![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
This has been a great discussion weekend on lj--which makes it very hard for me to concentrate on what I should be doing. ::sigh:: But I did get some things done and WILL finish the assignment I gave myself today. I WILL. I hope.
Anyway, these discussions got me thinking, for some reason, about Percy and Sirius again, and their leaving of their families.
It occurs to me that it's very difficult to look at the actions of characters in HP from a moral perspective a lot of the time. I'm not saying you never can, just that I don't think these characters are primarily driven by concerns of right and wrong--which is what makes the book so slippery to discuss as a "battle of good vs. evil." Tolkien's characters, for instance, are very much figures representing moral ideas. In HP thre are a few moments when characters do bring up questions of right and wrong, but I usually end up having more questions about those moments than answers. (Iow, I usually end up going, "But...but...but...")
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
pharnabazus wrote this great essay about how the Wizarding World works that I feel offers the most consistent theory of the world, one that makes things make sense in ways they might not otherwise. It's long, but to give the basics here, the idea is that the WW lives in a constant state of emergency, so there's really no laws protecting anyone. (This is obvious in the way Sirius can languish in jail without a trial, for instance.) So what people do instead is just cluster around different powerful wizards or "patrons" who jostle with each other over power and form networks underneath them. Dumbledore is the most obvious of these patrons, Lucius Malfoy is one, Voldemort used to be one, and he took Lucius' network along with some others underneath him. (Dumbledore has groomed Harry into a subpatron for himself, and Harry has now begun to form his own network, probably as Dumbledore had hoped, both through strength in the DA and money by financing the joke shop.) What makes this important is it points out that whatever ethical questions do come up, self-preservation and protection is always a driving force in anyone's decision. Wizards simply don't make the kinds of decisions about their life that regular people do, because they live in a society dominated by alliances. (This is why it's ridiculous, for instance, for people to look down on first-year Draco's offer of alliance instead of friendship to Harry as a sign of his bad character--every wizard offers alliance. Those from the muggle world, like Harry and Hermione, soon learn this if they don't know it already.)
This is where we get to Percy and Sirius. I was just thinking about how it's so tempting to view their actions in moral terms: Percy is bad for hurting his family by leaving, Sirius is good for leaving the Blacks and their focus on purity behind. But I just don't see these issues as being the main concern here. In fact, of the two of them I think Percy is the one more likely to be thinking along those terms.pharnabazus points out the Weasleys as being incredibly important to Dumbledore becuase they, unlike most of the other people in the Order, are not dependent on him through manipulation. They seem to be true believers who genuinely agree with his ideas and revere him personally. Percy, however, is at odds with his family. Ironically, one of the things that puts him at odds with them is that he doesn't approve of the twins' "jokes," of which he is often the butt. As Head Boy he wants to enforce rules even if that means taking points from his siblings (which is, you know, fair). As a Prefect Ron seems very wary of enforcing his power against his siblings. Hermione is able to best the twins at their own game at times, and therefore able to be occasionally bossy (since we know she ultimately has the same personal devotion to Dumbledore as the rest of the Weasleys).
Because of his precarious position in his family, it makes sense for Percy to seek outside it for a protector, one who sees some value in him. I think part of what people distrust in Percy's leaving his family is that he doesn't do so in a fit of anger. He sees much colder, sending back his sweater, not losing his temper. What's more, though, is he seems to me to still care about his family. I didn't take his letter to Ron as an attempt to draw him over the dark side as much as a genuine desire to be seen as being a good guy who cared about his family but had ideological differences with them--though of course he also wanted to have Ron, as a Weasley who didn't seem to stand against him like the others--well-disposed towards him. Plus, as the essay points out, by separating from his family completely Percy destroys any chances of working against them as a spy. So while I'm saying Percy probably does, in his mind, think he's making the right choice, and does seem to be a character who wants to be in the right, I think we should also see Percy as someone who was in a precarious position family-wise and chose to find a place where he could be more secure. Percy also has good reason to want to undermine Harry's influence in the family, as it is Harry who has sort of taken his place as the leading brother in the house.
