Disappointment Was: Deaths in DH WAS: Re: Dumbledore (but more Snape)

[lealess]

No: HPFGUIDX 177498

>Lealess:
>>that threw out or
>> literally killed off every difficult story line in favor of trite
>> resolutions (house-elf liberation comes down to Hermione/Ron kissing,
>> werewolf liberation and integration come down to one-sentence death,
>
>Pippin:
>When I was Harry's age, I thought my generation would end war,
>poverty and discrimination, ban the bomb, save the whales, and
>bring back the five cent cigar (j/k on the last one.) I wouldn't
>say we completely succeeded :P. I also wouldn't say we
>made no progress at all but how much of it would be obvious
>to someone standing on a railroad platform twenty years later?
>Maybe a little. About like what we saw in DH.

And maybe no progress had been made at all.  Maybe Ron's "Look who it
is" was not supposed to echo James' comment before Snape's Worst
Memory.  Maybe Albus Severus' fear of being sorted into Slytherin
won't cause him and Rose to insult Scorpius on the train.  But you're
right: we can't tell from the scene in the train station.  We can't
tell much from the book what kind of society Harry is living in at the
end except that they might be at peace.  On the other hand, you can go
to most any train station in the U.S. now and not know that the U.S.
is at war.  In HP, the rosy society painted by some speculators is
just that, speculation, wish-fulfillment, the desire to see a better
society where, frankly, none is shown.  I mean, Lucius Malfoy always
seemed polite, albeit in a poisonous kind of way.  Maybe Draco's curt
nod was just adult politeness and nothing more, after which Draco
turns away and Ron sets up a rivalry between the kids and Scorpius. 
Harry isn't mentioned returning Draco's nod or smiling or waving. 
Maybe it shows growth for Draco, or maybe not.

>Lealess:
>> house division comes down to Slytherin all bad, yes, even Snape who
>> some continue to view as exclusively selfish and one-note in his
>> motivations, and Slughorn, who some continue to view as hapless and
>> lesser of two evils, and Draco, who some continue to view as cowardly
>> and weak);
>
>Pippin:
>
>Yeah, some continue to view.
>
>Having created anti-Slytherin prejudice, there is nothing JKR
>could do or say to erase it from closed minds. Now, I have heard
>a lot of things that read to me as anti-Slytherin prejudice, but
>I have never heard anyone admit to being an anti-Slytherin
>bigot. They always seem to think their opinions are as fair
>and balanced as anybody's <g> JKR would have something
>to answer for if Slytherins were real...fortunately for her they're
>not.
>
>But suppose she is trying to reach people who are biased but
>willing to reconsider on the basis of new information, which
>do you think they would find more persuasive -- data
>which confirm some faults of the House but also some
>virtues not revealed before -- or a total whitewash?

Please show me the data.  What are the virtues of Slytherin House that
were revealed in Deathly Hallows that would be more persuasive?  Is
Harry's comment that Slytherin would gain an excellent student,
immediately followed up by the suggestion that Al can still choose
Gryffindor over Slytherin like his dad did, your data? because the
added comment totally subverts the first part for me.

Suppose JKR is trying to reach people who are biased against
Slytherins, or let's say, against non-white people, or against
homosexuals, or little people, or just non-English people.  Do you
think she's done a good job of reaching them and opening their minds?
 Actually, I wonder if she was even aiming for an anti-prejudice message.

>Lealess:
>> I have read eloquent appraisals of DH since its publication, and they
>> all seem like wish fulfillment to me, as if people are filling in the
>> writing that JKR did not do herself, "this is what she meant."
>
>Pippin:
>I don't see why the interpretation of something that's open to
>interpretation should be called wish fulfillment, or doing the
>author's work for her. The author's job is to engage our interest.
>Any good teacher knows that an intriguing question can do a
>better job of that than a pat answer.
>
>Especially for questions to which there are no pat answers.
>Where do you draw the line between ethnic pride and chauvinism?
>How do you know that someone has had a change of heart?
>What makes a person good?
>
>I used to think HP was about good guys and bad guys. Now
>I think it's about more or less damaged people, without
>blueprints or instructions, trying to repair the world. There's
>a Jewish saying I think fits well with the epilogue: It is
>not incumbent on you to finish the work. But neither may
>you refrain from it.

