Coolness // Portraits

[montavilla47]

No: HPFGUIDX 182828

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:
>
> > > Pippin
> > > thinking that vanity is a major theme of HBP, and that Romilda was
> indeed vain and silly  not to recognize that Neville and Luna were
> cool even by her unenlightened standards.
> > >
>  > 
> > Montavilla47 (again):
> > Yes, I get that, but I think the message would have been stronger
> had the person urging Harry to ditch his "uncool" friends had actually
> > been someone Harry would have thought in a million years *was*
> > cool, rather than someone in his house that Harry had never noticed
> > before.
> 
> Pippin:
> If you got the message, why would you think it needed to be stronger?

Montavilla47:
Because I also got it--and stronger--in PS/SS when Harry chose
the scruffy, uncool Ron over the sleek, seemingly popular Draco.
(Although, again, it wasn't much of a choice, since Harry disliked
Draco immediately.)

Pippin:
> Especially right at the beginning of the book? Themes usually develop
> over the course of the work -- if they're elaborated at the beginning
> the author has no place to go. 
> 
> Harry found it easy to reject vanity when Romilda appeared like a
> character in a morality play, obvious and unattractive. But when the
> vanity of coolness tempted him in the form of the Prince's book, he
> did indeed ditch his friends for it, and deny its more unattractive side. 

Montavilla47:
Very interesting insight, Pippin.  And it makes a lot of sense.  Except
that Harry doesn't really ditch his friends for the Prince's book.  He 
and Ron remain tight throughout the book and the only tension
between them comes from Harry's support for Hermione during the
Ron/Hermione break-up.  

As for Hermione, she's "sniffs" at Harry's use of the book and provides 
dire warnings about the Prince's character.  Although, of course, she 
turns out to be right, she's the one who creates any distance in her 
friendship with Harry, while Harry is running after her to comfort her 
about Ron, and making sure that she isn't left lonely.

Pippin:
> When it turned out to be dangerous, he felt as if "a beloved pet had
> suddenly turned savage" (quoting from memory) --
> 
> and  we understand not only that Harry has fallen victim to vanity,
> but also how James and Sirius could have been so blind to Peter's
> faults. He flattered their vanity, made them feel clever and important
> and the height of cool, just as the Prince's book did for Harry.

Montavilla47:
Again, that makes perfect sense, except that Peter and the Prince's 
book don't function the same at all.  Peter, as you say, flattered
James and Sirius by admiring them.  The Prince, however, doesn't
even know that Harry exists, and any affection Harry feels for him
is based on what Harry gleans as the Prince's sense of humor,
intelligence, and creativity.

Pippin:
> As a side note, over the series there are other students Harry looked
> up to besides The Prince: the three other tri-wizard champions and
> Percy. Fleur, Percy, and Krum are all shown to be more or less vain;
> only Cedric is disarmingly modest. 

Montavilla47:
I would say that of those students you mention, Harry only shows
respect for Cedric.  He views Fleur with suspicion or dismissive 
humor towards her womanly charms, which are a trap he must avoid 
(noting how often Ron falls for them).  Harry admires Krum's playing 
skills  during the Quidditch match, but it's Krum that compliments 
Harry's  flying skills, while Harry is continually noticing Krum's 
clumsiness,  gruffness, and surliness.

And, as for Percy, Harry remarks that Percy had always been his
least favorite Weasley, and often notes Percy's stuffy, pompous
manner.

> Montavilla:
> > It's a little like that moment when Ron has supposedly changed 
> > his views on elf-slavery and yet he's essentially taking the 
> > same attitude he's had all along:  that elves should be respected
> > and allowed to make their own decisions, even if that decision
> > is to clean up after humans.
> 
> Pippin:
> Sure, that's what he believed in theory. But in practice he thought
> Hermione was mad to demand respect  for Kreacher.

Montavilla47:
No, he believed it in practice.  The first time he meets Dobby in 
person, he spontaneously gives the elf a Christmas gift, just 
because it will please.  In GoF, he tells Hermione that the 
relationship  between an elf and her master has to be respected, 
no matter politically incorrect it may appear.  In OotP, he goes 
around the dorm after Hermione has hidden her hats, uncovering 
them so that the elves have a choice about their own destinies.

That's more practice than he does in DH by making an off-hand
remark about warning the elves.  A remark that never gets followed
up on by an actual warning, because he's too busy making out with
Hermione.
 
Pippin:
>   JKR uses this technique a lot: she has her heroes make a correct but
> easy decision to illustrate a principle, then throws them a curve
> later on. For example, in PS/SS Harry has no problem seeing that Ron
> is a better sort than Draco but chooses wrongly between Quirrell and
> Snape. 

