Reacting to DH (was:Snape Reduced LONG(was: Re: Villain!Dumbledore...

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 177985

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > JKR doesn't even give us that kernel.  In fact, you're asking me 
> > to twist the text and squint at it sideways to see a loving       
> > reunion that in Genesis was made obvious by actions and tears.  

> >>Pippin:
> Um, did I say there was a loving reunion?

Betsy Hp:
I thought it implied in the comparison between Jacob and Esau burying 
their father and Slytherins and Gryffindors attending Dumbledore's 
funeral.  But I'm happy to agree that a loving reunion was never 
achieved between Gryffindor and Slytherin. <g>

> >>Pippin:
> There was  recognition by our heroes that Slytherins and           
> Gryffindors should not be turned against each other. That           
> Slytherins could be excellent wizards and worthy of the most        
> respectable position in the WW. That the choice of House could be   
> made perfectly well by the child and the Hat together, and adults   
> (and older siblings) can stay out of it.
> 
> There is no straining necessary to pick up on that, it's right there
> in the text.

Betsy Hp:
First, when was there ever a suggestion that the sorting didn't occur 
solely between the child and the Hat?  To suggest otherwise would 
suggest that the Hat could be wrong (unduly influenced), which we've 
been informed, never happens.

Second, I think Slytherins are seen worthy of positions that are kept 
safely beneath Gryffindors.  The lack of equality is strongly implied 
in the text.  A Slytherin may come *close* to achieving Gryffindor-
like goodness.  But only close.  To becoming like a Gryffindor.   
Which, yes, I don't have to strain to see.  It's very much there in 
all its bigoted glory.

> >>Pippin:
> What's missing is the soul-searching the heroes went 
> through to reach that conclusion.
> <snip>
> Harry, of the "saving people thing" didn't even think of saving     
> Snape. That's not repulsive, IMO,  it's tragic.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
What keeps DH stuck in the mud of repulsiveness rather than rising to 
the level of tragedy (IMO) is that very lack of soul-searching you 
mentioned.  Harry *never* comes to the conclusion that he should have 
done something to help Snape.  I don't recall any text where Harry 
thinks he did wrong.  Especially when it comes to him mistreating 
other people.  As far as the Harry on the train platform is 
concerned, everything's great because he's happy.  And while I 
certainly see Harry's happiness as not all that important when his 
surrounding world is so rotten, I see nothing in the text to suggest 
that this is what I *should* be seeing.  I feel I'm subverting, not 
following, the author's story.

> >>Pippin:
> I don't really think it takes effort to see that so much as time to
> let the events of the story sink in. It's just coming clear to me   
> now. 
> As for what makes it worth the effort, if we are going to go to
> all the trouble of criticizing a book and discussing it in depth,
> we might as well try to understand it. Just IMO, of course. 

Betsy Hp:
The problem is that I honestly don't see where in the text you're 
getting your theories.  I *like* your ideas and I wish I could see 
them in the text. But there are too many great leaps required, IMO, 
for me to take them as something JKR purposefully did.
 
> >>Pippin:
> > <snip>
> > The point of the whole camping bit, IMO, was to show              
> > that Gryffindors no more than Slytherins are trapped by the      
> > central problem of human existence: if the group is too small, it
> > cannot secure resources, but every additional member is
> > a competitor for resources and a possible betrayer. 
> > <snip>

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > Seriously?  That's what you were thinking about?
> > <snip>
> > (Boy, I'd love to see JKR faced with that question in an         
> > interview. Like a deer in headlights, I bet.)

> >>Pippin:
> <snip>
> But claiming  that a woman who once lived on welfare and is now one 
> of the richest woman in Britain isn't aware of basic economics is, 
> well, vastly amusing.

Betsy Hp:
I didn't think we were talking basic economics.  More the 
socioeconomic factors that helped spread modern man over pretty much 
every land mass on the globe, and are causing serious race issues in 
Europe.  I do suspect JKR's not got a clue about such things, despite 
her work-ethic.  And I *certainly* doubt that any such thoughts were 
going through her mind when she wrote about the Trio waiting around 
their little flat for the next deus ex machina to fall in their laps.


> >>Pippin:
> <snip>
> What I got out of the whining was that Gryffindor niceness (and by 
> extension all niceness) was mostly a matter of confidence that your 
> basic needs are being met.

Betsy Hp:
And now I'm hung up on the idea that I'm supposed to think the 
Gryffindors are nice. <eg>

> >>Pippin:
> Which made me think about why their basic needs weren't being met, 
> and  if I would find out what basic need of the Slytherins wasn't   
> being met. Which, in Snape's case, I certainly did. 

Betsy Hp:
Well, their basic needs weren't being met because the Trio are all 
kinds of stupid. <g>  And Snape's basic needs *were* being met.  
Snape isn't "nice" because he's a Slytherin.  And Slytherins are just 
not quite good enough to be "nice".  (I mean, hello Malfoy family.  
Or Black for that matter.)  You, know, they're "that sort" of 
people.  Good at some tasks, but you certainly wouldn't want your 
daughter dating one.

> >>Pippin:
> <snip>
> Partly, I think there's a cultural difference going on in that 
> European  novels tend not to have triumphalist endings with
> everything resolved.  I think Americans tend to expect that sort
> of Hollywood ending, and may either feel cheated of  it or assume 
> that it's meant to be wholly triumphal and that it's evil of
> JKR to ask us to celebrate such a less than ideal state of affairs.

Betsy Hp:
Wow.  What an incredibly narrow (and therefore incorrect, IMO) look 
at American literary culture.  I presume we're to just ignore Edith 
Wharton, Henry James, Herman Melville?  Even Ernest Hemingway is 
brushed aside by your overly broad (IMO) definition of "American 
Culture".  Also, you're making the dangerous mistake of assuming 
knowledge of my own personal literary tastes (as a list member who's 
not happy with DH).  Which, I can assure you, extends far beyond 
American shores.  (Not, I hasten to add, that there's anything wrong 
or lacking in North American literature.)

I do agree, however, that what bothers me about JKR's ending is that 
I think it's meant to be a "triumphalist ending".  Harry's got his 
girl and his kids and everything's just swell for him.  That his 
world is just as twisted and dark as ever (as revealed by the 
Slytherin house still being the "icky" house) doesn't even register.  
A Slytherin came close to aping his betters and that's good enough 
for our boy.  Harry's planted his flag; everyone can go home now.

I just don't see anything about the ending that suggests to me JKR 
means for me to see this as a tale still left to be told. 

Betsy Hp