Dark Book

[lizzyben04]

No: HPFGUIDX 177020

> lizzyben wrote:
> > 
> > - Choices are what matter/predestination removes choices
> 
> Carol responds:
> So Snape's choice to protect Harry and help him to defeat Voldemort
> means nothing? Wormtail's choice to betray his friends means 
nothing?
> Harry's choice to sacrifice himself rather than fight Voldemort 
means
> nothing? I disagree on all counts.


lizzyben:

Yep, that's right, because all of those choices were predestined by 
that person's essential character. Choices simply *show* who you 
are, they don't change you. Snape was born nasty but loving Lily, 
Harry was born w/a saving-people-thing, Wormtail was born a 
syncophant for the biggest bully, and their "choices" will always 
reflect that essential character. People can't change. I wish I'd 
known this was the case earlier, because I could've just read SS & 
saved some time. 

> Lizzyben:
> > - World not divided between good & DE/world totally divided 
between
> good & evil, us & them
> > - Good is something you do/ good is something you *are*, & good
> people can do bad things if they want to.
> 
> Carol responds:
> *Or* good people are not perfect and make mistakes. Ron, for 
example,
> walks out on his friends before returning to them. Anger very 
nearly
> gets the better of him. Harry wants revenge against Snape and 
expects
> to kill Voldemort for most of the book and only changes his mind on
> both counts after seeing Snape's memories. <snip> Dumbledore could 
have gone the way of 
Gellert
> Grindelwald but chose to renounce power and the desire to control
> Muggles (three of whom abused his sister and were indirectly
> responsible for all the tragedies that followed) through magic.
> Forgive me, but I think you're seeing what you want to see and
> ignoring any evidence to the contrary.


lizzyben:

Well, I obviously disagree. I don't like most of the main 
characters, but JKR does & that's what matters. I think DD's totally 
evil, she considers him the "epitome of goodness." The flaws & 
faults of the good guys are forgiveable, or don't matter. Harry's 
crucio is because he's "not a saint," but he's still Jesus in the 
end & will save the wizarding world w/his sacrifice. Hermione can 
disfigure students, & it's justified. Of course good people can make 
mistakes, that doesn't take away from their *essential* goodness & 
worthiness.

While the flaws of the good guys are overlooked, the flaws of the 
bad guys are fatal & irreversible. There's little to no forgiveness 
or redemption of the designated bad guys. Thank God for Snape, who 
was almost good enough to be a Gryffindor, and is valued for his 
Gryffindor-esque trait. 

> Lizzyben:
> > - "Blood status" doesn't matter/ blood is all that matters - bad
> Slytherin blood will out, pure Gryffindor blood will save.
> 
> Carol:
> There's no such thing as "pure Gryffindor blood." Hermione and Lily
> are Muggleborns sorted into Gryffindor. It's Harry's and Lily's
> self-sacrifice, two acts of love on different scales, that have the
> power of ancient magic.
<snip>
> I agree that the message that blood doesn't matter is rather 
garbled.
> Hagrid thinks that the Malfoys have "bad blood" and he actually 
says
> that blood is important with regard to his half-brother, Grawp, 
but I
> don't think we're supposed to take Hagrid as our spokesman. And the
> power of Harry's blood in Voldemort has nothing to do with him or 
with
> Gryffindor. It has to do with the power of love via Lily's
> self-sacrifice, the same power that protects Harry from Voldemort 
as
> long as he's with Petunia, no Gryffindor and not even a witch. Her
> blood has power because it's Lily's blood, which has the power of
> love. (I do think that "blood" either is or isn't magical, and 
unicorn
> blood and dragon's blood have magical properties, but that's
> altogether different from "Gryffindor blood" or "Slytherin blood,"
> concepts that have no place in the books.


lizzyben:

I'm going to go more into this, because it's one of the more 
repulsive messages in HP. Blood DOES matter - it's almost all that 
matters. JKR has stated that people can have magic *only* if they 
have wizarding ancestors. Even muggle-borns have wizarding blood. 
W/O pure wizarding blood, you can't do magic. So in a way, 
LV was right. 

