JKR's intent (was:Re: A sandwich)

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 178706

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>
> > It's just, I've seen folks say, "JKR would never write something 
> > like that" to defend against the theory that she *did* actually   
> > write something like that.  And I'm wondering where that         
> > conviction comes from. 
> > <snip>

> >>Prep0strus:
> It's hard to answer your questions because I just don't know.  But 
> the books, when not overanalyzed the way we do on these boards, has 
> a pretty clear message.

Betsy Hp:
Honestly, I don't think I "overanalyzed".  I pretty much concluded DH 
summed up the series as "Harry's cool, anyone he dislikes sucks" 
(which is pretty much the definition of bigotry) as I was finishing 
it up.  (Not a fun conclusion, I assure you. <g>)  The analyzing 
afterwords just cemented it for me.  Especially the attempts to (as I 
saw it) wave away the hate stuff.  The arguments seem to depend so 
much on stuff outside the text it seemed more like rationalization 
than actual textual analyzation.

> >>Prep0strus:
> The Slytherin thing doesn't read to me the way it does to you and   
> Lizzyben.  I don't think it has the depth and complexity that many 
> of us assumed it did earlier on, but I think she created a group    
> that has corrupt ideals.  She places prejudice, blood superiority, 
> unchecked ambition, as well as a wealth of negative personality     
> traits in one place, and associates them together.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Oddly enough, I agree with you.  I actually think those of us who 
agree the Slytherins are supposed to be seen as overall bad eggs that 
are best kept apart from their betters are on the same wavelength.  
Where we separate, I think, is whether we buy that (a) the Slytherins 
really are as bad as DH concludes they are, and (b) whether this is 
the sort of thing that can really be determined at age eleven.

With issue (a) I think JKR meant for us to hate the Slytherins from 
Draco's introduction.  That's where I agree that I must go a bit 
subversive because I quite liked wee little Draco.  (This isn't a 
place where I *chose* to go subversive, btw, I honestly thought I was 
following JKR's lead.)  But I agree that your read that Slytherins 
are basically worthless is the one JKR ended the series with.  
(Slytherins with power move from being worthless to being out and out 
dangerous.  So the wise thing is to keep them separate, marked, and 
down.)

With issue (b) I think as long as you're cool with Slytherins being 
the baddies then the Sorting is just a form of story-telling.  Of 
course it's not something anyone could do in real life, but for the 
sake of the story, all those destined to be nasty folk are discovered 
at age eleven.  But if you don't (as I don't) buy the first premise 
(Slytherins are just bad, full stop) than the second premise becomes 
rather horrifying.  Children trapped into playing the role of bad 
guys, never allowed to grow, never allowed to change.

But then it does mean JKR was not writing a story about inclusion or 
love.  She was writing a popcorn tale of heroes vs. villains, no 
moral lesson need apply.  Which is fine (I personally think the story 
failed on that level too, just from plot issues) but trying to wrench 
a morality tale out of what boiled down to one giant, really 
stretched out, battle makes for, IMO, odd morals. 

> >>Prep0strus:
> <snip>
> And her interviews are not THAT contradictory.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Honestly, I thought her stuff about uniting the houses and her 
dwelling on the fact that the four houses represent the four elements 
is completely contradicted by the text.  There's no such thing as 
an "evil" element.  So unless you want to try and show how Slytherin 
*isn't* the bad house, that's an out and out contradiction.  So is 
her stuff about house-elves paralleling RL slavery.

Frankly, rereading her interviews gives me the impression she thought 
she'd write one sort of story and then changed her mind mid-stream. 
Which explains both the Slytherin disconnect that I saw and the 
ending celebrating that MoM statue that Harry at first thought 
distasteful and but then decided to emulate.

> >>Prep0strus:
> <snip>
> As for goblins... I wonder if it's not more a misunderstanding of 
> fantasy.
> <snip>
> That doesn't mean goblins are a representative of how it's ok to    
> treat people who are different than you badly.  It means she        
> created goblins that are selfish and mean, like the goblins of many 
> other stories.

Betsy Hp:
IIRC, JKR made pretty clear that she's not all that into fantasy 
stuff generally.  So I think her goblins are her goblins, not a 
commentary on other goblins of other stories.  And in her world 
goblins are greedy, untrustworthy, and just about as worthless as 
Slytherins.  Again, that statue at the Ministry is correct.  Not so 
much that goblins would *fawn* over wizards, but that they do need to 
be kept in their place.

> >>Prep0strus:
> <snip>
> Again, these things don't have to work for you, and they often     
> don't work for me, but it also doesn't suggest to me that she was   
> trying to state something other than what appears to be the most    
> obvious message of the series.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Right.  Wizards are number one, some wizards are better than others, 
and Harry's the best wizard of all.  White picket fences for everyone 
worthy of them.  It's when we try and paste this idea of love and 
inclusion on top of the story that I think things get a bit hinky and 
we have to ignore actual story-lines. 

> >>Magpie:
> <snip>
> It sometimes feels like the reason bigotry is important in the story
> is because it's nowadays a shorthand for "evil." I mean, the story
> isn't doing much in exploring bigotry, it's just making it the evil.
> The good guys don't have to think about bigotry, they just have to
> recognize it in Slytherins who "are" bigotry. (Hagrid might call
> centaurs mules or refer to Filch as a sneakin' squib or look down on
> Muggles, but he'd never slip up and say "Mudblood" and he doesn't
> murder people). 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Or Hermione might do the equivalent of saying "I've never cared for 
monkeys" when someone mentions the hot black teacher, but yes, she's 
not a bigot. <eg>  No, I agree, these books are less about bigotry or 
love or any sort of big thing.  They're about Harry triumphing over 
his enemies.  Bigotry was just a handy nail to hang a group of the 
baddies on, not something to be explored.  More's the pity.  (That's 
all my opinion, of course.)

Betsy Hp