JKR's intent

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 178740

>
> Betsy Hp wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Del comments:
> I still remember the horrifying moment when I first read about Harry
> entering the RoR for the first time in DH, and noticing that there is
> no Slytherin banner in it. My mind reeled with disbelief and shock at
> that time: this was just so WRONG! 

Pippin:
Perhaps your mind was reeling so much that you didn't take in 
the explanation of how the banners came to be there? Those whom
Neville invited into the RoR over the two weeks in which he hid out
there were already members of Dumbledore'sArmy. 

"But it's expanded as more and more of the D.A. have arrived."

Despite  graffiti-ing "Join Dumbledore's Army" on the walls,
Neville had not accepted any new members. There was no chance for
Slytherins to join Neville in the RoR.

There do not HAVE to be any Slytherins in  the DA for 
Slytherins to be opposed to Voldemort. It'd be like assuming English
Jews were against parliamentary government in the early Victorian
era because none of them served. They *couldn't* serve because
they were excluded. 

Betsy HP:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/178712

 House-elves became a good excuse to kiss her boyfriend.
And afterwords she has his kids. Nothing about a future of crusading
for anyone's rights. Just a dead freedom seeking house-elf and a
live slave.

Pippin:
Oh, I *see.*  So the default assumption is that a woman who gets
married and has kids is politically dead? If JKR wants you to think
otherwise, she has to show you? I kind of  hoped we'd moved
beyond that. ::sigh::

Betsy Hp:
Apparently, after living in a house with a house-elf happily being
your slave, you become totally cool with it. <g> Harry defines
Kreature as his slave. He's a good boy so he's not into beating
Kreature, but he's very cool with Kreature serving him. So the
system works for Harry.

Pippin:
But the whole point of the passage, as I understood it, is that
no matter how good the master is or how willing the slave,
one of them may make a mistake and the slave will have to
punish himself, just as we saw in canon. 

Sure it's nice to have the kitchen kept all tidy and sandwiches on 
demand. Sure, some slaves develop a slave mentality and don't
object to slavery any more. But it's like the famous description 
of capitalism as a dead herring:

 "It shines and stinks." 

Are the attractions of slavery so seductive that they have to
be swept under the rug lest people wonder why we ever got
rid of it? Do you see the need for a scare campaign like the 
ones they used to use against illegal drugs, where every 
aspect had to be described as horrifying lest people think 
they should try it?

I think the description of Kreacher's suffering is sufficiently
memorable that Harry is never going to be okay with it. I'm
certainly not. I don't know of any reader who *is* okay with it.
That Harry doesn't feel guilty for wanting Kreacher to get
him a sandwich doesn't bother me -- what does Kreacher
care whether Harry feels guilty or not? Actually, it's worse
than that. Kreacher would be upset and blame himself for
master's unhappiness.

If the book had ended with Neville thinking that maybe
Mum would give him a gum wrapper, would that mean he 
was okay with her insanity?

And I don't see, and no one has explained, how
wanting a sandwich at the end of a day when he's terminally
exhausted and has just saved the world, means that when 
Harry gets up the next morning he won't be just as aware of the
drawbacks of slavery as he was when he saw Kreacher
punishing himself. We haven't forgotten, so why should he?

> >>Pippin:
> The Slytherins walked out because McGonagall told them to leave.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Because they'd shown themselves as baddies. (Or are you suggesting
McGonagall is a baddie now?) So... Hagrid and Ron were right.

Pippin:
McGonagall wasn't a baddie, but she was wrong. Wrong to believe
that Snape had murdered Dumbledore, wrong to behave as if he
had corrupted all of Slytherin House. 

If you'll remember, the whole school had drawn their wands and
were pointing them at the Slytherin Table, not just at Pansy.
What could they do then, except go quietly? Did McGonagall give
the impression that she would delay the evacuation if there were
objections? With Voldemort on his way, would that have been
a good idea?

Betsy Hp:
Neither Death Eaters nor Voldemort were stopping changes occurring in
the MoM.

Pippin:
Lucius was stopping implementation of Arthur's Muggle protection
act. Arthur's career was stalled because he was too friendly to Muggles.
Kingsley Shacklebolt had to be distant from Arthur. Tonks and
Lupin thought their presence would give Scrimgeour an excuse
to hassle Harry.

The threat of DE's made the WW reluctant to stop relying on dementors 
for protection and afraid to find out if any Giants would want to change
sides. Some of them *were* sympathetic, and maybe, if the embassy had
had ministry support more could have been saved than Grawp.

Betsy HP:
 Also, Harry just killed Voldemort. Packs of fanatic bigots
could rise again because he did nothing to change or enlighten the
primordal soup they rose out of, IMO. 

Pippin:
That was Arthur's and Kingsley's job--seventeen year olds aren't
ready to lead the WW, no matter how good they are at destroying
horcruxes. What Harry did was give those who were prepared the 
opportunity to do it.

Betsy Hp:
The epilogue reflects that by showing that neither the MoM nor 
Slytherin has changed. 

Pippin:
Slytherin has changed, since we no longer see people who
think werewolf descendants ought to be pruned, or Weasleys
should be insulted on sight or that Mudbloods ought to be
kept out of Hogwarts. Remember, if it's not in canon, it
doesn't exist <g> 

Betsy Hp:
The idea that they needed to change is so unimportant to JKR she 
doesn't even address it. Instead we learn the names of the Trio's 
children.

Pippin:
One of which is Albus Severus, showing a great change in Harry's
attitude towards Slytherin. Unless you make the imperialist assumption
that you have to be a Gryffindor to be truly brave (which Harry does 
not make even if Dumbledore does) I don't see how that makes 
Snape a sort of second-rate Gryffindor. "Slytherins are brave" 
said Phineas, and he ought to know.

Salazar was wrong to think that only purebloods could be powerful
and trustworthy, Gryffindor was wrong to think he could tell who was
going to have brave deeds to their name at the age of eleven. Neither
is shown as wrong to think that being powerful, brave and trustworthy is
good, though canon does regard it as more important to be brave and 
trustworthy than it is to be powerful. I don't see that as a bigoted
or imperialist message.

As for the changes in the MoM, JKR had so many that she felt they'd
be cramped in the epilogue, "shoehorned in" as she put it. That 
would be another story, one that's about politics rather than adventures.
I don't think we need Advise and Consent for the Potterverse, although
if someone wants to do the fanfic it's okay with me. <g>

Somehow I don't  think that  nineteen years of committee
meetings, special reports, speeches to the Wizengamot, and 
fume-filled rooms is what the majority of JKR's audience wants to 
read about <g>

I want to expand a little further on why I said it didn't matter about
the reader's attitude towards Slytherin.

If you see Slytherins as victims of bigotry and don't think
that Harry did enough, the upshot is still a feeling on your
part that bigotry should be fought.

OTOH, if you see the Slytherins as villains because they represent
bigots and amoral power-seekers, you still have the feeling that 
bigotry should be fought.

It doesn't matter who you see as the  *fictional* victims or villains, 
IOW, as long as you get the idea that the *real life* victims of prejudice 
should be protected from the real life bigots and from those who are
more interested in getting power than in using it wisely.

Pippin