conuly

Actually, I was just discussing book 6 with my lothario tonight, since now we've both finished reading it. And one of his main comments was that he was glad that the characters were becoming more mixed, with fewer poor evil or pure good characters. And I think that's part of the point of the structure of the series. The books are designed to show the perspective of a character who is growing up and to be aimed at an audience of roughly the same age. The mixed morality was always there, but now it's more obvious and a big part of growing up is learning to accept the mixtures of things and not seeing them in simplified absolutes. Thus we see the good side of Malfoy and it becomes harder and harder to point to a purely good or a purely evil character in the series - except Mrs. Norris who I think is likely purely good, but I'm biased.

From:

Because then people complain that teaching morality isn't the point of the book, or that that's how kids really act, or whatever.

I've actually mentioned this to several different people, and that's often the response I get.

I like the HP books, don't get me wrong, but I do tend to agree with Ursula Le Guin when she called them, IIRC, ethically mean-spirited.

Which, well, in many ways they are.

******************

I think the reason I fear a "Snape loved Lily" plot is that I honestly can't see Snape deeply regretting getting James killed, even if it does turn out that he actually loyal to Dumbeldore after all.

Which means that either a) Dumbledore was lying to Harry, b) Snape was lying to Dumbledore (which may or may not imply that he's notloyal to Dumbledore -- he's not likely to admit that he's not sorry he got the Potters killed, after all) or c) It was Lily Snape regretted getting killed.

Now, you don't have to love someone to regret getting them killed, and given that they apparently had a strong mutual interest in potion making, I could live with them being friends. But fiction tends to shy away from the notion that men and women can be friendly without one or both falling for the other.

From:

Or he could hate them, and have sworn he'd never be like James and get someone killed just because he hated them. Sure, that doesn't line up well with being a death eater, but I could imagine him having said that's something I'd never do shortly after his life had been endangered. And the one thing Snape has consistently been is, in DnD terms, lawful. He is massively lawful and that's part of why he hates James and Harry - they're both chaotic. My favorite description of Snape remains "Lawful Unpleasant".

From:

Yes, I suppose, although I can't imagine that Snape was under the impression that the Death Eaters were a chess club when he joined. :-)

The thing is, if that's the case then I still think that either Dumbeldore seriously oversold Snape's remorse to Harry (since he clearly told Harry that Snape deeply, deeply regretted it) or Snape seriously oversold his own remorse to Dumbledore (which is still possible even if Snape is actually on the side of light).

From:

I have never for one moment thought Snape and Lily were in love with each other.

As for the rest.... I don't remember much of what happens from one book to the next. I don't remember the twins pushing people into cabinets, or Hermione tricking the house-elves. I had to think for a moment to even remember who Lily was.

Personally, I've never actually liked the character of Harry Potter much. I think he's a whiny brat who thinks too much of himself and thinks he can get away with anything because he's OMGTHECHOSENONE.

From:

conuly

And how's your relationship with Snape coming along? :)

I remember most things I read, at least for a while, so the odds of me forgetting are slim. I randomly flashback to books I read ten years ago, and haven't seen since.

From:

I actually like Snape more than I used to. I don't like him a lot, but I don't think he's an evil bad guy, either.

From:

you = cool.
you being aquarius = way cool
you being aquarius born in january = way way way cool

I've had way too much sugar. I'm using way to much. I must start varing the adjective "way" with "wicked" because in my world they mean the same thing...

From:

and by "varing" I meant "varying"

From:

conuly

Aw. To the previous comment, not this one.

From:

Hehehe =D

From:

midnitemaraud-r.livejournal.com

"it's okay to practice jinxes on random passersby, even though I don't know what they do"

I don't generally disagree with that you're saying, but the thing I believe we have to remember is that Harry was totally ~~fangirling~~ idolizing the "Half Blood Prince". I don't think it was until he actually cast the sectusempra spell that he realized that the "Prince" could do/create something evil. Even Ron laughed at the other spell - the dangling by your feet in the air one. (Can't remember what it was called off-hand)

I think Harry is not only innocent about a lot of things, but he's very naive. And impressionable. He's pretty indifferent and even positive about Slughorn when he meets him... until he discovers that Slughorn was head of Slytherin. Then he mentally groups Slughorn with all the other Slytherins, none of whom he likes, and even asks Dumbledore after if Slughorn is "good".

