Disarming spell/ Character's choices/Buffy!

[juli17 at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 185594

 
liizzyben wrote:

She  says in
interviews that Snape wouldn't have cared what happened to Harry  at
all if he wasn't Lily's son. In the Prince's Tale, she pounds over  &
over that Snape does it for Lily, and only Lily. Narcissa  does
something good for Draco, and only Draco. Because they lack a soul  &
are therefore incapable of true selfishness or altruism. 

As  compared to, say, Harry, who chooses to die to save all humanity,
as Jesus  did. I think the comparison is stark and intentionally so. If
Harry is her  emblem of pure altruism (dying for all mankind), the
Slytherins are his  absolute antithesis (saving their own skins). JKR
never *wanted* to redeem  the Slytherins & is probably be puzzled by
fans' desire to do so.  

lizzyben



Julie:
I see your point. As an allegory, this set up works fine. The Gryffindors 
represent altruism at work, and the Slytherins represent selfishness at 
work (in general, as clearly not every individual act by the various  Gryffs 
and Slyths in the books support the allegory). But as a story where I  can
come to genuinely care about the characters and their fates, allegory 
doesn't work for me. I need them to be human, a mix of good and bad, 
not cardboard allegorical cutouts. JKR herself has said she gave all  her
characters faults so they would be human. It's a bit as if JKR was  trying
to have her cake and eat it too, by representing the two Houses in  this 
allegorical good vs bad, yet tossing out undeniable examples of how  this 
*isn't* true (Peter, whose every act is self-serving, Snape, who in his 
later years is not), not to mention dozens of smaller moments of  Gryffs
acting selfishly and (admittedly fewer) moments of Slyths acting for  the
benefit of others. 
 
Intellectually I understand JKR's intent with the allegorical aspects of  the 
story,
but emotionally I can't dismiss characters I care about as mere  allegorical
set pieces, not if I'm supposed to relate to them as real, complex,  *human*
characters. Slyths *can* be good, can act unselfishly and put  themselves
at risk for the benefit of others, even others they dislike. Gryffs *can*  act
merely to suit their own self-serving ends, throwing those in their way to  
the
wolves (so to speak), even those they call friends. And if even a  handful of
Slyths are redeemable (and in the case of 11 year old first years, I think  it
would be most of them) then to me it is wrong, even unconscionable to 
dismiss the whole House as irredeemable and wash your hands of them
(by ignoring them, ostracizing them, or any other method).
 
Julie, who also thinks Snape died to save all humanity (or the WW  world),
since he stuck around even after he knew Harry would die and continued  to
save those he could, when he could have hightailed it to save his own  skin.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
**************Great Deals on Dell Laptops. Starting at $499. 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1217883258x1201191827/aol?redir=http://www.dell.com/co
ntent/products/features.aspx/laptops_great_deals?c=us%26cs=19%26l=en%26s=d
hs%26~ck=anavml)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]