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

[lealess]

No: HPFGUIDX 177514

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> 
wrote:

>Pippin:
>
>Of course it was. But then why would it not matter that from that
>point things unfold quite differently? instead of reacting like a
>hunted animal, Draco responds politely, nor is this politeness
>treated as deceptive.
>

They are adults now.  Adults are more in control than children.  I 
interpret this scene to show that Draco recognizes his better, Harry, 
and nothing more.  Am I wrong?  Probably.

>Why would it not matter that no one but James seems to be
>spoiling for a fight? And he gets slapped down for it, not
>told he's being a right-thinking Gryffindor and bully for you.

The Weasleys tried to keep their kids in line, and you saw how 
successful that was.  Parents often try to instill good values in 
their children.  But when little James is on the train, all bets are 
off.  He's going to Hogwarts, where teachers have traditionally 
looked the other way.

>To insist that there are no more problems at all in the wizarding
>world would be wish fulfillment, and I don't think the all is well
>is supposed to indicate that. There are still problems, but
>there isn't a Voldemort around that Harry has to fight, and there
>hasn't so far arisen another one. As you say, it would
>be obvious if the WW were at war.

The all was well remark I took to refer to Harry's life, not 
necessarily the WW.  And, as I said, it wouldn't necessarily be 
obvious if the WW was at war, drawing from the RL example of the U.S. 
which is at war, and yet all is well for many people here.

>To interpret that nothing has changed at all, so as to be able
>to condemn JKR not only for disappointing some
>readers but for being false to her own storyline seems as
>wishful to me as saying that the book is flawless.

Saying that nothing has changed at all is one path that a person can 
follow from the end of the book.  There are several others, as 
writers of fanfic and RP communities will no doubt demonstrate.  If I 
follow that path, it is not because I wish to condemn JKR, because 
that gives me no joy, frankly.  I don't think she was false to her 
own storyline.  I just didn't like the storyline.  I didn't feel 
there was much there and what there was was poorly executed overall.  
But others love the books -- more power to them.

I just can't see, for example, championing the WW as reformed when 
the evidence for that is strictly a personal reading, involving 
bringing a lot of elements into the story that create a second 
epilogue, as it were.  I don't know what this is called in logical 
terms... inductive inference?  It's like starting with the statement 
that all was well and working backwards to graft onto the story the 
elements that are needed to make everything well.  What is "all"?  I 
say it's Harry's personal life.  You say it's the WW.  Neither of us 
is strictly interpreting, however -- we are putting our own gloss on 
the ending.

>But why did she leave things so open to interpretation? To me that
>seems obvious -- it's because in the real world that's the
>way things are. You never have all the facts, except when it's
>too late.
>
>To write a story that correlates with WWII and not have anything
>that's comparable to the firebombing of Dresden or the internment
>of Japanese-Americans would be incredibly dishonest, IMO. At
>the time those decisions had broad support. Twenty years
>after the fact, most of the people who did those things still
>felt that those were good decisions, and to deny that would be
>dishonest too. And sixty years later many people still
>think that they were good decisions, or at least the best that
>could have been made at the time. The debate goes on, so
>why should JKR treat it as settled? That'd be, um, wish fulfillment.

I'm a little confused by this, actually, but why did she write this 
story the way she did?  Right now I'd say that she had a bunch of 
cool ideas, but was unable to carry them off in the end.   They just 
didn't fit into her real story.  That's just speculation.  I don't 
know what's in JKR's head.  That's just the way the book read to me.

>Lealess:
>> Please show me the data. What are the virtues of Slytherin House 
>> that were revealed in Deathly Hallows that would be more
>> persuasive?
>
>Pippin:
>Friendship. Bravery.
>Are those not the things that make a great wizard?
>A great human being?
>Are they somehow poisoned by association with Harry?
>Is there one kind of greatness for Gryffindors and another
>kind for Slytherins?

I'd say Slytherins want to be recognized and valued for achievement.  
I'd say they want power of one kind or another.  They want to attain 
their goals.  If I were a Slytherin, that's what I would want to be 
recognized for.  I think Snape got all those things.  I don't think 
Harry explicitly or implicitly acknowledged them.

What makes someone a great human being or wizard?  Our views will 
probably differ on this.  As a Ravenclaw, I would say knowledge and 
creativity.  A Gryffindor will say friendship and bravery.  I'd say 
that either comes cheap, because they are not what I value.  A 
Gryffindor would find me incomprehensible.  That's why I don't think 
Harry understands Snape except through the filter of his own values, 
which he imposes on Snape after death, allowing him to accept Snape 
as a hero.

>I thought DH was showing very clearly that you don't have to be
>a Gryffindor to be a great wizard, just as you don't have to be
>a Slytherin to do things that are cowardly or hateful. They're
>all human, IMO, and if that makes them a moral mess at
>times, that's human too.

