A sandwich/Defining the Other

[prep0strus]

No: HPFGUIDX 178737

> Adam (Prep0strus) wrote:
> > And what you said - that these groups actually
> > ARE what they say they are... well, that doesn't
> > mean something BAD.  It's just saying - a person
> > who seems like a bigot is a bigot.
> 
> Del replies:
> And that to me is an *extremely* BAD message to
> send, because its ramifications are appalling.

Prep0strus:
When I read over what I wrote, I realized it certainly doesn't sound
very good... but I actually take issue with your examples - I'll try
to explain.

Del:
>  Examples:
> 
> * I don't like your opinion on that one matter,
> so I classify you as a bigot and that's it.
> 
> * I don't understand where you're coming from 
> on this matter, so I classify you as a bigot.
> 
> * I don't care what particular reasons you may
> have to think differently than I do, you're just a bigot.
> 
> And so on. In general: "don't hesitate to judge
> a book by its cover." Nasty.
> 
> > She didn't make them one group that
> > would be associated with a real life
> > group to which she was assigning bigotry.
> 
> No, but she did associate particular traits with
> Slytherin. The concept of Muggleborns is a purely
> fictitious one, but the Slytherins are Sorted based
> on some very real things.
> 
> Del
>

Prep0strus:
The one that seems most valid to me is 'don't hesitate to judge a book
by its cover'.  That actually turns out to have been true... except
that she's used 'don't judge a book by its cover' several times over
the series, so I think readers still get that message, even if in the
overall series, the seeming bad guys really are just bad guys.  One of
the primary themes of SS/PS is don't judge a book by its cover, based
on Snape... and the theme could be observed also in CoS(Lockheart),
PoA(Sirus), and DH(Snape again).


Your other examples... while they exhibit a lack of depth in her
writing, I don't necessarily agree have to be the worst thing in the
world.  The issues she brings up aren't very 'debatable'.  I don't
particularly CARE why Slytherins think these things.  Maybe I should,
and maybe if she had invested more in that, the story would be more
interesting... but I don't need the reasons or explanations or
background to know that what they're thinking is wrong.  Their
bigotry, as defined in the series, is flat out incorrect.  They have
an irrational dislike of people who were born to people who weren't
wizards.  The best explanation from Voldemort is that they 'stole'
magic.  It's a completely arbitrary bigotry which they use to justify
treating other people poorly, and I think it's wrong.  JKR thinks it's
wrong, and that's it.  Perhaps a more powerful piece of fiction would
have delved into the societal and historical causes of this, but JKR
was writing a simpler story.  She had characters who were bigoted and
mean to another group for no good reason, and is saying - that's
wrong.  Not sophisticated, but also not a horrible message.

As for what you say about the traits associated with Slytherin...
well, I'm going to go again with 'I don't care'.  Maybe it's because I
never identified with Slytherin, but I think their traits are
terrible, and I don't care if they're associated with bad things.  I
think intelligence and wit are shown in a positive enough light that
no one who considers themselves 'cunning' (who considers themselves
cunning, anyway?) is going to be offended and think - JKR thinks
cunning people are bigots!  And people who are ambitious have only the
twins - not to mention the trio, along with others - to look at to
realize that ambition itself is not wrong.  It is the unchecked
ambition of Slytherins.  And I fully agree - being willing to do
anything to achieve what you want is wrong and evil, and I'm ok with
that being associated with terrible people.

Betsy Hp:
Hmm... Okay I've been thinking [flee! flee for your lives!!] and I
might be twisting what both you and Lizzyben are meaning when you
say "Other". But if you take the "Other" as the shadow self or
character or group in a story, than I don't think we the reader can
just arbitrarily pick who the representation is going to be.
Instead, the text will make it clear. And IMO, JKR clearly gives
Slytherin house that role. [seriously run! she's bringing up
slytherin!!!]

Prep0strus:
I think the other can be a lot of things, and people can make their
associations. And I understand why many people consider Slytherins the
other of the story.  However, again, reading the books as much more
simplistically (which is where I've ended up thinking the books
belong), I believe the other of the wizarding world is muggleborns. 
There are huge reasons to assume there are much more 'othered others',
including goblins, centaurs, elves, and giants... but I now believe
JKR was telling a very straightforward story about bigotry being wrong
- and she set up Muggleborns as the group which is persecuted by a
segment of the main wizarding population.  By giants appearing to
actually be bad and elves possibly satisfied in their place, I think
she was removing them from the literary equation (in a flawed manner).
 But the Muggleborns stand in for those oppressed in the real world.


Betsy HP:
JKR tied Slytherin quite firmly to the female. Just as she tied
Gryffindor quite firmly to the male. Because her hero was a
Gryffindor, his "other" had to be (and through the text clearly was,
IMO), Slytherin. But instead of embracing his other, instead of
facing his fears of the other, Harry walked away. Fought his way
free the way the story goes, honestly.

So hmm... maybe the Potterseries *is* a fairy story? But if so, than
it's a failed one where the hero refuses to face up to his sexual
fears; kills, ignores and does whatever necessary to fully sublimate
his sexual counterpart; and ends up happily stuck in childhood dreams
of a game of "house". It's a story about a boy who never grows up.
Huh. I guess in the end, Harry never found his Wendybird (or maybe
he just succeeded in killing her?).

Prep0strus:
I had no idea where to snip, or what to show of your theory.  I really
don't have much of an idea of what to say about it, either. 
Interesting, I suppose.  I don't see it at all, and don't agree, but
interesting.

Really, I have a tough time equating the houses to any four equal
things that exist in other forms.  This is because the houses are not
equal at all.  So I've never found it easy to make Slytherin a water
sign, because all signs have positive traits, and I don't see any in
Slytherin.  Jumping from water to female... ok.  But it gets further
and further away from what actually exists on the page.  Just like the
assumptions that Fleur is watery, and we assume Slytherin is watery,
so that makes Fleur like Slytherin, so Fleur's good qualities must be
Slytherin qualities, even though we don't see them in an actual
Slytherin.  Too convoluted.

If Slytherin was going to represent women, and women as evil, well...
we should have a more prominent female in that role.  Bella's crazy,
but she's not a powerful enough force in the story next to our real
Slytherins - Snape and Draco and Voldy.

As for the rest... people and things are cut and bleed in adventure
stories.  I don't see how every time something bleeds it is tied to
menstruation in some way.  Voldy the Slytherin is a menstruating
rapist?  And... Harry faces a killer vagina and rescues a penis? Gah.
 I would never in a million years have looked at that scene like
that... if he's the male entering the female pool... I dunno.  I've
never thought of sex as 'rescuing the penis'.

I'll tell you, that was an interesting read.  I'm not sure how it
defined the other, and I don't think any of that was in JKR's head,
but... wow.

~Adam (Prep0strus)