Aunt Marge was right, too - "Bad blood will out." Reading over her 
speech in POA, I can now see that Aunt Marge really had the 
essential themes down.

Aunt Marge: "You mustn't blame yourself for the way the boy's turned 
out, Vernon," she said over lunch on the 3rd day. "If there's 
something rotten on the inside, there's nothing anyone can do about 
it." 
Hagrid, our guide to the wizarding world, tells Harry in SS: "Rotten 
ter the core, the whole family, everyone knows that. No Malfoy's 
worth listening ter." 
Aunt Marge: "Weak. Underbred... It all comes down to blood, as I was 
saying the other day. Bad blood will out."
Hagrid: "Bad blood, that's what it is." 

Hagrid's message is echoed by Aunt Marge, in almost the same exact 
terms: If there's something rotten on the inside, that child is 
going to turn out bad, & there's nothing anyone can do about it. 
That person has "bad blood," they're not worth listening to, & 
they're not worth even trying to help. Bad blood will out. This is 
determinism at its core - people are born good or bad, and 
their "blood" or character can't change. Those 
w/"bad blood" are rotten on the inside, & will eventually prove 
their evilness - it's no use trying to help them or show them 
compassion. Might as well stuff them out of sight... And that is the 
message that is endorsed w/Voldemort, & Slytherins in general for 
the most part. 

"Aunt Marge reached for her glass of wine. "It's one of the basic 
rules of breeding. You see it all the time with dogs. If there's 
something wrong with the bitch, there'll be something wrong with the 
pup - "

I hate to go there, but this is the take-home message about the 
Gaunts. The Gaunts are presented as weak, inbred, "bad blood" all 
around, which makes sense since they're the heirs of Slytherin. And 
this "bad blood" reaches its ultimate conclusion w/Voldemort. 

Dumbledore: "Marvolo, his son, Morfin, and his daughter, Merope, 
were the last of the Gaunts, a very ancient Wizarding family noted 
for a vein of instability and violence that flourished through the 
generations due to their habit of marrying their own cousins." 

Gaunts have bad blood; their violence & evil is in their VEINS. 
Since there is something wrong w/the bloodline, there will be 
something wrong w/Merope's child. Evil, like magic, is in the blood.

Contrast this w/Harry's goodness, which apparantly is also in his 
blood. JKR says that Harry's blood contains "hope & goodness" & is 
so pure that even a drop would be enough to make Voldemort repent. 
Harry's goodness isn't in his thoughts or actions or emotions - it's 
in his BLOOD. And this is true all Harry's life; no matter what he 
does or who he tortures, he will always be of pure blood. 

Lily's blood is so pure & good, her sacrifice can save & protect her 
child. Harry's blood is so pure & good, his sacrifice can save the 
wizarding world & protect his followers from harm. That's some 
powerful blood. So, yes, in the end Gryffindor Harry is portrayed as 
someone of good, pure, blood that makes him moral & worthy. 
Slytherin Voldemort is portrayed as someone of "bad, tainted blood" 
that makes him evil & irredeemable. In her interview, JKR said that 
Slytherin House is now not so bad, because it has been "diluted." 
That's an odd choice of words - but it falls perfectly in line 
w/this philosophy. Pure-blood Slytherins have "bad blood", that 
blood makes them morally evil, and that evil can only be "diluted" 
by the addition of new, better blood. It's extremely creepy - & it 
reinforces Hagrid & Aunt Marge's message - "bad blood will out". 

Actually, looking back Aunt Marge was right about something else: "I 
won't have this namby-pamby, wishy-washy nonsense about not hitting 
people who deserve it. A good thrashing is what's needed in ninety-
nine cases out of a hundred." That message also seems to be endorsed 
at the end of this series - Aunt Marge deserved her thrashing, as 
did Marietta, & Draco, & Smith, & Snape, & Montague, & Dudley etc.

