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

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 178708

> Betsy Hp:
> 
> And at least one of the examples Lizzyben used (the treatment of 
> goblins) is backed by a JKR interview in which she says that only 
> goblin fanatics would protest the Trio's deception over the sword (or 
> words to that effect).  Which would mean, I'd think, that yes we 
> *are* supposed to look down on goblins on the whole.

Pippin:
Um, no, she said that only a goblin fanatic would think that Gryffindors
had no right to the sword, or words to that effect. Nothing about 
the Trio's tactics, which *failed*. Or does failure only speak for itself
when it's Slytherin?

The whole point of the deceit was to keep the sword so they could
use it to destroy the other three (as they thought) horcruxes. Their
plan did not work. Neville recovered the sword, and not by deceiving
anyone. 

> Betsy Hp:
> I just want to take this moment to say I for one (can't speak for 
> Lizzyben obviously) absolutely believe that DH really *does* 
> encourage bigotry and hate.  

Pippin:
Gosh, shouldn't the ACLU  speak out against this menace?<g>
In fact I can't think of any serious anti-discrimination group 
that agrees with you. Are there any? It's their job to look for
this kind of thing, but somehow it's only disappointed fans
who seem to think that JKR's failure to portray the Slytherins
or the goblins as wronged saints is immoral. 

It might help to remember that in fairy stories, the death of a
villain or monster may symbolize integration, not destruction.
Harry's visit to King's Cross could be seen as joining his ego
to the superego (Dumbledore) and the id (Voldemort). Harry
no longer needs to fear that his subconscious desires will
dominate him, nor does he have to submit to the arid, loveless
demands of the superego to avoid this. 

Likewise with immersion in Snape's memories, Harry is able
to see Snape as a complete, though flawed, individual instead 
of a projection of his own fears. 

Pippin