It's not so much that Harry is prejudiced, it's that he's prejudiced against Slytherins. And bullies. And things that he associates with evil and general badness. (Like most of the Ministry) Look how he overreacted (and he did overreact) when he saw Snape's memory of his father and Sirius in the pensieve.

I was fairly surprised, and pleased, at the end where Harry admits to himself that he still despises Draco for his Dark Arts involvement, but actually felt a bit sorry for him. That's more than he's ever shown towards Draco in six years. So maybe, just maybe, he's learning a bit... And really, we're all kind of tempted by "the dark side" once in a while, aren't we? (Otherwise we'd all be chaste nuns, yeah? *g*)

But of course JKR won't chastise Harry. He's the hero. And I really did have lots of Harry love for this book. He's not perfect, (and never will be) but I thought he was SO much better in HBP than he was in all five previous books.

From:

I thought the entire point of book 5 was to chastise Harry for not getting adults involved when he needs them and for acting too rashly on his own insufficiently researched assumptions.

From:

Harry's ambiguous morality is one of the things I like best about him. Most readers probably don't notice it at all because we're so used to seeing everything through his eyes and thinking of him as the hero, but I love that it's there. It means he's not perfect. I HATE it when the hero is perfect and always right and has this unerring moral compass. That's the reason I really fear that she'll make Snape OMGTEHEVIL in the last book. It will reveal that H. has been right all along, and will almost give justification to all of his other actions. He really will be the perfect chosen one. He won't have distrusted Snape out of pettiness and generation-spanning rivalry; it will be because he somehow knew that Snape was bad all along. It would change the whole tone of the books and take away one of Harry's actual believable character traits.

From:

conuly

It's not that I mind them, any of them, being not-perfect, it's that none of them ever pay for their mistakes. Not the good guys, anyway. Hermione has yet to learn that you can't just use people as objects and get away with it. The twins have yet to figure out that you can't just bully people who can't fight back. Molly still hasn't figured out that her parenting technique leaves something to be desired, but she may be a lost cause.

From:

Sorry that it took me a while to reply. I am bad with comments. It is because I am secretly very flaky.

But, anyway, I agree with you. The characters' imperfections are what keep me reading the series, but the blatant favouritism of the author and the implied moral issues are (part of) what keep the series from being truly good. (I won't say "great." Nope. Nabakov, Eliot, yes, they're great, but JKR? Nope.)

From:

While I admit she left it ambiguous, I think book 6 leads much more readily to Snape being good than Snape being evil. But it could play either way.

From:

I agree, personally, but I'm not sure if I trust JKR enough as an author not to mess it up. I like to keep my hopes set low; that way I can be surprised when they're met and exceded.

From:

ciara-belle.livejournal.com

And this is why I don't really like the twins and feel bad for Percy. Really, the twins are not nice people. They were horrible to non-Gryffindors at school and they do a great deal to make situations worse. The products they develop are dangerous and everyone just seems to laugh it off as boys being boys.

It interests me that Harry has ambiguous morality, because I tend to find the morally grey characters more interesting. Probably why Boromir is my favorite character in Lord of the Rings. :) But somehow, I don't really think Rowling is trying to make him that ambiguous. I hope she is, but something tells me she isn't.

I will be incredibly, incredibly disappointed if Snape really does turn out to have been evil all along, because I liked his complexity. That seems too simple an explanation, to just let Harry have been right about Snape all along.

From:

To answer your Snape question.... HERE! (http://www.livejournal.com/users/fnord777/128169.html)

From:

wodhaund.livejournal.com

*twinkles at you unnervingly*

From:

JK has stated many times that "the world isn't divided into good people and Death Eaters." Everyone is flawed, and that's what makes us real. We're all hypocritical and contradictory. That's why we love the characters so much; because they're real.

From:

treehugginggeek.livejournal.com

Regarding the Snape/Lily thing, my theory is that they were related somehow; Snape, after all, is half-blood, it could be possible. (Or not.)