I guess others disagree with that.  Snape had to become a virtual 
Gryffindor in order to become great.  Pettigrew -- we are never told 
his story, so there's nothing I can say about that aberration.  Why 
didn't she tell his story?  I guess it just didn't fit into the 
larger theme.

>Lealess:
>> 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.
>
>Pippin:
>Suppose the minds she's trying to open are the minds of people who
>think that because they're against prejudice they can't be prejudiced
>themselves. What if she wants to show that she agrees with the
>educated opinion is that prejudice is universal and the only weapon
>we have is constant never-ending vigilance?
>
>In that case prejudice can't be eliminated, and to show it as totally
>gone would be wish-fulfillment. I don't think anyone is saying that
>they read the ending as prejudice being eliminated anyway.

Well, I agree with you that prejudice probably won't be eliminated 
and vigilance is a good thing.  I think she didn't show it being 
eliminated, nor did she show constant vigilance.  I'm a bit confused 
by what you're saying, so I should probably say no more.   Are you 
saying JKR is reflecting reality and that's a good thing?  How am I 
supposed to get an anti-prejudice message out of that?

>But to me it's clearly recognized that it's a problem if children
>are being turned against each other by their parents.
>Harry sees it more clearly than Ron, and Ron sees it more
>clearly than Draco, but they all see things more
>clearly than before, and more clearly than their parents did.

Sure, I guess.  Why not?

>Pippin:
>"You are named for two Headmasters of Hogwarts." This, from the
>guy who couldn't get his mouth around the word "Professor" !
>In honoring Snape as Headmaster, Harry honors all that Snape
>did to get and keep that job, including being Head of Slytherin,
>a master of deception, a potions master who had a higher than usual
>pass rate, the inventor of spells that kept Harry, Ron and Hermione
>alive and out of the clutches of the DE's, protecting students from
>the worst of what the Carrows were capable of, and all the other
>things that we know Snape did.

This is quite a jump from a statement of fact to encompassing all 
that is in Harry's heart and mind.  Harry only mentions bravery.

>It's a very compact way of recognizing all that Snape did,
>and the honor is in Albus Severus's name.

For me, it's a statement of fact and nothing more.

>Lealess:
>> "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!
>
>Pippin:
>Because everyone in the train is staring at Harry. He's still famous.
>His story is told, and when Harry tells his story, once to Voldemort
>and all people in the Great Hall, once to Ron and Hermione and once 
>to Al, three times in very few pages, Snape is part of it.

Snape is part of it as a brave man who followed Dumbledore.  This 
doesn't mean that Al knows anything about Snape, even that.  And Ron 
had to joke that *he* was the famous one, so I could say that they 
don't even talk about Harry's past much.

>Then there's the interview about Harry trying to get Snape's
>portrait into the Headmaster's office, (oooh, I wonder where it is
>now? Harry's house?) and Rita Skeeter's book on Snape, which she
>can't be stopped from writing.

Then there's the interview about Snape not being a hero, well, maybe 
an anti-hero, and being a horrible person.  Then there's the 
interview about Snape abandoning his post and so not getting a 
Headmaster's portrait in the first place.  And, wherever Snape's 
portrait is now, it is in the realm of fanfiction.

>Lealess:
>> Harry was wrong about Snape.
>
>Pippin:
>If Harry realized he was wrong because he realized that Snape
>loved his mother and followed Dumbledore, what difference
>does that make? He still realized that he was wrong. He
>never imagined that Snape was the sort of person who could
>love his mother. He never imagined that Snape could be a
>loyal follower of Dumbledore. He had to change his concept
>of Snape to realize that Snape had done those things.

He had to see Snape as a lovesick puppy with Gryffindor traits.  I'm 
curious as to whether you have changed your concept of Snape based on 
DH, because most people I know have. Unfortunately, they see him as 
less independent and competent, as more pathetic.  As for Harry, I 
really can't surmise how his concept of Snape changed except that he 
saw him as brave.

>Now I realize that in the view of some Dumbledore's ethics
>are crappy, and so following Dumbledore is a bad thing,
>therefore all that's happened is that Snape turned out to
>be crappy when what should have happened is that Harry
>should have seen the Slytherin light.
>
>BTW, what *is* the Slytherin light? I'm asking this seriously,
>what virtues did you hope to see revealed in Slytherin
>or what virtues did you see ignored, and what would you
>have liked to see Harry do to recognize them?

I hope I answered that above.  I think mindlessly following anyone is 
a bad thing, actually.  As for the "Slytherin light," I think Harry, 
and perhaps JKR, are incapable of acknowledging that ambition is not 
a fatal flaw or that networking is not always insincere or that 
seeking power is always done for selfish reasons.  I can't fill in 
events that did not happen to assure that Harry acknowledged these 
things in DH.

Tired and at work,

lealess