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

[starview316]

No: HPFGUIDX 178012

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" 
<horridporrid03 at ...> wrote:
>
> > >>Jeanette:
> > > Slytherins are the rich children of the powerful people.
> > > <snip>
> > > Gryffindors are poor but honest...  (drawing with a very 
broad    
> > > brush here - bear with me please). 
> > > <snip>
> 
> > >>lizzyben:
> > > Well, one problem with that view is that 
Slytherins/Gryffindors   
> > > aren't really divided by socio-economic level.
> > > <snip>
> > > I would've maybe agreed w/this view a few books ago, but
> > > now it seems like socioeconomic level has little to do with the
> > > Sorting - it's character that matters.
> 
> > >>montims:
> > yes - I had said I was painting with a broad brush - evidently 
the 
> > houses aren't split by socio-economic criteria, and 
equally        
> > evidently, the real world is.
> > <snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> The thing is, IMO, Slytherin is made up of everything JKR finds bad 
> about people.  If a Slytherin is rich, they're the bad kind of rich 
> (snobby, elitist, etc.).  If they're poor, they're the bad kind of 
> poor (ignorant, greedy, etc.).  And the reverse is meant to be true 
> of the Gryffindors.
> 
> Honestly, this is part of the reason I really dislike the 
underlying 
> message of the books.  It's incredibly devisive.  "Are there people 
> who aren't like you?  Do you dislike them?  Well, take heart dear 
> reader.  They aren't quite as human as you and you can totally 
stomp 
> them if you so desire.  Because it's totally awesome (and 
reliable!) 
> to judge people's worth based on how much you personally like them."
> 
> IMO, while it can seem to come down to character, the fact that 
> our "good guys" behaved in some rather questionable ways but 
somehow 
> still managed to maintain (as per the author) their patina of 
> goodness, implied (IMO) that their "goodness" was established at 
the 
> Sorting.  In other words, you don't really have to look at a 
person's 
> behavior to judge them, just look at the color of their tie.  
> (Dumbledore's "sort too early" comment to Snape also puts forth 
that 
> point of view, I think.) 

Amy:

Um, Slytherins and Gryffindors aren't divided by any standards that 
can actually be used in the real world: beauty vs. ugliness, rich vs. 
poor, race, etc. "Judge people by the colour of their tie" is not an 
underlying message of the HP series, because most people in the real 
world aren't walking around wearing green or red ties. So how exactly 
is this message divisive, *except* for character? By real-world 
standards and prejudices, Slytherins and Gryffindors are exactly 
alike, which I think may have been JKR's point. What else are kids 
supposed to divide them by, besides character?

I get what you're saying about the "judge people's worth based on how 
much you like them" message, but I don't see how you're supposed to 
apply this to Slytherin vs. Gryffindor. Lily liked Snape. Harry and 
Ron hate Cormac McLaggen (Gryffindor) and Zacharias Smith 
(Hufflepuff). It's Marietta (Ravenclaw) who gets smeared with life-
long face pimples. I think it's a given that EVERYONE is supposed to 
hate Wormtail (whether the reader actually does or not).

So I think that the underlying message basically IS "judge people by 
character", which actually isn't the most heinous message in the 
world. There's a difference between behaviour and character. There 
was actually a discussion on this board weeks ago, in which it was 
pointed out that with most of the good characters, though they act 
badly a lot of the time, they're not really supposed to be unpleasant 
people (and if they are, then it's not really an issue that we didn't 
get a "pleasant", likeable Slytherin). 



Amy