I respect what you are saying, and agree that an intriguing question
is better.  I think books 1-6 raised intriguing questions, which I
enjoyed thinking about.  Book 7 is what it is, and I think it is
morally black-and-white despite its purported realistic portrayal of
flawed individuals and societies.  I think the blueprint and
instructions were there, and they were named Albus Dumbledore and the
House system.  That is an interpretation of what I read in the book.

When I say that the Wizarding World has been changed for the better,
Slytherin House has been redeemed, prejudice has been eliminated,
Draco is a better person, and Ron has grown up, this is closer to
wish-fulfillment.  I could just as easily say nothing has changed in
the Wizarding World, Slytherin House is still a pariah, prejudice is
as deeply engrained as ever, Draco is his father's slippery son, and
Ron is a biased troublemaker.  Either statement is based on a more
emotional reaction to the book.

I read a beautiful essay about how Snape had become a better man
through the influence of Lily's love.  The essay was awe-inspiring,
but in the end, it was what the writer wanted to see, not what was
necessarily there.  So, when a person has to make up scenes and say,
for example, that Dumbledore loved Snape when his words were, "You
disgust me"... I call that wish-fulfillment.

Not that people shouldn't dream or speculate, but it's not persuasive
argument.

>Lealess:
>> For example:
>>
>> > <snip> Harry's ability to see certain characters
>> > (Snape and Draco in particular) more clearly--finally?
>
>> I don't see this. He gave his son "Al" the middle name Severus
>> because of a trait Harry valued, bravery, not because he saw Snape
>> clearly.
>
>Pippin:
>Harry saw Snape as a coward in HBP. How is being able to
>recognize Snape's bravery not seeing Snape more clearly?
>

To address this one point, bravery is one aspect of Snape's
personality.  It happens to be one we know Harry values.  What else
does Harry see about Snape that may be important to Snape but isn't
important to Harry?  What about his work, the destroyed potions book,
the knowledge that went with him?  What about the positions he held,
the skills he showed in doing his jobs?  Are these things recognized
or praised?  No... his courage, the Gryffindor trait, is praised.  Do
you think Harry really understands Snape, or understands what he wants
to see?

>Lealess:
>> He didn't hex Draco on site at the train station presumably
>> because Draco's kept his nose clean, not because he
>>understands him.
>
>Pippin:
>If he understands that Draco is capable of keeping his
>nose clean, then he understands Draco a lot better than
>he did when he suspected Draco of opening the Chamber
>of Secrets, or of conspiring with Snape.

Or maybe he just thinks Draco is a cipher of little interest to him
anymore.  I think I was just storytelling there, anyway.  Maybe Harry
was secretly overjoyed to see Draco and disappointed he couldn't wave
to him.  Now I'm in the realm of fanfiction.  There is no evidence of
any reaction by Harry to Draco.  What do we get from that?  I don't
know -- probably that Draco is no longer capable of pushing Harry's
buttons.  That doesn't speak of tolerance or understanding to me.

>>Lealess:
>> Severus is Al's non-used middle name and what else? Had
>>Harry never before told Al how brave Snape the Slytherin was?
>>Al is 11 years old, after all.
>
>Pippin:
>Of course Al's heard the story before -- but kids don't always
>connect the dots, especially when they're picking up opposing
>messages from other people. But that name -- if the Goldman
>family ever names a kid after OJ, or the Kennedy family names a
>kid after Oswald, I would think they were making a very strong
>statement and it wouldn't be about forgiveness. It would
>be about total, one hundred percent exoneration and a down
>on the knees in the dust apology for ever thinking otherwise.
>(Not that I remotely think any such thing is called for.)

"Of course Al's heard the story before..."  Said with such conviction!
<g>  How do you know?  This is the Wizarding World, where people never
tell anyone anything important, especially if it would avoid
unnecessary strife!

Harry was wrong about Snape.  The Goldmans are probably not wrong
about OJ, nor the Kennedys about Oswald, with whom they do not have a
personal relationship.  Not only was Harry wrong about Snape, but the
fact that Snape loved one Gryffindor, Harry's mother, and doggedly
followed another makes, I believe, a great deal of difference to Harry
and to the story.

>Maybe I am a DH evangelist. I enjoyed the book and I'd like
>to share the things I liked about it. I do respect everyone's right
>to do the opposite. One person's wish fulfillment is another's
>basket of sour grapes. <g>
>
>Pippin

And I guess I'm going to Hell!

lealess