Resolutions/Ron's Cloak/Slytherins are Bad

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 183513

> 
> Montavilla47:
> That only works if we recognize that the image of the hero isn't a 
> hero.  I'm not sure that most people actually do realize it.  

Pippin:
If they don't realize it, then why would they have some mythical
standard of behavior for him? They'd have to judge him against the
heroes and heroines of the real world. 

In the real world, the images of slave owners are on our money and our
monuments. Schools and cities  and beloved children are named after
them. Not *because* they were slave owners, of course, at least I hope
not. But it's something we have to deal with. If all  that is acting
subconsciously to make us okay with slavery, it's a problem that goes
*way* beyond Harry Potter. 


Montavilla:
> 
> Whether by accident or design, we are left in the last book
> with no conscience at all. 

Pippin:
No conscience but our own, you mean. We're in big trouble if we can't
tell the difference between right and wrong without an editorial from
JK Rowling. Certainly we can't be inherently good. 

Montavilla:
 And there's nothing in the book
> to prevent us from cheering along with everyone else
> when Harry tortures Amycus.  Indeed, many readers have
> stated that they did.

Pippin:
Who is the everyone else? Nobody cheers in canon, IIRC.

McGonagall doesn't cheer. She's surprised, and then says it was
"gallant." That's an equivocal word. It can be used as a synonym for
"chivalrous" but unlike that word, it can also imply falseness or
foppishness. Since McGongall follows up by casting a triple patronus
and then using a curse herself, it's clear she was perfectly capable
of defending her own honor. Which would make Harry's assumption that
she needed him to avenge her as much an insult as the spitting. 

It reminds me a bit of SWM, where James feels virtuous about not using
"mudblood" while at the same time he's unconsciously insulting Lily by
implying that her company is for sale. 

If readers felt good about what Harry did, then they're not opposed to
torture under any circumstances, despite what they may have thought.
If you really want to end torture, that's the reality you have to deal
with. Denial won't get us anywhere, I'm afraid. 


> 
> Montavilla47:
> Where in the book are we asked to forgive the good characters?
> Other than Dumbledore, who is dead anyway?

Pippin:
James,  a hero famous for something he didn't do; Sirius,  for abusing
Kreacher; Ron, for making cruel jokes; Hermione, for her violent
temper and her general know-it-all obtuseness. Do I have to go on?

 
> 
> Montavilla47:
> Exactly, Pippin.  That's who she was talking about and probably what
> she meant.  But isn't part of her story that given half a chance
people will do what good they can?
> 
> The problem I have with Draco's story is that it's left so ambiguous 
> that you can easily say that Draco tries to do good and can't, or
tries to do bad while being pathetically incompetent, or doesn't try
to do anything at all.
> 
> I'm sure that was JKR's intention.  So, I'm going to be unfair and 
> say I didn't like her authorial choice.

Pippin:
Your privilege. But part of her story is that it doesn't matter what
Draco was capable of, once you understand that no one in canon was
trying to be bad. No one had the primary motivation of wanting to harm
others. Even Voldemort wanted most to stay alive. 

Everybody except Voldemort wanted approval from somebody, and tried to
do  things that would earn it.

Initially, Harry doesn't want to have to choose what to believe about
Dumbledore. He insists that he wants the truth. But in the end he
doesn't want to know whether Dumbledore killed his sister or not, and
wants even less to make Dumbledore tell him. 

Once you've chosen to forgive, what does it matter whether you're
forgiving Draco for trying to be bad, or for failing at being good, or
for not trying at all? What does it matter whether Draco himself knows?


Pippin