> Lizzyben:
> > - Bigotry is bad/ bigotry against Slytherins is totally 
justified.
> 
> Carol:
> But it isn't, as Harry learns. McGonagall is *wrong* in her 
judgment
> of Snape and Slughorn and Slytherin in general, as the reader 
learns
> through "The Prince's Tale. <snip> I don't like the way that 
McGonagall judges the whole House by one
> students' action or the way that she assumes that any of the older
> Slytherins who choose to fight will fight for Voldemort, either. 
 We don't see her changing her view, but she is present for
> Harry's vindication of Snape and for Slughorn's participation in 
the
> battle. <snip>But 
we,
> the readers, can see that she is wrong. Not a single Slytherin 
student
> fights for Voldemort (Voldie is lying to Lucius), and Draco stops
> Crabbe from killing or Crucioing Harry.

lizzyben:
Then why do most readers seem to think she was right about Slytherin 
students? Why do we think that they did abandon Hogwarts & go to 
Voldemort's side? If we *weren't* supposed to think that, why would 
JKR make it so unclear? 
 
Carol:
> The point is, most of the characters, including Harry until his
> epiphany, judge by appearances. 
<snip> We can't judge Slytherin by McGonagall's words and 
actions.<snip> Her view is not so far removed from Aberforth 
Dumbledore's idea that the "good" side should hold a few Slytherins 
hostage.

lizzyben:

OK, don't listen to what McGonagall says, or what Aberforth says, or 
what Hagrid says, because even though these "good guys" express 
these ideas, we should know that they are actually bad ideas, even 
though the text never actually says so. But at a certain point, if 
we're ignoring the message of most of the leaders, aren't we in fact 
ignoring the actual message & creating our own individual 
intepretation? Because the text seems to say that we *can* judge by 
appearances when it comes to Slytherins 99.9% of the time - they're 
no good.

Carol:
> JKR has been withholding information until the last book. Only when
> all the facts are in can Harry understand that Slytherin does not
> equal Death Eater and even Death Eaters can be redeemed. And once
> Harry understands, the narrator ceases to be unreliable. No more
> comments about Snape as the man Harry hated. No more assertions 
that
> Dumbledore betrayed Harry. Instead we get Harry telling Ron and
> hermione the truth about both of them (admittedly, offpage) and 
naming
> his second son for two flawed but brilliant headmasters--and it's 
the
> Slytherin who's praised for his courage.

lizzyben:

We've had 7 books knocking us over the head w/one message, and when 
that message is reversed in any way, it happens off-screen. Off-
page, and we don't have to see the reasoning that makes Harry come 
to that conclusion. IMHO, one off-page conversion isn't enough to 
reverse 1000+ pages of on-page condemnation.

> Lizzyben:
> > - Violence & bullying are bad/ unless we're doing it.
> 
> Carol:
> We are not supposed to admire James and Sirius, the Gryffindor
> bullies. "The Prince's Tale" restates Harry's discomfort knowing 
that
> his father and godfather were indeed arrogant, bullying "toerags." 
And
> I think we're supposed to see that the Gryffindors' treatment of
> Slytherins (and the Twins' treatment of Dudley) is no better than
> Draco's treatment of Harry in HBP or the Muggle levitating at the 
QWC.
> Harry's Crucio on Carrow puts him on the same level, briefly, as
> Bellatrix Lestrange.

lizzyben:

But how do you know that we're supposed to see that? You don't have 
to admire James or Sirius, but I do think that we're supposed to. 
They're Gryffindors, after all, they're brave, they fought LV, 
they're heros, etc. Their actions are presented as youthful hijinks, 
quite different from the Dark magic Snape engages in, quite 
different from the horrible things Dudley & Draco do. Dudley & Draco 
deserve some payback; James & Sirus do not. And even though these 
parallels exist between the way the bad guys treat people & the way 
the good guys treat people, they seem to be entirely coincidental. 