That's where Sirius gets more interesting. It would be nice to think of him having moral problems with his family's ideas and sadly choosing to cut himself off, but this doesn't fit Sirius' personality at all and it definitely doesn't seem to be what happened. I can't remember at the moment, but it seems like Regulus was younger than Sirius. Regardless, Regulus was the favorite. Sirius, it seems to me, should have been considered the heir apparent of the Black dynasty, but he wasn't because of his personality (just as Percy seems like he should be the heir apparent of the Weasleys being the eldest son at home we meet, but he isn't because of his personality--Harry could be said to have taken his place in some ways on that score). So imagine the family as some medieval dynasty here--you've got two princes, only one of which is going to inherit the crown. Sirius makes a break similar to Percy's--though perhaps he's even less thoughtful about why he's doing it. Rather than be the son in disfavor he attaches himself to a different family where he can be the favored son...although of course his status as an outsider is never really forgotten, leaving him with nobody to go to bat for him when he's falsely accused of working for Voldemort. Switching one's tribal affiliation seems to almost always carry disgrace with it: Peter, Snape, Percy and Sirius all seem to be treated less well than the people they worked with. That makes it sort of interesting, btw, that Snape and Sirius hate each other so much. The two of them are kind of squabbling over scraps in OotP, arguing over who is the lowest of the low in the Order.
Ironically, of the two Black brothers it seems that Regulus was the one who made the starker moral choice, one that was not based on self-preservation since it resulted in his death. Unfortunately, I suppose I may just be supposed to see Regulus' choice as a sign of cowardice--he was too weak to torture Muggles or whatever, but personally I think that kind of "cowardice" is a healthy thing. Would there were more Regulus Blacks in the Taliban. (*waves Regulus flag*) This is not to say I think Regulus is better than Sirius or that he's the big hero here, though. Sirius does reject the whole Pureblood superiority thing. I'm just saying his story is not, imo, one of someone making primarily a moral choice. There's lots of other issues involved.
This, to me, is I guess why the idea of Gryffindor "triumphing" over Slytherin or whatever seems to pointless. "Conversion" from one side to another in this universe is rarely if ever rewarded or respected by either side. Over and over, it seems to me, sticking with one's birthright seems the only source of strength--or, if one is a Muggleborn, sticking with ones House which is similar to a family. (If Millicent Bulstrode is a halfblood she still seems a valued part of Slytherin--in fact, I love her character in general and I think she's probably part of what I like about Slytherin in general, but that's a different topic.) Alliances can certainly be formed with others, but trying to choose a path in life separate to one's family seems to always lead to misery. I mean, Grawp might have been the runt of the giant world but at Hogwarts he's a pet on a leash! I guess that's why it really does just seem to me that the only way this world could be strong is through alliance amongst all the houses that had compromises on all sides. Iirc,pharnabazus's essay also suggests that Slytherin's leaving the school was a sacrifice to avoid everything falling apart, and that sacrifice has made the house isolated ever since. I'd like to think it's the undoing of that sacrifice that would provide the answer. Because I just can't see a possibility for the more modern idea that some Slytherins would realize the Malfoy/Black attitude was morally wrong and so would join with Gryffindor. The kids in this world just literally don't seem to have the power to do that the way kids do now--it's like when people try to modernize Romeo and Juliet. It just doesn't work as a story in modern times, where two kids could run off on their own and live just fine. In fact, this idea already led to problems in OotP with the DA when Marietta sided with--surprise!--the Ministry because that's where her family alliance lay. Ultimately it came down to the same alliances as always and the family, unsurprisingly, took precedence.
Anyway, these discussions got me thinking, for some reason, about Percy and Sirius again, and their leaving of their families.
It occurs to me that it's very difficult to look at the actions of characters in HP from a moral perspective a lot of the time. I'm not saying you never can, just that I don't think these characters are primarily driven by concerns of right and wrong--which is what makes the book so slippery to discuss as a "battle of good vs. evil." Tolkien's characters, for instance, are very much figures representing moral ideas. In HP thre are a few moments when characters do bring up questions of right and wrong, but I usually end up having more questions about those moments than answers. (Iow, I usually end up going, "But...but...but...")