Montavilla47:
Again, thank you for pointing out that technique, because it helps
make sense of JKR's writing.  But, I'm afraid that Harry *doesn't* 
choose between Snape and Quirrell.  Quirrell's never presented as 
any kind of a choice (since, as a good mystery writer, JKR is 
busy hiding him in plain sight).

Harry never considers *any* one other than Snape as the person
trying to steal the stone.  

But, without trying to be too critical about it, I think that JKR
ended up using the technique of having her heroes make a 
correct but easy decision to illlustrate the principle early on
only to have them the correct and easier decision later on.

For example:

In PS/SS Harry makes the decision to risk his life to keep
Voldemort from getting the Stone.

In GoF, Harry makes the decision to go down fighting (rather 
than prolonging his life) to prevent Voldemort from making 
him look cowardly.

In OotP, Harry makes the decision to risk his life to save the 
life of one person.

In DH, Harry makes the decision to give his life to save 
thousands of lives.

In terms of Neville:

In PS/SS Harry learns, by Neville receiving the key 10 house 
points, that Neville's bravery is key to success.

In GoF, Harry learns that Neville's family tragedy is equal to
or even worse than his own, because it had no end.  Moreover,
as we can see in glimpses, Neville's home situation continues
to be stress-filled (although arguably better than Harry's).

In OotP, Harry learns that Neville overcomes his lack of skill
in a subject by dogged, persistent work and a refusal to quit.
This is reinforced by Neville's performance in the MoM, when
he becomes the last member of the Sextet to stay at Harry's
side, fighting to very end.

So, when Harry decides to sit with Neville and Luna at the
beginning of HBP, instead of going off with the unattractive,
pushy, unpleasant stranger, it's such a no-brainer that it 
hardly counts as a moral message--and yet there seems to
be no other reason for that moment to exist.

****

I do see what you're saying about Harry falling for the 
Prince, though.  But I'm not sure that I took the moral
that was intended from that story.  

I suppose that Harry did create a bit of distance from
Ginny (as her criticism about him following directions
from a book!) had more weight than Hermione's 
objections.  But, that apparently didn't matter once 
Harry and Ginny kissed--and Ginny even defended 
Harry's use of Sectumsempra.

Was the moral that Harry's innocent use of the book
to improve his potions' marks was vanity that led to
the danger of nearly killing Draco?  With the final
blow being the knowledge that Death Eater, 
Dumbledore killing Snape was the Prince in disguise?

That seems the obvious moral message to me, but it's
muddied by a few things:

1. Using the potion book to impress Slughorn wasn't
innocent.  It was extremely wrong in my opinion for
Harry to conceal what he was doing.  But simply not
using the notes would have been silly, as they were 
much better than the original text.  

2. Likewise, the use of the spells was both beneficial
and dangerous.  Although Hermione initially protests
the use of Muffliato, by DH, she's using it as a routine
protection spell.

3. At the end of HBP, any closeness Harry feels 
towards Snape is seen as a negative, since Snape just
killed Dumbledore.  However, as many people 
suspected, Snape was on the side of the angels ever
since Voldemort began to threaten his friend.  So, 
the admiration and goodwill that Harry feels towards
the Prince is a good thing and helps Harry believe Snape
at the vital moment.  

The book ultimately turned out to be a positive
thing.  So, the simple moral message that the 
book reflected the evil, twisted thoughts of a 
future Death Eater is too easy a judgment.  Likewise,
the judgment that it showed the carefree, humorous 
outlook of a "cool" teenager is also too easy.

Consequently, I don't really know what the author's
purpose is in the story arc of the Prince's book.  I have 
strong feelings about it as a reader (along with the
lack of an office portrait, I weep for the loss of the
Prince's notes!)  But, was I supposed to side with
Hermione about the book being bad, but maybe not
"evil?"  Am I supposed to think it was a beloved
pet that suddenly turned savage?  

I totally see Harry giving in to vanity by using the 
book.  But I never see an awareness on Harry's part
 that it was *vanity* that was the problem--rather than
the book itself, which was morally ambiguous and
ought, as it a book and not a person, to be morally
neutral.

Again, I know this rant seems negative, but my 
honest opinion is that this is the real strength of 
the books.  What the books say often seems to 
differ from what the author is trying to say.  And
I don't care what that says about JKR as a writer
(genius, amazing, good, competent, indifferent,
maddening, or hack).  What it says to me is that
the most interesting art is that which doesn't 
present a clear message, but, like dissonant
music, forces the audience to create its own
resolution.

Montavilla47