Disarming spell/ Character's choices

[kempermentor]

No: HPFGUIDX 185470

> Pippin:
> JKR certainly didn't take the easy way out with the Slytherins -- it
> would have been a cliche to have them prove themselves by letting them
> do something gallant and impressive to save Harry, but that hasn't
> kept a lot of people from complaining bitterly that it didn't happen.
> Not that the Slyths can't be heroic, but if they're gallant and
> impressive, it's never for Harry's sake, and if they do something
for Harry, it's not gallant and impressive. 

Kemper now:
No one is bitter that the Slyths didn't fight to save Harry.  He's
just a figure head, a symbol for the cause of good, like Jesus.  One
doesn't need to believe in Jesus to fight for the cause of good.  It
was disappointing as a reader not to see the Slyths (even one or two,
unnamed one identified only with house colors) fight for the cause.


> Pippin
> We never get a stand up and cheer moment for the Slytherins. But
> really, why should we? If we're grown up enough to appreciate their
> virtues despite being overshadowed by Harry, then we ought to have
> outgrown House partisanship, too. 

Kemper now:
Who cheers for the Ravenclaws or Hufflepuffs?  No one.  People cheered
for Hogwarts.  A Hogwarts without Slytherin representation (I'm not
counting the Malfoys at the table).  No one was sitting by their
House's table at the afterparty.  Everyone was intermixed. Hogwarts
was united! Mostly.


> Pippin
> It's worth noting as well that anti-hero is a literary category. There
> are no anti-heroes in real life, only heroes who indulge in boorish
> behavior when they aren't out hero-ing. So when Harry names his son
> after Snape, he's treating Snape as a hero even if Rowling, speaking
> as an author, does not. 

Kemper now:
I agree with Harry treating Snape as a hero.  But I don't think there
were any anti-hero's in the book.  Snape sure isn't one.  He was bad,
then he was good.

Kemper