pharnabazus wrote this great essay about how the Wizarding World works that I feel offers the most consistent theory of the world, one that makes things make sense in ways they might not otherwise. It's long, but to give the basics here, the idea is that the WW lives in a constant state of emergency, so there's really no laws protecting anyone. (This is obvious in the way Sirius can languish in jail without a trial, for instance.) So what people do instead is just cluster around different powerful wizards or "patrons" who jostle with each other over power and form networks underneath them. Dumbledore is the most obvious of these patrons, Lucius Malfoy is one, Voldemort used to be one, and he took Lucius' network along with some others underneath him. (Dumbledore has groomed Harry into a subpatron for himself, and Harry has now begun to form his own network, probably as Dumbledore had hoped, both through strength in the DA and money by financing the joke shop.) What makes this important is it points out that whatever ethical questions do come up, self-preservation and protection is always a driving force in anyone's decision. Wizards simply don't make the kinds of decisions about their life that regular people do, because they live in a society dominated by alliances. (This is why it's ridiculous, for instance, for people to look down on first-year Draco's offer of alliance instead of friendship to Harry as a sign of his bad character--every wizard offers alliance. Those from the muggle world, like Harry and Hermione, soon learn this if they don't know it already.)This is where we get to Percy and Sirius. I was just thinking about how it's so tempting to view their actions in moral terms: Percy is bad for hurting his family by leaving, Sirius is good for leaving the Blacks and their focus on purity behind. But I just don't see these issues as being the main concern here. In fact, of the two of them I think Percy is the one more likely to be thinking along those terms.
pharnabazus points out the Weasleys as being incredibly important to Dumbledore becuase they, unlike most of the other people in the Order, are not dependent on him through manipulation. They seem to be true believers who genuinely agree with his ideas and revere him personally. Percy, however, is at odds with his family. Ironically, one of the things that puts him at odds with them is that he doesn't approve of the twins' "jokes," of which he is often the butt. As Head Boy he wants to enforce rules even if that means taking points from his siblings (which is, you know, fair). As a Prefect Ron seems very wary of enforcing his power against his siblings. Hermione is able to best the twins at their own game at times, and therefore able to be occasionally bossy (since we know she ultimately has the same personal devotion to Dumbledore as the rest of the Weasleys). Because of his precarious position in his family, it makes sense for Percy to seek outside it for a protector, one who sees some value in him. I think part of what people distrust in Percy's leaving his family is that he doesn't do so in a fit of anger. He sees much colder, sending back his sweater, not losing his temper. What's more, though, is he seems to me to still care about his family. I didn't take his letter to Ron as an attempt to draw him over the dark side as much as a genuine desire to be seen as being a good guy who cared about his family but had ideological differences with them--though of course he also wanted to have Ron, as a Weasley who didn't seem to stand against him like the others--well-disposed towards him. Plus, as the essay points out, by separating from his family completely Percy destroys any chances of working against them as a spy. So while I'm saying Percy probably does, in his mind, think he's making the right choice, and does seem to be a character who wants to be in the right, I think we should also see Percy as someone who was in a precarious position family-wise and chose to find a place where he could be more secure. Percy also has good reason to want to undermine Harry's influence in the family, as it is Harry who has sort of taken his place as the leading brother in the house.
That's where Sirius gets more interesting. It would be nice to think of him having moral problems with his family's ideas and sadly choosing to cut himself off, but this doesn't fit Sirius' personality at all and it definitely doesn't seem to be what happened. I can't remember at the moment, but it seems like Regulus was younger than Sirius. Regardless, Regulus was the favorite. Sirius, it seems to me, should have been considered the heir apparent of the Black dynasty, but he wasn't because of his personality (just as Percy seems like he should be the heir apparent of the Weasleys being the eldest son at home we meet, but he isn't because of his personality--Harry could be said to have taken his place in some ways on that score). So imagine the family as some medieval dynasty here--you've got two princes, only one of which is going to inherit the crown. Sirius makes a break similar to Percy's--though perhaps he's even less thoughtful about why he's doing it. Rather than be the son in disfavor he attaches himself to a different family where he can be the favored son...although of course his status as an outsider is never really forgotten, leaving him with nobody to go to bat for him when he's falsely accused of working for Voldemort. Switching one's tribal affiliation seems to almost always carry disgrace with it: Peter, Snape, Percy and Sirius all seem to be treated less well than the people they worked with. That makes it sort of interesting, btw, that Snape and Sirius hate each other so much. The two of them are kind of squabbling over scraps in OotP, arguing over who is the lowest of the low in the Order.
Ironically, of the two Black brothers it seems that Regulus was the one who made the starker moral choice, one that was not based on self-preservation since it resulted in his death. Unfortunately, I suppose I may just be supposed to see Regulus' choice as a sign of cowardice--he was too weak to torture Muggles or whatever, but personally I think that kind of "cowardice" is a healthy thing. Would there were more Regulus Blacks in the Taliban. (*waves Regulus flag*) This is not to say I think Regulus is better than Sirius or that he's the big hero here, though. Sirius does reject the whole Pureblood superiority thing. I'm just saying his story is not, imo, one of someone making primarily a moral choice. There's lots of other issues involved.
