JKR's intent

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 178746

> >>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?

Betsy Hp:
If that's the case, it means JKR failed as a writer.  Her imagery 
overwhelmed her message.

> >>Pippin:
> Those whom Neville invited into the RoR over the two weeks in which 
> he hid out there were already members of Dumbledore's Army. 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Heh.  Or maybe I'm just confused as to what you think JKR's message 
is.  Because yes, I totally agree that Slytherins weren't there 
because the rest of the school excluded them.  Unity was not the 
issue (despite past books and previous interviews), excluding the bad 
guy Slytherins was the issue.

> >>Pippin:
> 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:
Right.  I think Sydney made this argument a while ago. Slytherins are 
to Hogwarts now what Jews were to pre-WWII Europeans.

> >>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:
Yup!  If it makes you feel any better, I also assume Harry's kicking 
back living off the interest of his buckets and buckets of 
inheritence money. <bg>  It's not really a "default" more of a "if it 
were important JKR would actually put it in the book" assumption. 

> >>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?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Um, yeah, obviously.  Harry's last thought was to make use of his 
slave.  He didn't seemed too fussed about getting rid of the 
institution of house-elf slavery.  Why should we assume he changes 
his mind?

> >>Pippin:
> 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?

Betsy Hp:
Goodness Pippin!  Can you buy a slave on the street corner?

> >>Pippin: 
> I think the description of Kreacher's suffering is sufficiently
> memorable that Harry is never going to be okay with it.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
And yet, he is.  Kreature getting him a sandwich is a happy ending.

> >>Pippin:
> 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.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Because he thought specifically of Kreature getting it for him.  
Because we never see that "next morning". And nineteen years later 
there's nothing to suggest Harry's unhappy about or working to change 
the status quo.

> >>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.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
What text shows that McGonagalls read of the Slytherins was wrong?
 
> >>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.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
And yet, wasn't Dumbledore supposed to be a power to be reckoned with 
for a good while there?  IIRC, Lucius's power at the Ministry lasts 
for about... two years?  Maybe?  Dumbledore had more power until 
Lucius got to Fudge at the end of GoF, but then Lucius lost 
everything when he was exposed as a Death Eater at the end of OotP 
(wait, I think that's just one year).  Scrimgeour may not have been 
Dumbledore's man (which, seeing what being such did to Fudge, I don't 
too much blame him) but he was no Death Eater's pawn either. 

I'm not saying progressive stuff happened at the MoM because as per 
the text, it never seemed to, but that wasn't because of Voldemort 
and the Death Eaters.  I was always under the impression Voldemort 
tapped into prevalent WW thought rather than the other way around.

> >>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:
Heh.  When you're writing an epic hero's journey type story?  It's 
*always* the hero's job.  That's how these things work.  Ender 
(of "Ender's Game") was about thirteen years old (gosh, maybe 
younger) when he "saved" humanity.  Mary (of "The Secret Garden") was 
I think around 10 or so when she healed the darkness of Misselthwaite 
Manor.

Harry didn't need, nor did I expect him to, *lead* the WW.  What I 
did expect was that he'd *enlighten* the WW.  You know, bring some 
light into that brutal darkness. Instead, I fear he just made himself 
comfortable with the dark.

> >>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:
What is in canon is little James showing us that Slytherin is still 
the "bad" house.  So yeah, I'm betting that the same old bigotry 
remains.  Just, the Weasleys are ascendant now and Draco very firmly 
smashed down.  As we see by Ron easily insulting Malfoys on sight and 
advising his daughter not to date one. <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.

Betsy Hp:
No, it shows a great change in Harry's attitude towards Snape.  The 
Slytherin that nearly achieved Gryffindorness.

> >>Pippin:
> 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.

Betsy Hp:
Well, first you make the imperialist assumption that you have to be a 
Gryffindor to be truely brave. <bg>  Then you assume that, though 
he'd never *quite* get there, Snape did his best to become worthy of 
his Gryffindor masters.  JKR made this all perfectly clear, Pippin.  
Hence Harry assuring his son that he could *choose* to be in the 
house of the brave.  And hence the boy's first name being for that 
shining example of Gyrffindorness, Dumbledore.

> >>Pippin:
> <snip>
> 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.

Betsy Hp:
Right.  But it does mean that this series is useless in the battle, 
and brings nothing new to the discussion.  It's either JKR made such 
a hash of it she actually ended up writing an imperialistic pro-
bigotry book by mistake.  Or she had nothing to say about it at all. 
Either way, it means a reader shouldn't really look for bigotry as a 
guiding theme. At least, in my opinion.

Betsy Hp