CHAPTER DISCUSSION PS/SS 10, THE HALLOWEEN LONG

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 188391


Alla:
>
> Yes she did, in order to save her son. I am afraid it does not even come close
to me to what Harry and Ron did. Any benefits for themselves that they were
looking for?

Pippin:
The benefit of knowing they didn't lock her in with a troll and leave her? They
admit themselves that she might not have needed rescuing in the first place if
they hadn't interfered. Also, it is only Harry, not Ron, who thinks of warning
Hermione. Ron is reluctant to go along.

Alla:

If that is your definition of benefit then to use your expression I really do not know how to answer you.  I certainly agree that if Ron was not jerk to her she would not have gone to cry to the bathroom, I however disagree that causal connection between that and what happened could have been predictable in any way shape or form. IMO It is like saying that Snape should be thanked for bring ten year peace to WW by giving prophecy to Voldie.

And of course Ron takes some thought to decide whether to go along or not, it takes him what? One second or two?


Pippin:
The person Draco saved Dumbledore from was Draco, or from the part of Draco that
thought it would be glorious to serve the Dark Lord and be a coldblooded killer
like Bella.

Alla:

I am afraid I still do not follow.  Oh, you are saying that Draco would have killed him otherwise? I guess to me he got scared to kill, not nobly decided to save Dumbledore.


Alla:
And he refused to identify the Trio is your interpretation, mine is that he did
not refuse anything, unfortunately, he was not saying yes or no. Refusal to me
will be to say NO, that is not them. Where does he say – no, it is not them in
canon?

Pippin:
What good would that do? The suspicion that they're the Trio is the only thing
protecting them from Greyback.

Alla:

 I thought that the suspicion that they may not be Trio protects them from Voldemort. But it is obvious that we see it completely differently, to me it is another moment of Draco not being able to decide if he wants to change or not, certainly NOT a showing of nobility of heart and mercy to his enemies. IMO of course.


Alla:
>
> Yes, he did came back, I can understand how he helped defending Hogwarts, just
as I said upthread, I just do not see it as the same situation. I do not see him
rushing to save anybody against all odds. But yes, he mastered courage worthy of
Gryffindors lol IMO.
>

Pippin:
Then Snape's courage is not the sole example, right? Anyway, rushing to defend
someone against all odds is not always a good thing. James might have been a bit
more effective if he had his wand, no?

Alla:

Eh, where did I say that there are no courageous Slytherins??? Of course Snape's courage is not the only example, there is also Regulus who was certainly courageous and Slughorn mastered courage and
 somebody else I guess. But of course there is more than one example of Slytherin courage. I would certainly argue that it is not typical trait for the House, but it is certainly that rare. What I was trying to say is that I do not see Slytherins using their courage to save people they dislike, unless it was Snape saving Harry.


Pippin:
Regulus's plan was to render Voldemort mortal once more, so that when someone
arose who was capable of matching him in battle, the Dark Lord would die. That
was not necessary in order to protect Kreacher, whom Voldemort believed was
already dead, or Regulus's family, who were purebloods and had never defied the
Dark Lord. But it would save the Muggles and Muggleborns who were Voldemort's
favorite targets.

Alla:

That is a cool speculation, I however do not think that Regulus' plan was caused by anything else than desire to cause revenge for his servant and friend and for himself.

I cannot say you are wrong of course, but I just do not see where Regulus spares any thought to Muggles and Muggleborns' welfare.


Pippin:
Wow, I don't read the Sorting that way at all. To me, it's just a consequence of
the Founders agreeing to pool their knowledge and power, but being unable to
decide on a single philosophy to guide the school. Each had their own idea of
what makes a great wizard, and so they decided to divide the students equally
between them, based on their assessment of the students' abilities and the
students' own preferences.

Alla:

Well, of course this is what Founders wanted, to divide students equally that is, the thing is they decided to divide the students not based on the letters of alphabet (yes, I know, how boring the story will be), they decided to put brave students in one house, smart in another, ambitious in third and hardworking and loyal in fourth, instead of mixing them all together and finding some less innate qualities to divide them upon.

Pippin:
Each house has its strengths, but all are eventually shown to be flawed. The
truly great wizard, as Book Seven shows, IMO, is after all not the one with the
greatest courage, since as you point out, courage can be used for selfish
purposes, but the one who chooses to use his abilities for the common good.

Alla:

I agree with common good part, but I thought that the whole point was to find courage in oneself to use it for common good. I thought it was pretty clear (IMO) that what Harry needed was to find courage to sacrifice himself. So, no I disagree that all abilities are shown equal in book 7 even if all of them are serving good, I thought courage takes first place.