This, to me, is I guess why the idea of Gryffindor "triumphing" over Slytherin or whatever seems to pointless. "Conversion" from one side to another in this universe is rarely if ever rewarded or respected by either side. Over and over, it seems to me, sticking with one's birthright seems the only source of strength--or, if one is a Muggleborn, sticking with ones House which is similar to a family. (If Millicent Bulstrode is a halfblood she still seems a valued part of Slytherin--in fact, I love her character in general and I think she's probably part of what I like about Slytherin in general, but that's a different topic.) Alliances can certainly be formed with others, but trying to choose a path in life separate to one's family seems to always lead to misery. I mean, Grawp might have been the runt of the giant world but at Hogwarts he's a pet on a leash! I guess that's why it really does just seem to me that the only way this world could be strong is through alliance amongst all the houses that had compromises on all sides. Iirc,
pharnabazus's essay also suggests that Slytherin's leaving the school was a sacrifice to avoid everything falling apart, and that sacrifice has made the house isolated ever since. I'd like to think it's the undoing of that sacrifice that would provide the answer. Because I just can't see a possibility for the more modern idea that some Slytherins would realize the Malfoy/Black attitude was morally wrong and so would join with Gryffindor. The kids in this world just literally don't seem to have the power to do that the way kids do now--it's like when people try to modernize Romeo and Juliet. It just doesn't work as a story in modern times, where two kids could run off on their own and live just fine. In fact, this idea already led to problems in OotP with the DA when Marietta sided with--surprise!--the Ministry because that's where her family alliance lay. Ultimately it came down to the same alliances as always and the family, unsurprisingly, took precedence. 
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
Hmm, this is a rather depressing view on the Wizarding World, but it's so true. Everything seems to be about a person's survival instincts, even Fudge, despite being in control of the Ministry...up to the end of GoF, he was always "asking Dumbledore for advice" (according to Hagrid). Does that mean Fudge was part of DD's alliance, as well? That's the sense I got from the pre-OotP days. Then technically, Fudge broke away from DD and basically started his own alliance in a way, and Percy reverred to that one because the one he was with (DD and his family) really wasn't working out for him. Among other things, of course. This is what makes me feel sad about Percy -- you mentioned that to stick to one's birthright was the only source of strength in this world, but it seemed that Percy was doomed either way. His family (well, the twins and at times Ginny, anyway) didn't respect him when he was with him, and they hate him all the more now that he's found his own way.
Sirius I find, though a bit less confusing (because knowing his rashness, I wouldn't be surprised if his choice was almost a spur-of-the-moment thing), is still really questionable. I guess I'm having thoughts about the jealousy thing between Regulus and Sirius, because there must have been a fair amount of jealousy there (on both parts, if the idea of the eldest being the heir is true), yet at first glance, it seems such a silly reason to break from the family. It was almost like Sirius was jealous of the attention lavished on Regulus by his family, but at the same time, he knew what he'd have to be like in order to get that sort of attention, and he either couldn't do it or just didn't want to (which is where the Pureblood issues tie in). And therefore, he went to find another family in which he could be the favourite just based on the way his personality was. Which is not the same as having shaky grounds with your family, knowing that whatever you do won't be good enough, so you just leave. But then, how to explain Sirius' complete hatred of Grimmauld's Place?
If Millicent Bulstrode is a halfblood she still seems a valued part of Slytherin--in fact, I love her character in general and I think she's probably part of what I like about Slytherin in general, but that's a different topic.)
Ooh, I want to hear it! I'll admit that Millicent isn't one of my favourite female characters, but I do admire what we know of her. Is she really a halfblood? (I've been looking all over for JKR's list of students, but the only one I found said that she was a pureblood. And I'm more unsure, because it also said that Lavender and Vince and Greg were halfbloods) She doesn't seem to be a part of Pansy's gang, because I think she would have been mentioned with them at least once (even by Hermione); I find that intriguing, because it could mean she has built her own personal niche in Slytherin. What also intrigues me is the way she "jumped away in disgust" when Hermione started crying on her robes -- I've heard it argued that this was because she didn't want a "Mudblood" crying on her, but if she's a halfblood then that makes no sense (unless she's a Tom Riddle type, which seems highly unlikely). To me, her disgust with Hermione's crying indicated to me that she can't stand openly-displayed weakness (it was a bit much for Hermione to begin "bawling" in front of her worst enemies at school [I'm aware she was pretending]); it kind of makes me think that she is one of those more guarded types, especially when coupled with the way she didn't smile back when Hermione smiled at her in CoS (which was an isolated incident of any Gryffindor reaching out to a Slytherin, and Hermione just ended up snatching cat hairs off of her in a plan to impersonate her). So, it really makes me wonder. Of course, your interpretation of her might be entirely different ^^*
From:
no subject
That's much the way pharnabazus sees it, that Fudge was under Dumbledore, but is now trying to establish his own leadership with his own people working under him. Umbridge seems to really want him to succeed, to the point of doing things in his name that are destructive to his cause.
