's
or Draco's or Percy's) to explore family loyalty and when (if ever) it
should be broken and are there right ways or wrong ways, etc., etc.
She didn't. >>

I was disappointed when that there interview quote showed that Rowling
had given far less thought to the matter of loyalty and betrayal than
we readers have, but the books surely have given us plenty of
opportunity to think about loyalty and betrayal. 
	You may be tired of hearing me say that Pettigrew and Snape did the
same thing: joined one side with their friends, switched to the other
side, spied on their old side for their new side, thus betraying their
friends, some of whom were killed or imprisoned as a result. (Okay,
for Snape we have only Sirius's word that Wilkes and Rosier were  his
friends, Sirius's & Moody's word that they were killed by Aurors while
resisting arrest, and inference that Snape's spy information to
Dumbledore helped the Aurors catch them. But even if he didn't cause
their deaths, he *was* a traitor to the side he had first given his
loyalty to.) One's treachery makes him a hero; the other's treachery
makes him a villain.
	I thought she cared, because she gave us Two More matched pairs, one
I can't remember right now, and the other is Dobby and Kreachur. As of
HBP, Dobby and Kreachur were the same: House Elves who believed in the
side that their masters opposed, so they betrayed their masters to a
person whom they preferred. Dobby also had a goal of his own (getting
his freedom), so Kreachur was more unselfish. But DH gave Dobby a
heroic death and turned Kreachur into a good dog, so their stories are
all different now.

Carol wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/177636>:

<< We're introduced briefly to a new DE, Selwyn, whom we'll see again
and whose chief significance appears to be his connection with Dolores
Umbridge. >>

I was certain that Umbridge was lying about being related to the
Selwyns. If the locket had had a different letter on it, she would
have chosen a different Pureblood family to pretend to be related to.
Of course, my track record suggests that I'm wrong and even Umbridge
tells the truth.
	Anyway, I have been unable to get my act together to make a timeline
of when in the events of OOP Umbridge acquired the locket, and did it
co-incide with a distinct increase in her nastiness?

Bart wrote in
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/177708>:

<< When I admitted that I had never heard the term "the prestige" in
reference to stage magic, I felt MUCH better when I heard an interview
where Christopher Priest stated that he made up the usage of the term. >>

I'm an admirer of the OnLine Etymology Dictionary
<http://www.etymonline.com/abbr.php> which says:
<http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=prestigious> 
<<prestigious 
    1546, "practicing illusion or magic, deceptive," from L.
præstigious "full of tricks," from præstigiæ "juggler's tricks,"
probably altered by dissimilation from præstringere "to blind,
blindfold, dazzle," from præ- "before" + stringere "to tie or bind"
(see strain (v.)). Prestige is from 1656, from Fr. prestige "an
illusion" (16c.). These words were derogatory until 19c.; prestige in
the sense of "dazzling influence" was first applied 1815, to Napoleon.
Prestigious with this sense is attested from 1913.>>

And my beloved American Heritage Dictionary says at
<http://www.bartleby.com/61/45/P0544500.html>:
<< prestidigitation ... ETYMOLOGY:	French (influenced by
prestigiateur, juggler, conjurer, from prestige, illusion), from
prestidigitateur, conjurer : preste, nimble (from Italian presto; see
presto) + Latin digitus, finger; see digit. >>