From:

scottrossi.livejournal.com

i think because people dont want to see that rowling is showing that there are good and bad sides to everyone, even the "good guys". i have seen that growing in the main chars for a while and noone else i know of has commented on it really except you. we win!

From:

Actually, I was just discussing book 6 with my lothario tonight, since now we've both finished reading it. And one of his main comments was that he was glad that the characters were becoming more mixed, with fewer poor evil or pure good characters. And I think that's part of the point of the structure of the series. The books are designed to show the perspective of a character who is growing up and to be aimed at an audience of roughly the same age. The mixed morality was always there, but now it's more obvious and a big part of growing up is learning to accept the mixtures of things and not seeing them in simplified absolutes. Thus we see the good side of Malfoy and it becomes harder and harder to point to a purely good or a purely evil character in the series - except Mrs. Norris who I think is likely purely good, but I'm biased.

From:

Because then people complain that teaching morality isn't the point of the book, or that that's how kids really act, or whatever.

I've actually mentioned this to several different people, and that's often the response I get.

I like the HP books, don't get me wrong, but I do tend to agree with Ursula Le Guin when she called them, IIRC, ethically mean-spirited.

Which, well, in many ways they are.

******************

I think the reason I fear a "Snape loved Lily" plot is that I honestly can't see Snape deeply regretting getting James killed, even if it does turn out that he actually loyal to Dumbeldore after all.

Which means that either a) Dumbledore was lying to Harry, b) Snape was lying to Dumbledore (which may or may not imply that he's notloyal to Dumbledore -- he's not likely to admit that he's not sorry he got the Potters killed, after all) or c) It was Lily Snape regretted getting killed.

Now, you don't have to love someone to regret getting them killed, and given that they apparently had a strong mutual interest in potion making, I could live with them being friends. But fiction tends to shy away from the notion that men and women can be friendly without one or both falling for the other.

From:

Or he could hate them, and have sworn he'd never be like James and get someone killed just because he hated them. Sure, that doesn't line up well with being a death eater, but I could imagine him having said that's something I'd never do shortly after his life had been endangered. And the one thing Snape has consistently been is, in DnD terms, lawful. He is massively lawful and that's part of why he hates James and Harry - they're both chaotic. My favorite description of Snape remains "Lawful Unpleasant".

From:

Yes, I suppose, although I can't imagine that Snape was under the impression that the Death Eaters were a chess club when he joined. :-)

The thing is, if that's the case then I still think that either Dumbeldore seriously oversold Snape's remorse to Harry (since he clearly told Harry that Snape deeply, deeply regretted it) or Snape seriously oversold his own remorse to Dumbledore (which is still possible even if Snape is actually on the side of light).

From:

I have never for one moment thought Snape and Lily were in love with each other.

As for the rest.... I don't remember much of what happens from one book to the next. I don't remember the twins pushing people into cabinets, or Hermione tricking the house-elves. I had to think for a moment to even remember who Lily was.

Personally, I've never actually liked the character of Harry Potter much. I think he's a whiny brat who thinks too much of himself and thinks he can get away with anything because he's OMGTHECHOSENONE.

From:

conuly

And how's your relationship with Snape coming along? :)

I remember most things I read, at least for a while, so the odds of me forgetting are slim. I randomly flashback to books I read ten years ago, and haven't seen since.

From:

I actually like Snape more than I used to. I don't like him a lot, but I don't think he's an evil bad guy, either.

From:

you = cool.
you being aquarius = way cool
you being aquarius born in january = way way way cool

I've had way too much sugar. I'm using way to much. I must start varing the adjective "way" with "wicked" because in my world they mean the same thing...

From:

and by "varing" I meant "varying"

From:

conuly

Aw. To the previous comment, not this one.