it seemed that Percy was doomed either way.
Yup--he took a huge risk and it will probably come back to haunt him. But I definitely don't see Percy being "evil" here as many people seem to see him.
But then, how to explain Sirius' complete hatred of Grimmauld's Place?
I came up with one suggestion for this above...if Sirius' being a Black was one of the reasons everyone found it so easy to believe he was the traitor, he'd have even more reason to hate his family. Also, he may be working twice as hard to make it clear he hates these people so people won't think of him as one of them. Not to mention, when Sirius was in jail his family probably knew he was innocent--if he were really working for Voldemort they would have considered him one of them again, it seems. But they let him languish in jail as well--more reason to hate them. And then finally, if he had an unhappy childhood and couldn't wait to escape the house he would never want to go back to listening to his mother yelling at him the way she did when he was younger. It's the place where all his problems started, and now he's stuck there again. As much as he wants to deny it, he really is the heir to this house in the end.
It's still interesting, though, to imagine Sirius' life as a kid. It's not like you can imagine him sadly being told he was nothing and not fighting back, given the personality he had. When did Regulus start becoming the favorite after all? The most logical solution, to me, is that Sirius was always rather rebellious and so was already at odds with his strict family. Regulus probably then saw being obedient as a great way to get positive attention. But I can see Sirius turning around and telling Regulus he was nothing in his anger.
Ooh, I want to hear it! I'll admit that Millicent isn't one of my favourite female characters, but I do admire what we know of her. Is she really a halfblood?
I have no idea what she is, actually. I seem to remember some people suggesting there was some view of JKR's notes or something that suggested she was. Either way, what I like about her is that I feel like she's introduced as a female Crabbe and Goyle, a character we can sort of ridicule with her deserving it. But for me there's just something cool in the way she's everything a girl isn't supposed to be--strong and large--and doesn't take any crap because of it. I didn't even remember Hermione's smiling at her, but I do think it's significant that in the end Hermione plots against her. I wouldn't be surprised if Millicent assumed Hermione's smile was a plot to catch her off guard to begin with. She may not trust other girls, assuming they're all making fun of her.
She doesn't seem to be part of Pansy's little gang of girls, but she does show up in the Squad, which seems to include an inner circle of Slytherins. So I like the idea that Millicent is respected in Slytherin and can work alongside Pansy without seeming like she's on a lower level than Pansy. Actually, one thing that kind of interests me about both Pansy and Millicent is how they're sometimes so unfeminine (despite Pansy's superficial girliness) in their aggression, and that this is something that makes them bad. Millicent is like the sterotype nerd girl (big=unattractive) but rather than skulking around awkwardly she seems to own her size and power and that seems kind of cool to me. If the Slytherins value her for it I have to like them for that. Most of the other girls in Harry's world are all pretty (even Hermione is revealed to be fake!homely when she shows up at the ball looking gorgeous). I'm with you on the tears thing, though--I think it was just the crying that repulsed her, not the fact that Hermione's a Mudblood. I think she'd have done the same thing if Ginny cried on her.
From:
no subject
*shakes head* I have never seen Percy as "Evil" for doing this; in fact, I was glad when JKR confirmed in her chat that Percy was actually acting of his own accord, and wasn't under some kind of brainwashing spell. All those people who switched sides had many different motives, granted, and still took huge risks, but deep down it all seems to come down to a basic need to stay afloat in this society of the WW. It is really creepy. And I definitely agree that Percy's choice is very likely to come back to haunt him, especially now that the new alliance Fudge tried to establish in OotP is practically destined to reassimilate back into Dumbledore's order. Now that Fudge knows Voldie is back, there's little doubt he'll be racing back to DD; or else, when considering JKR's words of a new Minister of Magic in book six, coupled with Ron's "prediction" in OotP ...naturally, Arthur Weasley is one of DD's subpatrons, so it'll come down to the same thing. I expect out of necessity, DD is obviously going to welcome them back, but it's not going to be that easy by a long shot with Percy and his family.