I *don't* think we're supposed to see it as the same - intent is 
everything, & good guys can do bad things because they're so good. 
My proof? HBP Ginny hexed anyone who annoyed her, bullied Zacharias 
Smith, made fun of Fleur, lashed out at Hermione, etc. And JKR 
described HBP!Ginny as "warm and compassionate." Okay... She says 
that Harry crucioed Carrow because he was defending someone "very 
good" against a "violent & murderous opponent". (Spitting at someone 
is a murder attempt?) So torturing him *was* pretty gallant. 
Marietta was simply a traitor, who deserved permenant scars. 
Meanwhile, she stated that she hopes she'd be "worthy" enough to be 
in Gryffindor, and was "shocked & disturbed" that *any* fan would 
identify w/Slytherins. Does that sound like she sees them the same, 
or would expect readers to?

Carol:
 But once he sees Snape's memories, he changes
> tactics. He ceases to seek revenge and instead, sacrifices himself 
as
> an act of love. I doubt very much that he condones bullying on the
> part of his children (teasing is another matter and an inevitable 
part
> of childhood).
<snip>
We can hope for a
> friendship between Albus Severus Potter and Scorpius Malfoy, in 
marked
> contrast to the enmity between James Potter and Severus Snape or 
Harry.


lizzyben:

Carol, where's the canon? We can all come to conclusions about 
what we think Harry or Albus Severus would do in the future, but the 
epilogue & text is all we've got to go on. In the epilogue, good guy 
Ron is *still* talking about how he doesn't like Slyths & his 
daughter better not marry a pure-blood like Scorpius. James Jr. 
seems like a bully-in-training, tormenting his brother w/the threat 
of Slytherin damnation, etc. We can *hope* that they find friendship 
instead of enmity, but there's really no indication that'll happen.

We can definitely take a message of tolerance & forgiveness if we 
want to, we can think that the Houses truly are meant to be equal, 
or that the new generation becomes closer, etc., but when it goes 
against the statements of the characters & the author herself, it 
starts to seem almost like a subversive interpretation.

> Lizzyben:
> > - Women are equals/ women are worthless <snip>
> 
> Carol:
> Women are worthless? It's Lily's sacrifice that saves Harry. 
Hermione
> saves Harry from Bathilda!Nagini and from the DEs who arrive at 
Xeno
> lovegood's house. her protective magic keeps HRH alive. 
<snip>

lizzyben:

Sorry, should've made that more clear. - Women are worthless outside 
of their traditional roles of mother, wife & helpmate.

On the surface, there's this veneer of equality, w/the 2 female 
founders, etc. but within the books themselves, women seem to almost 
always only exist (or matter) in these roles. Mother love is indeed 
important & glorified w/Lily, Molly, Narcissa, etc. But there's an 
odd lack of any truly independent, single women; or any adult female 
characters at all from 18-40. Tonks started out that way, and 
quickly degenerated into a pathetic lovesick moper who 
couldn't do anything till she got her man. Ginny likewise spends 
most of her life obsessed w/getting her man - in DH, Harry mostly 
thinks about snogging her, not actually talking to her. Even 
Bellatrix reflects this in her own twisted way - everything she 
does, she does to help LV. Hermione is the "brightest witch of her 
age", but in DH she uses her intelligence to help Harry & Ron, not 
to persue her own causes (SPEW, etc.). In the epilogue, we don't see 
how she changed the world or made a difference, we just see that she 
got married to her man & had kids. Ginny got married to her man & 
had kids. It's like that's the best role a woman can hope for. 

I was looking at the cover of DH again, and realized that it has 
absolutely nothing to do w/the actual contents of the book. The 
cover shows Harry looking up at the sky, wandless, non-
confrontational, reaching out for something, receptive & on the 
verge of enlightenment. The actual climax happens inside, when Harry 
confronts LV, & and uses a super-powerful wand gained w/force to 
beat him - he doesn't need to discover, receive or change anything 
to win. The surface cover has nothing to do w/the actual message - 
it's totally dissonant. Seems an apt metaphor for the series as a 
whole. 


lizzyben