Resolutions/Ron's Cloak/Slytherins are Bad

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 183489

*fell on the send button too soon*

> Lynda:
>
> it might partially be CJ, but I knew from the outset of the series,
after
> Harry received the cloak, that is, that it was special If it had
not been,
> it would not have been kept for him by Dumbledore to be returned to
him
> after he entered the Wizarding World. That was how I knew it was
> significant. It never occurred to me that Dumbledore just happened
to be
> return a piece of fabric with an invisibility charm on it. I knew
it was
> significant from the outset.

Magpie:
That doesn't make it a plot hole if it doesn't turn out to be a
Deathly Hallow. Lots of people thought things were significant in 
that way that turned out not to be. It's not more of a clue than 
Neville's gum wrappers or the locked room in the MoM. You're not 
really describing any sort of clue, you're just saying you thought it 
should be special. It didn't need to be special just because it 
belonged to James and Dumbledore gave it back to Harry. 

Lynda:
And what I was sensing from some people
(perhaps incorrectly) was more of a personal "I don't like the way
this was
done" than a critical "it would have been better done if. . ." that
has a
less personal level of criticism about it. It may be the way I was
trained
that taught me to take nearly all personality out of critical works.
(On
pain of receiving low or no marks--I saw people have work returned to
them
ungraded with a note to redo it),

Magpie:
I don't exactly see the difference between the two. What's wrong
with "I don't like the way this was done?" My instict is even to have
more problem with "It would have been better done if..." That to me
sounds even more like bringing one's own personality into it. 

I mean, liking a story more than somebody else doesn't necessarily
mean you're being less personal. I was taught the same thing and need 
to try to do that in my job because the point is to figure out what 
the writer is trying to say and help them say it, no matter what I 
would prefer they say. Or else looking at a story and figuring out 
the best way to tell a story for whatever I'm writing for, even if 
I'd prefer to tell it a different way.

In reading a book on my own I think I try to do both. If I have a
strong personal reaction, I try to figure out what bothered me about
it and say so--that will usually mean looking at what the story
itself seems to be doing. I can't completely take my own personality
out of it. Nobody can. If we're talking about JKR's personality, the
only part of it that matters imo is what she wrote on the page. Her
personality is going to come into the story everywhere, but as
readers we can't necessarily say how. Two people can both analyze the 
story the same way but have two different reactions to it.

Pippin:
I meant when Riddle resurfaced as Voldemort, Dumbledore says that
Riddle doesn't really intend to base himself at Hogwarts. He must be
right, because if Voldemort had wanted to infiltrate Hogwarts and
take it over, he could have. Dumbledore's stated reason for not
wanting the MoM at that time wasn't that it would be a weaker
position, quite the reverse. He was afraid of having that much power.

Magpie:
Yes, that's Dumbledore's own reason for not wanting to be MoM. It's
not that he wants to be but doesn't feel like he can leave the kids.
Regardless of what Voldemort is planning to do the second time,
Dumbledore's still the one mostly controlling Harry, and that gives
him the most power. 

Pippin:
I wonder, is this something that people who want to identify with
Slytherin don't get? They just don't believe that anyone is capable of
turning down power unless they expect to get more power by doing it?

Magpie
I don't want to identify with Slytherin so I can't speak for them, 
but I'm not sure I'm getting what you mean here. I absolutely believe 
one can turn down power without expecting to get more power by doing 
it. My own personailty is to not like much power anyway. But that 
doesn't change the fact that Dumbledore's best position for running 
his battle against Voldemort is exactly where he is, at Hogwarts. 
Right next to Harry Potter. Not at the Ministry. His whole plan 
centers on Harry. Throughout the books the Ministers are worried 
about Dumbledore's power, not vice versa.

Pippin:
What's scary and inferior about Malcolm Baddock? Did he ever do
anything to show he deserved to be applauded by Draco or hissed by
Fred and George? Graham Pritchard doesn't even have a funny name,
unless I'm missing something. You can't say they should have
joined the DA or fought for Hogwarts. They were too young.

Magpie:
He's part of that mean house that's so overly associated with
inferiority of character, obviously. It's a work of fiction and this
is a fictional group of people associated with certain
characteristics. I don't need to know all of them to get that much. 
I'm not accusing Malcolm of any particular thing. It just seems 
absurd to read all those thousands of pages and say, "But why would 
you assume anything negative about a character because he was in 
Slytherin?" 

Pippin:
And there's Andromeda, who has to be older than Narcissa, who has to
be older than Sirius, and so must have been Sorted to Slytherin.
I concede anyone's right to doubt JKR's maths, but that's the canon
we have.

Magpie:
"Must have been" Sorted but she never appears as one, and we barely
know her. Perhaps her love for one Ted Tonks helped her overcame the 
worst of the things in her that caused her to be Sorted into 
Slytherin while probably retaining some since that's what we've seen 
with others. That's not much canon for Andromeda the awesome 
Slytherin. 

> Pippin:
> The trick is that we're manipulated to associate  wrong things with
> Slytherins, but we also get very strongly that guilt by association 
is
> wrong. So we're shown that even if we want to fight it, it's almost
> impossible. It's like prejudice is a form of original sin.

Magpie:
I don't see much about a lesson against guilt by association with 
Slytherin. Being prejudiced against Wizards who have the blood of 
some other type in them is wrong. I don't see how that applies to 
accepting the information the author always gives us about a 
fictional group she's made up. They're not all as bad as Draco & Co., 
but Slytherin has still earned the reputation it has as a bad house. 
It's not like this isn't something that's even come up in interviews, 
and I don't think the author's ever warned anybody about guilt by 
association with Slytherin. Seems to me she more acknowledges the 
logical distrust of the house, laughs and says they keep them around 
in the hope they'll change. Even she's apparently had to think out 
why they're still allowed. It's not like we all assume they're actual 
DEs or can't ever do anything good--we've seen that they can. But who 
could not get that Slytherin is the bad house? The best ones are the 
ones we don't have to know.

 
> Magpie:
>  It actually 
> > feels to me sometimes like none of these characters fully taking 
the 
> > opportunity for redemption offered was important from the get go 
in 
> > the series. The appeal is partly in their remaining safely awful 
and 
> > forgiven for it. 
> 
> Pippin:
> I actually agree with this. 
> 
> But it applies to all the characters. It seems partly to be about 
the
> idea that we all waste some of the time that is given to us, that if
> we truly understood that every moment of life was precious we 
wouldn't
> waste a moment of it on anger and recrimination and useless regret.
> And that every moment we could be making redemptive choices, but we 
don't.

Magpie:
I think the author might agree with that. But I don't get that she's 
making this point with the good characters, that they're all missing 
their chance. I think she thinks most of the good guys are awesome 
the way they are. Not perfect, but they've making the most of their 
life in the way you describe. Some of them have made these mistakes, 
but I still think there's a difference between them and the Slytherin 
problems.

-m