[HPforGrownups] Things that you wish were in the Harry Potter novels

[Andy Mills]

No: HPFGUIDX 192037

Hello Bart,

>  There are a number of things that I really wish that JKR had included in
>  the Harry Potter novels which, for whatever reason, she didn't. I'll 
>  mention a couple, and, more importantly, why I think that it was a mistake.
>  
>  For example, the lack of "Good Slytherins", at least among the students.
>  The Sorting Hat kept talking about unity between the houses, but the 
>  Slytherin students were, at best, neutral, and, at worst, on the side of
>  Morty. Would it have been too much to have a Slytherin on the side of 
>  Morty's opponents, possibly explaining about his joining the other 
>  Slytherins in tormenting Harry: "That was just a game. This is for 
>  real." As it is, JKR sends mixed messages.

Andy:
This is kind of a difficult one. There's probably no notably "good"
Slytherin because that is the house where that sort of person is sorted
into.

If any person had any character trait that made them "good", or they did
not support Voldy in some way, then chances are they would have been
sorted into one of the other houses.

But remember that Snape was Slytherin and he was incredibly brave,
ultimately switching sides and fighting for the good guys. Draco's mum
lied to Voldemort, saying he was dead when he wasn't, to protect Harry.
These examples, while potentially selfish, are examples of "good" deeds
by Slytherins.

It works both ways - not every one in other houses are necessarily
"good" either. Peter Pettigrew was Gryffindor, a house known for
bravery. But he was, in ways, a coward who served the Dark Lord and sent
his best friend and family to their death.

Another thing to remember is that as people grow, especially at the ages
students are at Hogwarts, they change. Just because they are sorted into
a house at age 11 doesn't mean they hold the same beliefs and/or
feelings when they leave. If they could be re-sorted every year, chances
are you will see some students being sorted into different houses.

>  I also would have liked to have seen Unforgivable Curses be more than 
>  the political slogan it seems to be. It has been discussed here that 
>  there might be something more to the Unforgivable Curses than the name 
>  (after all, a number of people use them with no consequence, notably 
>  Harry himself). To give a reasonable example, they might have been 
>  considered Unforgivable (with a capital "U") not because of what it does
>  to others, but what it does to the caster. The level of desire required
>  to want to cause someone pain, control them, or cause them to die, 
>  unless for pure motives with a voluntary subject, should have been shown
>  to damage the psyche of the caster; not as much as creating a horcrux, 
>  perhaps, but creating a corruption which, once present, cannot be 
>  removed. It made Harry a bit too much of a Christlike figure to not have
>  him suffer the consequences of what he had to do in order to defeat 
>  Morty; the consequences were reserved for the more disposable 
>  characters. Even if it was just the regret that often hits people who 
>  peak too early, the ending was a bit too happy for my own taste.

Andy:
I don't see them as political slogan(s)

As far as I can remember, Harry just tried to use an unforgivable curse
once, against Bellatrix in the ministry after she had killed Sirius. But
the curse was ineffective and Bellatrix mocked him, saying that he had
to *mean* it. Harry was angry as hell, but he is not a cold hearted
killer. Even against Bellatrix.

Perhaps this is the difference, why some people can kind of "get away"
with using unforgivable curses - you have to really *mean* to kill
someone, you have to really *want* to torture them. Perhaps it is the
real feeling behind it that makes them unforgivable.

TTFN

-- 
 Andy Mills