Alla:
> And um, where are intelligent Hufflepufs? There was Cedric who I guess must
have been intelligent if chosen as Champion. And???
>

Pippin:
You think Professor Sprout is stupid??

Alla:

If she was a Hufflepuff student as well in the past I accept the example of course. Was she?

zanooda:

How about Tonks :-)? JKR said she was in Hufflepuff, but we know that to become
an Auror you have to get at least five NEWTs with Exceeds Expectations or
higher. Snape only takes those with an "O" into his NEWT class, so Tonks
probably had an "Outstanding" OWL in Potions to be there.

Alla:

Oh, sure, definitely. I guess they do exist heh.

>>Alla (from earlier post)
> But I mean, nobody would think this seriously, right? Everybody knows that
those are silly stereotypes and people who play sports well can also be talented
in many other subjects and vice versa?

>> Alla later:
>
snip>
What I was saying initially (or at least trying to say) is that Slytherins
would never do, or at least would not typically do what Harry and Ron would do
for Hermione and I still stand by this opinion.


Potioncat:
Stereotyping here, if you ask me. But I'm not throwing stones at you. Because I
had an Ah Ha moment of my own.

IMHO, very few students at Hogwarts would do what Harry and Ron did. Not from
Gryffindor or any other house. So it isn't as if any Gryffindor would have done
the same and no Slytherin would. I don't have any idea what the numbers might
be.

Alla:

Stereotyping? Of course I am! There are plenty of heroes in this world who I am pretty sure also have brains and plenty of ambition to succeed, to prove themselves. The fact that they will go in the dangerous jobs that includes saving people's lives on the daily basis and risking their own does not mean that they would not want world knowing about them or whatever it is they want to get to in life.

 But I believe I am stereotyping based on what book shows me. And well, if you think that no other (or very few) Gryffindors would have done what Harry and Ron did, well that is your right to think so of course, I am just not sure what is your assumption based on.

I think they showed typical Gryffindor behavior. Some examples are as follows:  Neville and Ginny (and yes I know Luna) taking over resistance in DH, resistance that includes standing up to torturers and murderers Carrows. 

And who was saving this first year? Was it Michael Corner? But as I say below to me Trio is the face of Gryffindor thus I think what they do is typical for the House.

Potioncat:
Pippin and I have provided examples of Slytherins rescuing others or
participating in fighting along side others, but we can't provide examples of
immediate daring rescues because we weren't shown any. This is Harry Potter's
story.

Alla:

Well, yes and do not forget about selfless rescues, but isn't Trio supposed to be the face of Gryffindors? And Draco the symbol of Slytherins?


Potioncat:
I think it's significant that the Hogwarts Champion was from Hufflepuff. Of all
the eligible students, he won out. Are we to think he's the exception in
Hufflepuff?

Alla:

Actually, that is a very good point. Except he was not a Hogwarts champion, right? Not really. Harry takes a center stage and he takes a second place to Harry right away, so I guess we are supposed to treat him as face of Hufflepuff, but unfortunately I do not think he was supposed to be a face of Hogwarts. IMO of course.

Potioncat:
<SNIP>
I don't know if this is JRK's fault or ours. The Sorting Hat doesn't sort by
lack of qualities. It sorts for qualities. Being brave and going into Gryffindor
does not mean you are not loyal, ambitious or clever. It just means for some
reason bravery won out. Being loyal and going into Hufflepuff does not mean you
are not brave, clever or ambitious. Maybe it's the quality the student values
most, or maybe it is the strongest quality or maybe the student could go to any
house, but this one is the house who needs another student to balance out the
quartering.

Alla:

Oh, I mean, that is nice interpretation, but to me what Sorting Hat says is that one quality is so dominant in  the students' characters that this is the reason why they are sorted in one house. IMO of course.



Potioncat
<SNIP>
I also think we readers have gotten things backwards. Yes, the Founders valued a
specific quality and the house uses that set of values to sort, but the idea
isn't to label students, but to label houses. Hermione who is brave, loyal,
clever and ambitious can gladly join Gryffindor, the Home of the Brave. By being
in Gryffindor she can aspire for great courage to honor her house. <SNIP>

Alla:

LOL, Houses consist of students, I think to label Houses and not students is a very artificial distinction, IMO of course. But it is not like we are labeling dormitories, we are labeling the qualities, the philosophy House lives by and people form it, no?

Hermione is one of the few exceptions, sure, but is she? She is pretty clear on what she values more – real courage or books and cleverness, right?

Again, please do not get me wrong, I do not find anything wrong with House system as long as I think of it as symbolical showing of what human being consists of, I think it is fun to think of what courage and/or ambition can or cannot do and sometimes we see more real characters, like mixed, but no I cannot think of Houses as something aspiring in RL.

JMO,

Alla