I wouldn't be surprised if Millicent assumed Hermione's smile was a plot to catch her off guard to begin with. She may not trust other girls, assuming they're all making fun of her.
Oh, I definitely saw it that way; it comes down to what shusu said further down, the Slytherins are all about survival. They have the most obvious survival instinct out of all the other Houses, and with damn good reason too; with the anti-Slytherin sentiments running rampant through Hogwarts, it's only natural. It's interesting that Hufflepuff operates in a similar stick-together method as I picture the Slytherins doing, and they are the second-most-discriminated-against House at Hogwarts (seen by at least three-quarters of the school as better than Slytherin, but not by much). Yet they are the ones who get recognized for this loyalty (because Slytherins are eeeeviill, they can't be loyal)...but I think that if Hufflepuff stick together to deal with the discrimination against them, then it's practically canonical that Slytherin do the same, since they get a lot more prejudice. I see Millicent as one of the prime examples of how Slytherin works; she knows her place in it, and where she would elsewhere be pushed down and made to seem weak and quiet because of her looks, she obviously has her firm place within Slytherin; and she also does not trust outsiders, another survival tactic. I remember one of the responses made in your last post about how each Slytherin has their specific social place in the house, without making it seem as though the "stronger" Slytherins oppress the "weaker" ones; I totally agree. I can't imagine a weak Slytherin, nor can I imagine one that would willingly take shite from another (or anyone else, really). I expect they learn at a young age not to trust many in the school (Especially when you have other students hissing at you for making it into your House). Gryffindor lacks this order that Slytherin possesses; they have closeness, they stay up in the common room together in times of crisis, but they have their own seperate cliques and therefore it has the ability to become so disordered (Housemates turning against one another, which we have no example of in either Slytherin or Hufflepuff). I think this is because they don't seem to need it; they don't need a survival instinct, they don't need to stick together against prejudice, they are the most respected and revered-to House at Hogwarts. But it's funny that due to this trait, they are actually the House which is likely to have the highest rate of backstabbing, yet it's the Slytherins which are seen as the "untrustworthy" ones. (Definitely not saying in the least that Gryffindors are untrustworthy, because loyalty to what they believe in seems to be highly prized on the general nobility/courage code, it just seems that what they feel to be worthy of trustworthiness changes an awful lot.)
From:
no subject
I've always found it kind of fascinating how different Slytherin seems to be from the little we see. Pre-OotP I kept meaning to write something comparing the Slytherin group we always see (Draco, Crabbe, Goyle and then Pansy) with the Trio. Because people are always so quick to set them up as the "real" friends (Trio) vs. the "fake," and say that because Crabbe and Goyle are obviously underlings they're not really friends. And I do understand the case for being friends with equals (it's certainly what I prefer), but at the same time many people have had friendship groups that were based more on a hierarchy--particularly boys, I think. It kind of fascinated me the way that Draco's little system was so ordered: He was the leader and when Pansy stepped in Crabbe and Goyle immediately knew she had a place as beside Draco, like as his girl (whether or not they were actually dating).
Whereas the Trio in book 4 was going through more problems because Harry wasn't really taking the leadership role, and Ron felt sort of threatened by that--like, if Harry had let him in on his supposed plan to get into the GoF Ron probably would have assisted in getting Harry's name in, but he feels betrayed when he thinks Harry did it without him. And then Hermione, as the girl, also is also having some issues almost because she's never had an identity as "the girl" before.
OotP changed things in that Harry definitely became the leader, but there was still, imo, some unresolved issues on that score. It's not that I'm saying the Trio's friendship doesn't work well or anything, but it fascinates me to compare that model with what we seem to see in Slytherin, which is more of a hierarchy. Like, Flint yelled at Draco for missing the Snitch in CoS, and I get the sense it was understood that this was acceptable, since Draco was an underling. Even the little of Draco's style we see seems based on a leadership idea--the way he might be sort of jocularly bullying to C&G in the commonroom scene, but then always share his candy with them.
Heh. I think I'm just still thinking about tonight's episode of The Sopranos. Same type idea, but no killing or breaking of kneecaps yet that we've seen.:-) And Pansy could be easily have the role of a woman in that type of family.