CHAPTER DISCUSSION: PS/SS 13, Nicolas Flamel

[Jean Lamb]

No: HPFGUIDX 188538

Alla:

I am just wondering where do you see the possible parallels between Peter
and Neville? I guess I just see the series putting emphasis on one's own
choices more than anybody else's *driving* person to them. 

--You're quite right. Choices are seen as evidence of inborn moral fiber or
lack of it, rather than a combination of personality traits and environment.
And the house automatically makes a difference; pranks are Eeeevil if a
Slytherin is responsible, while attempted murder is apparently quite all
right if a Gryffindor is involved. Being Hufflepuff or Ravenclaw means being
lucky if your name is mentioned. 
 
It _does_ make a difference how a person is raised and/or treated by others
when they grow up. Harry, as always, is very much an exception, but that's
because he's the hero. Other kids who have grown up in abusive homes would
have behaved much differently in some respects. For instance, someone who
grew up in a home where there was a lot of hitting would notice fairly
quickly that Snape only yells, and never hits--even the jar of cockroaches
misses Harry, and that's after Harry does something extraordinarily rude
(for which he never apologizes). Snape had a valid expectation of Harry
starting up the 'Snivellus' nickname again, and laughing with his friends
over it; the fact it didn't happen is something that Snape could not have
expected. After all, even Lily used that nickname in the Worst Memory. 
 
As for Neville and Peter--Neville was treated as if he was going to be a
Squib for nearly all his childhood. He could easily have turned into the
laughingstock of Gryffindor. Remember, even McGonagall treats him almost as
harshly as Snape does (leaving him sit outside the Fat Lady because he
didn't remember the password). If the twins had decided to have fun with him
as well as with Ron and Percy, it would have been easy for the rest of
Gryffindor to follow. You can turn someone bad if you treat them horribly
enough; social workers have files and files of clients who were abused and
then later turned up in the justice system. 
 
Look at how Unforgivables are considered--it's always all right for a
Gryffindor to use one, but wrong for everybody else. Crucios are supposed to
be evil--and yet Harry does them, but it's always for a 'good' reason. It's
bad when Draco does it, but ok when Harry does it. Doesn't that sound like a
double standard there? It's bad for Snape to threaten Sirius Black with the
Dementors, even though he has every reason to believe Sirus betrayed James
and Lily to their deaths, but it's just fine for Sirius Black to knock
around Snape when he's unconscious. But then, you hate Snape and love
Sirius, so that makes all the difference. 
 
Should it? Shouldn't some things be wrong no matter who does them? 
 
Or are things wrong only when the people you don't like do them? Rowling
seems to suggest the second. In fact, Albus Dumbledore seems flabbergasted
that Snape is protecting Harry without liking him, and that Snape is somehow
morally inferior for not liking Harry. Should being good or bad depend only
on how well Harry Potter likes you?

Jean Lamb

Do UPS workers learn Parceltongue?

tlambs1138 at charter.net

excessiveperky at LJ

 

 


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