Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character/Now Rowling's control

[starview316]

No: HPFGUIDX 180697

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" 
<horridporrid03 at ...> wrote:
>
> > >>Betsy Hp:
> > > <snip>
> > > I never got the sense that Voldemort could have succeeded as 
he   
> > > did in the RW, so it wasn't even creepy in an "informing on 
real 
> > > life" kind of way.  
> 
> > >>Pippin:
> > <snip>
> > Alla has answered  in regard to Stalinist Russia but I'll add 
that 
> > the same thing happened with Nazi Germany. People not 
directly     
> > involved did not realize the scope of what was happening.
> > <snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> I'm fairly confident that if you were Jewish and/or a member of a 
> resistance cell and/or living in the heart of your country (ie 
> Berlin) you knew.  Harry was all three and personally acquainted 
with 
> all three.  Look how much trouble JKR had to go through to get 
Harry 
> *out* of the way: killing his owl and tucking him away in the 
woods.  
> She purposefully arranged things to give Voldemort the least amount 
> of creep-factor.  Which is an odd choice for a story-teller, IMO.
> 
> > >>Pippin:
> > > Both were freed from evil and slavery, which is 
what             
> > > redemption means. 
> > > <snip>
> 
> > >>Betsy Hp:
> > > Hm, I'd say Snape died a slave, honestly.  He certainly 
wasn't   
> > > his own man.  And I don't think Draco was ever really 
freed       
> > > either.
> 
> > >>Pippin:
> > Snape was pretending to be Voldemort's slave, and when his role
> > required him to die, he did, or so it seems. But you mean 
his       
> > service to Dumbledore, don't you?
> > There seems to be this idea that voluntary service is a form of
> > slavery, which I don't  understand. Are you imagining a completely
> > non-hierarchical society? 
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> I'd been imagining a thinker.  Instead I got a man totally 
controlled 
> by guilt without a thought towards what and why.  I didn't feel 
like 
> Snape volunteered for Dumbledore, instead he was an emotionally 
> crippled puppet.  So yes, no free man there, IMO.


Amy:

Even if you assume that Snape was enslaved by Dumbledore due to his 
guilt, it's still his OWN guilt. Dumbledore definitely played on it, 
but all the guilt trips in the world wouldn't have made a difference 
had Snape not made the voluntary (if subconscious) decision to feel 
guilty over the death of someone close to him. It could be argued 
that neither love or guilt are voluntary emotions, but I'd say they 
must be on some level (I mean, Bellatrix for example, is able to put 
feelings of guilt aside, so is Dumbledore). Either way, if Snape is 
enslaved by anything, it's by his own emotions. Which is certainly 
not a traditional description of slavery, especially in political 
terms. He's enslaved by himself. It's crippling, yeah, but I don't 
see why, in political terms, he wouldn't be seen as a free man.

<SNIP> 

> >>Pipppin:
> > Slavery still existed after the American Revolution, but I 
wouldn't 
> > say there was no progress in human rights over the previous 
regime.
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> True, but slavery had been discussed (tabled only so that the US 
> could win the war) and movement was made (ditto women's rights, I 
> believe).  What Harry did was the equivalent of helping the red-
coats 
> prevail.  Harry *restored* he didn't revolutionize.  IMO, anyway. 
<g>
> 

Amy:

I do agree with your final point, though I think that's largely 
because I'm one of those who don't really see the American Revolution 
as a "revolution", but rather as a rebellion. I mean, yeah they 
*talked* about changing major social structures (note that these 
sorts of talks occurred even in the HP series, even if it was only 
amongst 14 year old children), but not that much changed beyond their 
own liberation from Britain (which wasn't much of a social-structure 
thing). Arguably, the American Revolution occured primarily to 
preserve (or "restore") the way of life colonists had gotten used to 
before the British decided they should keep a closer eye on their 
colonies.  Any progress made was slight.

Wars like that (and IMO, the Voldemort-wars) always call to mind 
large social changes, but these social changes rarely occur during 
these wars, or even (in the case of the American Revolution) as a 
direct result of the wars. Wars don't change things, people do; so I 
agree with the fact that the HP-war itself didn't change much. It was 
a rebellion, if anything. Seeing as the war is really the only thing 
concretely covered in the books, then we didn't see a lot of social 
changes happening. Progress usually happens officially after wars -- 
why assume that it wouldn't have in the HP-war, just because we 
aren't shown this?


Amy