From:

Hehehe =D

From:

midnitemaraud-r.livejournal.com

"it's okay to practice jinxes on random passersby, even though I don't know what they do"

I don't generally disagree with that you're saying, but the thing I believe we have to remember is that Harry was totally ~~fangirling~~ idolizing the "Half Blood Prince". I don't think it was until he actually cast the sectusempra spell that he realized that the "Prince" could do/create something evil. Even Ron laughed at the other spell - the dangling by your feet in the air one. (Can't remember what it was called off-hand)

I think Harry is not only innocent about a lot of things, but he's very naive. And impressionable. He's pretty indifferent and even positive about Slughorn when he meets him... until he discovers that Slughorn was head of Slytherin. Then he mentally groups Slughorn with all the other Slytherins, none of whom he likes, and even asks Dumbledore after if Slughorn is "good".

It's not so much that Harry is prejudiced, it's that he's prejudiced against Slytherins. And bullies. And things that he associates with evil and general badness. (Like most of the Ministry) Look how he overreacted (and he did overreact) when he saw Snape's memory of his father and Sirius in the pensieve.

I was fairly surprised, and pleased, at the end where Harry admits to himself that he still despises Draco for his Dark Arts involvement, but actually felt a bit sorry for him. That's more than he's ever shown towards Draco in six years. So maybe, just maybe, he's learning a bit... And really, we're all kind of tempted by "the dark side" once in a while, aren't we? (Otherwise we'd all be chaste nuns, yeah? *g*)

But of course JKR won't chastise Harry. He's the hero. And I really did have lots of Harry love for this book. He's not perfect, (and never will be) but I thought he was SO much better in HBP than he was in all five previous books.

From:

I thought the entire point of book 5 was to chastise Harry for not getting adults involved when he needs them and for acting too rashly on his own insufficiently researched assumptions.

From:

Harry's ambiguous morality is one of the things I like best about him. Most readers probably don't notice it at all because we're so used to seeing everything through his eyes and thinking of him as the hero, but I love that it's there. It means he's not perfect. I HATE it when the hero is perfect and always right and has this unerring moral compass. That's the reason I really fear that she'll make Snape OMGTEHEVIL in the last book. It will reveal that H. has been right all along, and will almost give justification to all of his other actions. He really will be the perfect chosen one. He won't have distrusted Snape out of pettiness and generation-spanning rivalry; it will be because he somehow knew that Snape was bad all along. It would change the whole tone of the books and take away one of Harry's actual believable character traits.

From:

conuly

It's not that I mind them, any of them, being not-perfect, it's that none of them ever pay for their mistakes. Not the good guys, anyway. Hermione has yet to learn that you can't just use people as objects and get away with it. The twins have yet to figure out that you can't just bully people who can't fight back. Molly still hasn't figured out that her parenting technique leaves something to be desired, but she may be a lost cause.

From:

Sorry that it took me a while to reply. I am bad with comments. It is because I am secretly very flaky.

But, anyway, I agree with you. The characters' imperfections are what keep me reading the series, but the blatant favouritism of the author and the implied moral issues are (part of) what keep the series from being truly good. (I won't say "great." Nope. Nabakov, Eliot, yes, they're great, but JKR? Nope.)

From:

While I admit she left it ambiguous, I think book 6 leads much more readily to Snape being good than Snape being evil. But it could play either way.

From:

I agree, personally, but I'm not sure if I trust JKR enough as an author not to mess it up. I like to keep my hopes set low; that way I can be surprised when they're met and exceded.

From:

ciara-belle.livejournal.com

And this is why I don't really like the twins and feel bad for Percy. Really, the twins are not nice people. They were horrible to non-Gryffindors at school and they do a great deal to make situations worse. The products they develop are dangerous and everyone just seems to laugh it off as boys being boys.

It interests me that Harry has ambiguous morality, because I tend to find the morally grey characters more interesting. Probably why Boromir is my favorite character in Lord of the Rings. :) But somehow, I don't really think Rowling is trying to make him that ambiguous. I hope she is, but something tells me she isn't.

I will be incredibly, incredibly disappointed if Snape really does turn out to have been evil all along, because I liked his complexity. That seems too simple an explanation, to just let Harry have been right about Snape all along.

From:

To answer your Snape question.... HERE! (http://www.livejournal.com/users/fnord777/128169.html)

From:

wodhaund.livejournal.com

*twinkles at you unnervingly*

From: