Let's talk about cunning

[sistermagpie]

I was reading this discussion on reenka's lj that got into...well, I think this part took off from the idea of what's "normal" in the WW and different houses and that made me .

For me, part of the main glue that holds this series together (and it needs something because it's sort of everything-but-the-kitchen-sink) is that there’s basic ideas around which everything operates. We can, as reenka did, assume that we're just not seeing the parts of the society that disagree with things, but to me those people don't much matter because as far as we know, they don't exist. It seems pretty generally agreed upon in the WW what things make a person worthy of admiration and what things don't, and it looks a lot like those old-fashioned values associated with chivalry. Even Hermione, the Voice of Reason (ahem!) reads Hogwarts a History and decides Gryffindor’s obviously the best house. The Gryffindors we know certainly embody these kinds of traits--bravery is the most important virtue, they are Good Sports when it comes to Quidditch and dueling, they are up front about who their enemies are and who their friends are. It's natural the Bad House in the school would be associated with cunning—cunning sort of going against the chivalric ideal, it instinctively seems to me. The worst Gryffindor, Peter (yes, I assume he’s a Gryffindor), is the worst because he was cunning. He's a rat in the insulting sense of the word. (Btw, for some reason I’m always really aware of James being really flashy with the antlers but still prey...sort of weird the way he and Moony could hang out just because they were both animagi.) Cunning=traitors, cowards, liars, tattletales and cheaters. And frankly, this is the way Slytherin often seems presented even by itself in canon. You get the sense that they'd like to be able to win honestly, but they can't, so they cheat. Openly and badly, in fact, and it never works.

What they don't have, to my knowledge so far, is a positive example of cunning like, for instance, El-ahrairah of Watership Down. The characters in WD understandably value cunning because they're rabbits--physically weak and always having to steal food. Prince with a Thousand Enemies is their ancestor. In HP canon if you want good examples of this kind of cunning you usually have to look to a Gryffindor who's faced with an adult foe--Hermione with Umbridge for instance. Then she becomes cunning and she has much more in common with El-ahrairah than Tom, Snape or Draco usually seems to. If Harry and Draco are the same size, Harry immediately distinguishes himself as more heroic by fighting on his own and especially by winning, while Draco is immediately less admirable for walking around with two bigger students as bodyguards.

I don't know why I wrote that last paragraph because I'm seriously not as interested in getting into a discussion about Gryffindor vs. Slytherin. I guess it just does sort of seem interesting to me the way a house system in a school that's heading for war that by description breaks down into: flashy war heroes (G), loyal troops (H), idea makers (R) and politicians/spies (S) could obviously be arranged to come together so that each house brought a different strength and protected the weak sides of the other, but instead each house seems to be cherry-picked for the best example of its defining quality and given to members of the one house. It's not meant as a charge against Gryffindor just a sort of obvious thing about the books--the author didn't say, "Ooh, four houses represented different qualities. The heroes will be representatives of each house!"

What I am interested in is just the whole portrayal of cunning, because it does seem to be a virtue that's a little dicey for a lot of people. Spies hold a completely different fascination for people than warriors do. In fact, how often is the archetypal hero following the spy path? I think that's why it always surprises me when Frodo is described as "a spy" in LOTR by--is it the MoS? He does use some of the elements of the spy in being small and unobtrusive and seemingly non-threatening. There are elements of spy work throughout the book presented in a good light--the Conspiracy is an obvious example; the Fellowship intentionally uses misdirection as part of its plan. Though of course at its heart the plan is quite straightforward and honest--they just count on Sauron never thinking of it because it's *too* straightforward for someone like him. He can't conceive of anyone having the ring and wanting to destroy it. Gollum, of course, uses the ring for spying, and while his "Slinker" personality might be slightly better than the "Stinker" one, it's nothing to write home about. Sam, particularly, is as much a warrior as any war hero one could mention. And he cooks too! (Stops self from going off on ruminations about M&P, movie vs. book…)

Who are the well-known and loved cunning heroes? Interesting that I suspect a lot of them come from fairy tales and folktales--there's the trickster characters, and Jack the Giant Killer, the brave little tailor and Odysseus. Animals that seem to show up with this quality are the rabbit, the fox, the wren. I'm probably forgetting really obvious characters here. It sometimes seems like the thieves and tricksters just feel more at home away from the marbled halls of Epic.

What's kind of funny (or maybe just obvious) is I'm trying to write this thing...this weekend I suddenly realized it should probably be in the first person so I started all over again. (And then the roommate suddenly burst out with a big diatribe about how hard it is to live with me when I'm writing something because I just make it look so easy and I type really fast and cover all these pages and pages with my "perfect little handwriting!">:-0 Mind you, she has never seen a word of what I'm writing so I don't know why she thinks I'm so productive--she looks exactly the same way to me...only I do have better handwriting.;-) Anyway, so this thing I'm writing, the boy who's the main character...is kind of a spy. I mean, he's a kid but he spies a lot and he just really wants to know stuff. He's not a very good spy, I don't think. Not sure if he will grow up to be a good one or not. He's not a natural spy like Reilly or the main character in Le Carré’s A Perfect Spy who compulsively lies and lives many different lives at once. I find those people fascinating, but he's not one of those. He just really wants to know and understand stuff and probably considers that more valuable than physical strength. I think he probably aspires to true cunning. I guess I'm not quite sure just what archetype of that family he would be if he was one. Perhaps writing him in the first person will help me figure that out.

Comments

[katarik.livejournal.com]

Was it you who compared Draco to the Sage figure? He's always struck me as a Trickster-wannabe, and Tricksters must have cunning.
Your points about heroes and houses are interesting also. In my head, each House has a corresponding element. Most of the time, the wizards/witches they [the Houses] produce will match that element. Sometimes they won't.
In a war, honestly, you need all four strategies. If JKR has Gryffindor!heroes winning, and the others helping because they became more Gryffindorish, I will smack her.
Okay, this started out meta and now it's not. Sorry I spammed your journal.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

No problem--no spam! Is good!

I didn't do the sage post, but Trickster-wannabe definitely sounds right to me. Heavy on the wannabe. He's probably a lot of wannabes in one. But yeah, it does get annoying when you feel like other people are supposed to become more like people that aren't like me to begin with! Not that I think those characters should be more like me--it just seems like we need different types of people.

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Hee! You wrote about your writing, yeay! >:D

Harry immediately distinguishes himself as more heroic by fighting on his own and especially by winning, while Draco is immediately less admirable for walking around with two bigger students as bodyguards.

Though of course, Harry loses some of this by having people fight for him and attack Draco both in GoF & OoTP :> I wonder where JKR is going with that-- though perhaps it's just a bigger fall and set-up for a 'fix' because the worst thing Harry can do is be like Draco :>

flashy war heroes (G), loyal troops (H), idea makers (R) and politicians/spies (S) could obviously be arranged to come together so that each house brought a different strength and protected the weak sides of the other, but instead each house seems to be cherry-picked for the best example of its defining quality and given to members of the one house.

Hahaha, this explains why Slytherins annoy me, at least in part-- and also my issues with Hufflepuffs, actuall. I love spies but hate (HATE HATE HATE HAAAATE) politicians and politicking and Machiavelli (uber!Slytherin) with the passion of a thousand suns (and I'm sure they'd be just too mystified and annoyed with me to find me worthy of hating). I mean, spies are cool 'cause they get stuff -done-, theoretically, and most politicians suck 'cause they don't seem to have any point beyond bureaucracy and the hoarding/attainment of personal power-- and thusly they -don't- get nearly enough done though supposedly they 'support' society.

Anyway, it occurs to me that maybe this is why Slytherins are so uncool-- not that cunning itself is uncool in principle-- because they never get things done like true spies would, because for a real spy/cheater getting a result is all that matters-- and if you fail at the result, you just fail, while if a Gryffindor fails at a result, it doesn't matter as much because in their ethic it's how you do it rather than being a matter of expediency. So they get the higher moral ground no matter what, and thus win no matter what, whereas the Slytherins only win if they-- well-- win.

Though yeah, it -is- associated with cheating/cowardice/betrayal which I don't respect at ALL, as well as lying/stealing/swindling, which is the mark of a good criminal and criminals are fun-- but on the other hand, for some reason we don't see those traits in canon Slytherins because while they're 'bad', they're also cool, which JKR seems to want to steer clear of showing while still implying, which is probably at least partly why people do respond positively to Slytherins.

Another thing I thought was cute was whether you were implying that Harry represented both Gryffindor & Slytherin in that schema of yours :))

Who are the well-known and loved cunning heroes?
Hmm. Well, I'm tempted to say James Bond >:D Though I think most heroes (even 'flashy' ones like Han Solo or Indiana Jones or something) are cunning when they need to be, I think. Like, in anime you get this a lot more, actually. There's more antiheroes-- which is where you get more cunning. But antiheroes have become about as accepted as heroes, at least in the movies, these days, like-- um, oh, even the guy in the Matrix. I'm sure there's a bunch.

In terms of anime, I was thinking of Weiss Kreus (which is about a bunch of assassins fighting other, worse assassins) & to some degree Kenshin (about a rogue samurai) & even Gundam Wing-- about mecha-piloting terrorists. There's a lot of anime about 'heroic' rogues who work against the system but since there's so few of their number and so many of the enemy's, they have to use all methods available and don't really discriminate that much (while retaining a moral code). There are a lot more examples, but mostly in "boy's" anime which I don't watch as much 'cause it doesn't have much romance~:))

Also, there's a lot in comics-- like um, Batman and especially the latter-day 'darker' superheroes. I definitely think the X-Men are pretty cunning and use subterfuge a lot, considering they're, again, fighting an enemy bigger and more dispersed than they could easily take down in one go. And whenever you have a chronic problem like that, you have to use Hermione-style cunning, as you said~:)

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

He's not a natural spy like Reilly or the main character in Le Carré’s A Perfect Spy who compulsively lies and lives many different lives at once.

...I always found people who lie compulsively to be fascinating, and I'd love to see a portrait of Draco like that, 'cause I think he's a good candidate for being compulsive (like, compulsive stealing works but isn't as interesting as compulsive lying). I think it helps that my bastard ex, who partly inspired my interest in Draco-fic, was a compulsive liar, but-- really it just -works-. A lot of fics seem to focus on forcing Draco to tell the truth and how many things that would change-- and indeed it would. His main protection and weapon is his words, so of course stealing that power from him would make him pretty vulnerable (*rubs hands together, cackles in anticipation*)-- but I don't associate this 'strength' (lying as a way of empowering oneself) with control, to be clear. I mean, that's where the compulsive thing comes in-- because while he hoards words and uses them to attack as well as probably witholding in defense, he's not that good, so... he often says the wrong thing or witholds the wrong thing and he likely can't control what he lies about or whatever, probably. I love that about him <3

I also think that Draco could live many different lives and compartmentalize even though his obsession overrides everything. I find characters like that fascinating, 'cause that very compartmentalization gives them all these layers to sift through, y'know. Though at this point with Draco, that's mostly potential. He could easily be a double-agent if he grows up and gets over his utter obsession with his father and/or Harry-- but that'd be a disillusionment, which he actually seems set up for. That sort of childish focus almost always gives way to jaded selfishness.

He just really wants to know and understand stuff and probably considers that more valuable than physical strength.

Perhaps that's where that whole intellectualism of fanon!Draco comes from-- since it seems to fit the 'cunning spy' archetype or what have you, because knowledge is power & especially if one's naturally weak, one's best chance is to know enough to defeat one's enemy. Hmm. Though in actual canon Draco's just too much of a loser to ever make use of what he knows in a productive manner, it seems :>

See, this is why I don't think one needs a 'nicer' Draco for Harry to like him, only a more Slytherin Draco-- like, if he had all the same ambitions and desires only they suddenly became more achievable, Harry would definitely sit up & take notice. Even if that new power was 'only' knowledge. Draco doesn't need to be better than Harry at spells or fighting-- he just has to have some power that would allow him to go after what he wants. Otherwise he's... well, a charity case.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah, I so love those compulsive liar characters. I think I remember reading in a book about spies something about how the best spies are born rather than made and it's true. Like, there can be somebody like Snape who just happens to find himself in a position where he has to spy--but Snape isn't somebody who would do it otherwise. Then there are people who are just trained in whatever. But it's those people who literally spy freelance until a Spymaker headhunts them and knows they have the right personality...that's just so cool. Sometimes it borders on being a neurosis rather than a talent!

I think somebody probably could take the raw material in canon Draco and make him into that btw--very easily. Because first, he definitely has the background for it in that his father is a liar. His father made up a story to keep himself out of danger and probably kept doing that, presenting one face to the public and buttering up the right people and then doing something else in private--and possibly letting his son sort of see that.

Draco, for all we know, could actually be a liar in Slytherin. Like maybe he makes up stories all the time, plays different roles. He doesn't have to be good at it yet because he's just trying it out. (Spies also tend to be observant...not sure how observant Draco is...you could make a case, I think, that he is the right type of observant.) More importantly, what sometimes pushes the person over the edge is a traumatic experience that rocks the foundation of who they really are, so they feel like a blank slate. Well, Draco's just ready-made for that. His whole identity is already precariously balanced. He seems to have to fight an uphill battle everyday just to hang onto this image of himself his parents gave him.

Ooh, now I'd love to read a fic where Harry has to deal with Spy!Draco--a Draco completely shattered into just a bunch of different identities he uses with different people for different purposes. I mean literally a Draco who turned into different people and was believable as them all--the kid who used to do "cruel but accurate" impressions now literally shifting from one person to another.

And of course Harry would just have to be intrigued and try to find the real Draco, particularly since this is exactly the type of thing Capslock!Harry can not stand for!

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

The multiple-personality!Draco (without being pathologically so, just kind of like that on purpose, at least at first) to be -fascinating-. Harry would so totally freak like a freaky...thing, if Malfoy stopped being predictable :D :D Which, I feel, is a keystone in making Harry notice Draco too. Man. I'd write it if I wasn't so lazy :>

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I think you're right--most heroes do use cunning at some point. You have to, really. But you know the kind of thing I mean...like the way that with most of those characters they might use cunning sometimes but their main virtue is something else. Like courage--the Gryffindors prize courage the most--that's even what Leia first loves about Han Solo. James Bond, too, is more known for being capable and smooth than cunning.

On the Pirates of the Caribbean DVD the writers talk about how there are very few true Tricksters in American movies and I wonder if it's because we tend to go for the Brave!Hero too. Because a person who truly has cunning as the thing they prize...that's a very different character. Coyote, Loki and all that.

The Slytherins, like you said, don't work because they don't win--and also, they're not secret! I mean, it's like Draco and his money. He's supposed to be the snob so we hate him because he's got all this money and Ron is poor, but then he has to constantly TALK about money in a way that takes away the power of it. If Draco wasn't constantly bringing money up his money would be a non-issue, because it's not like the rich kids really rule the school and make everybody feel bad. Slytherin cunning is the same way. They can't ever really be cunning--or at least Draco can't--because he's always got to be jumping up and down and winking at Harry from across the hall: HEY POTTER! CUNNING PLAN GOING ON OVER HERE! HEADS UP! If other Slytherins are making things work for them we've yet to see any signs of it. Heh. Just as Draco's the dream bully (he never wins, you always get the last word, he's insanely jealous of you) he's also the dream trickster. He tells you exactly what he's up to and it never works anyway. Wile E. Coyote of the Potterverse.

Hee! You wrote about your writing, yeay! >:

Hee! With much trepidation and consideration of deleting.:-) But actually, that made me really figure something good out about it...I don't know if it's anything that will help in actual writing, of course. It was kind of a meta thing. And, you know, meta and actual writing at once can't really be done. But I think it helps me get things more--both about this main kid and the other kid he doesn't like. OMG, they totally sort of are the Gryffindor and the Slytherin...though I guess truth be told pretty much all characters could be slotted into one of the four houses if you thought about it a little. It's not my fault I've always had that fondness for rich, spoiled fictional children!

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Ohhh, I wasn't think of the 'main virtue' thing, you're right. Hmmm. In popular culture, even anime, cunning does go along with courage-- perhaps especially in Japanese stuff, where it's not so much courage as self-sacrifice to the point where one just doesn't care about one's own life (even if one's selfish in a number of other ways). Which is an interesting variation, but it makes sense for Japan, which is such a hierarchal society-- whereas I think the spy/trickster/betrayer is kind of a leech onto whatever hierarchy-- so it's a different spin on the whole archetype.

I've never particularly had any affection for bravery in particular-- unless by 'bravery' you mean 'fearlessness', which isn't its true definition (which would be something like 'rebellion against one's fear'). I think Japanese trickster types are more truly fearless (unafraid of death), which is partly what I love about them. They're cavalier with themselves as well as everyone else-- and the Japanese have a very well-developed trickster culture, btw, with the fox spirits and all sorts of remnants of the early animalistic religion. Though actually, I think Jack (in PoTC) is pretty fearless/reckless/insane in his own way, which the Slytherins still aren't. But it would be really cool if Draco was. Like, a lot. A LOT. A LOT. (*drools*) Like, he might turn into that if he had nothing to live for (say, Harry & his father both died or something and the Death Eaters lost & he was good at killing... stuff, but then Harry's not really dead, etc, ahahah.)

You're right though-- he's like Wile E. Coyote-- harmless, ridiculous, which isn't really typical for any sort of cunning hero. No one likes a loser except as a joke, not if he's grown up. In a kid it's adorable, in a grown-up it's pathetic. That sort of thing.

But yeah-- meta & actual writing don't go together :> Which is why I often want to give up meta :> And feel like I don't want to be an English major :> Heheh I so totally ship any & all characters that can be characterized as 'Gryffindor' & 'Slytherin'... if they're not contradicting H/D (thusly, R/D is VERY BAD while D/G is almost okay 'cause well, poor Draco, he's het, what can he do-- though D/Hr makes me laugh). Heheh I'm reading about Caspian now & laughing at Edmund's little come-back to the dwarf where he gave him that silly nickname. <3<3<3 I thought, I bet SM liked that part >:D heeeeeee.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Oh I'm sure Japan probably does do very well with tricksters. I mean, it's weird because it's just that I think those type of characters are always going to have an interesting relationship with the more straightforward warrior characters, you know? They can sometimes work together. The twins, as neotoma says, probably have more in common with true tricksters, but that may be a mistaken impression on our part as readers. It's possible that really the twins are completely committed to the "right cause" and would never do any harm to it, but we just think they would. What some of us see as a dangerous edge may, to JKR, just be good clean wacky fun. Remember, after all, this is somebody who might be telling us that "righteous anger" can't sustain a torture curse, so we may just sort of be in denial land about these kinds of issues.:-)

Within these books, though, I don't think the Slytherins are tricksters at all because they're not tricksters. They're more just the cowardly, weak warrior who fights dirty but still can't win.

[neotoma.livejournal.com]

how there are very few true Tricksters in American movies and I wonder if it's because we tend to go for the Brave!Hero too.

I think it's because *true* Tricksters are goddamned *dangerous*. Coyote is entertaining in stories, but a nightmare to actually have in your life.

In the Harry Potter stories, the closest thing to Tricksters are the Weasley Twins, and I'm worried that they're going to kill someone by accident with their pranks.

Draco, otoh, isn't even Wile E. Coyote; he's Daffy Duck -- insanely envious of the hero, but always outwitted by him.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Yes, I would definitely say the Twins are far closer to the real thing because, exactly--dangerous!

That's a good point about Daffy--his relationship to Bugs is definitely a lot like Draco's to Harry's...now I'd like to see Draco more like Daffy in some of his early cartoons where he was just insane.:-)

Btw, the PotC writers said that Jack Sparrow had a cinema predecessor in Bugs Bunny (with a little Pepe La Pew, according to Johnny Depp).

[malafede.livejournal.com]

I think Draco is a trickster wannabe. He's kinda creative at it - songs, badges, all that jazz. Plus, don't the tricksters also need to come at it from an amoral perspective? He has the lack of moral standards as well, though he lacks the cunning. Poor bastard, I wonder if his problem is that his own moral standards are too high however wacked.

I really like tricksters because they represent this complete lack of control - energy gone wild. It's what I love about that kind of character. It's just so liberating to get out of the comfort zone of heroism for once. The trickster is out of it and it's pointing out all the little cracks in it. I love it.

But I really wanted to comment about your Slytherin wannabe kid. Ooooh, spoiled rich brats! SM fic! *fangirls* ♥

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Now I have visions of Draco getting a hold of Bugs Bunny cartoons and secretly watching them, entranced, and making Bugs his hero.

[ptyx.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but Harry... is a kind of spy too. Not a very good one, it's true. He's also a liar. Hee... I think Harry's a Slytherin.

[neotoma.livejournal.com]

Harry is a *snoop*. He looks for information because he's curious, not for strategic reasons, and he rarely shares what he knows. He's actually quite like the Dursleys in that.

[neotoma.livejournal.com]

Snape sure does have all the wrong qualities -- hot-headed, stubborn, unsocial, stiff-necked, boorishly hones, and about as subtle as a bull in a china shop.

I can only wonder if he's got some magic that makes him a better spy than his personality would lead one to believe.

[ptyx.livejournal.com]

as subtle as a bull in a china shop
LOL! That's our Severus!

[ptyx.livejournal.com]

Yeah, right, Harry's a snoop. But you know, I really can't see Snape as a spy. He has all the wrong qualities. Unless he's so good he's deceiving me ^_^. I also can't see any cunning in Draco and his friends. They are just bullies and swindlers.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Yes--I don't think Snape really is a spy at heart. I mean, he found himself in a particular situation where he had to take on this role, but he's not a natural spy, I don't think. He joined the DEs honestly and changed his mind and didn't tell anyone, which is a little different. Honestly, I think it would be very difficult to actually write Snape spying on the DEs because his personality makes it difficult.

And also ditto on the Slytherins--that's exactly what I mean. When are they ever really cunning? There's nothing cunning about openly cheating or pushing people around or teasing them.

But then, I also feel like underneath it all the mindset of this series doesn't hold true spies in very high regard. It seems to admire open defiance a lot more--Harry himself has to be told a number of times to *not* be so openly defiant, and so does Draco get told that by Lucius in CoS. So while the books are, imo, more comfortable dealing with the ways natural open defiance can work against you. Most characters are fairly volatile and honest in their emotions.

In fact, thinking about characters who I would believe would be better cunning...I'd probably think of Lupin before any Slytherin.

[ptyx.livejournal.com]

I'd probably think of Lupin before any Slytherin
I totally agree!

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

They're 'swindlers?' Poor Crabbe and Goyle, I don't remember them swindling anyone...!

I can't imagine Snape as much of a spy either. He doesn't appear to have much control over his emotions, which I would think would be paramount. Of course, he could be fooling me too! ;)

[ptyx.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, I'm not a native speaker and sometimes it's difficult to find the right word, especially when you're in a hurry. I was just trying to say that they don't play fair, and I wasn't referring specifically to Crabbe and Goyle, but to all Slytherins.

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

Heh, I haven't seen anyone play fair in the Potterverse, from any house. YMMV, though.
*holds out hope for a um, nice character in Book Six*

[mariagoner.livejournal.com]

What about Luna Lovegood?!

She's more sinned against than sinner in my eyes.

And, um, hi sistermagpie... hope you don't mind me barging into your personal journal...

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

Hmmph. *grudgingly admits* I'll give her a chance, but I don't have high hopes, what with her being in the DA.

[mariagoner.livejournal.com]

But if she wasn't in the DA and a "close personal friend"* of Harry and Co., she wouldn't get as much screen time! I'm willing to forgive JKR for a lot of sins as long as she gives us a great deal of Luna. And however much the rest of the HP books may disappoint, at least I have that much to look forward too.

*Well... at the very least, the way the Gryffindors treat her at the end is a little more civil than the way they treat her at the beginning of OOTP. They finally decide to afford her a little basic respect, for one. It took her only one year to earn that, while Neville had to slog through at least four.

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

I just don't see why she wishes to befriend our Loveable Gang; which makes me think she's there to demonstrate their excellent inter-personal skills in accepting an unpopular member of *gasp* another house and 'look how sweet and kind they are'. And of course Luna wants to hang out with them, despite them never being nice to her? That's just a sign she's a Goodie. Cause everybody wants or should want to be the Trio's BFF.
I don't know, I guess I didn't warm to her. I don't think I'm seeing what everybody else sees in her. Explain, maybe?

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Not at all! Barge, away!

[mariagoner.livejournal.com]

In which case, I hope you don't mind me friending you! I've just started poking around through your older entries, and I can tell I've missed out on some very cool discussions! :)

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

*greedily looks forward to mariagoner in future discussions*:-D

[mariagoner.livejournal.com]

Ah, you are a sly one, sistermagpie! You know I am never going to leave you or your journal alone now, right? ;)

[(Anonymous)]

I think the Slytherins would be more fun (or at least have more fun!) if they were allowed to be, like, Patricia Highsmith characters. I sort of ruined the movie of The Talented Mr. Ripley for myself by reading the book a month before, but I find the books so much more interesting because movie-Ripley is all about being IMmoral and angst-y, whereas book-Ripley is much more Amoral and merrily adapts to circumstance and eventually marries a French heiress who indulges his various interests (like harpsichord lessons, silk pajamas in a rainbow of colors, separate bedrooms, and the occasional jaunt off for criminal activities. Seriously, someone needs to slip Draco a set of the Ripley books.).

I think the HP-verse seems to set "cunning" in opposition to "loyalty" and "bravery" when it really isn't. There seems to be a lot of pressure to be declaratively (is that even a word?) Good, Faithful to Dumbledore, Opposed to Voldemort and so on--there's really no place for lower-key individuals. I mean, look at Moody and Tonks--could there be flashier individuals? I would think that you would want Aurors to be able to slip by unnoticed on occaison. Or Snape--no matter how many times Dumbledore tells Harry that he (AD) trusts Snape, Harry still doubts it. It's not just enough to be loyal, or brave, you have to be flashy about it. Look at Neville.

The Gryffindor mentality to me seems comparable to people who, for instance, make a big deal out of mocking "political correctness" and pride themselves on being "real," in the reality-tv show sense of the word which means "totally lacking in tact or self-restraint." Harry can't bring himself to be polite to Snape when he doesn't feel that way. Hermione basically begins life with Umbridge by being argumentative (I do give Hermione some credit for having somewhat of a sense of classroom decorum with regards to Snape, even without liking him personally). It always strikes me as a little short-sighted of the DA, if they want to be all Machievallian, to not set up a few people who would try to ingratiate themselves to Umbridge, just for reconnaissance purposes or the flinging of red herrings. The Twins hiss at first-years being sorted into Slytherin. This is a group that not only demands that you have the Right opinion, but that you wear it loud and proud and never back down or compromise or agree to disagree or take some time to consider the various options. I think this may well have been one of the things that alienated Percy.

I think this also ties into Hermione. I've always been bothered by the insistence, both in certain parts of fandom and to some extent in the books themselves, that she NEEDS to learn that studying and theory aren't the end-all (of course, it never seems to be as important for Ron and Harry to learn to be more respectful of Hermione's talents). Even her secret hex on the coins in OotP seems to me like part of a demand that her "cleverness" be tuned to flashy demonstrations of What is Right--and even worse, that seems to prevent any real analysis of what she does. Because she has an established Loyalty, anything she does is Good, and probably "clever" rather than "cunning."

I wonder if JKR is familiar with the Steinbeck quote "Heroes are innocent, villians are cunning." Because it seems to me like she's trying to do both, but neither is really working. The Slytherins and the Death Eaters et al fail at being cunning and are rendered as stunningly ineffective, and when you have Hermione messing around with adapted Dark Mark charms. . .well, "innocent" is not my reaction.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Wow--I so totally agree with all of this! And I really must read The Talented Mr. Ripley. I almost bought it recently. I saw the movie and Ripley's Game but I really do want to read the original. I could tell the movie with Matt Damon was very different.

But anyway--yes, exactly! I mean, with Hermione we even have her putting down theory and learning as if this is somehow supect--she dismisses "books and cleverness" and is the leader of the move to complain about a DADA class that's based on theory and law, which to me seems like an important thing. But no, it's got to be all about the practical attack on enemies. Of course Hermione occasionally uses cunning in getting Umbridge to the forest and things like that, but still she's got the same mentality as all the rest, that strict conformity to the party line is important. ITA that all is seen as more clever than cunning.

This is part of the reason why pre-OotP I remember always having the feeling that Ravenclaw was going to be a somewhat suspicious house and wasn't surprised when the "weak links" in the DA were from that house. It just seems like it's natural in this universe to mistrust anyone who acts with their head primarily. People say Hermione would be suited to Ravenclaw and while I'm sure she'd do fine there to me she seems just as relentlessly Gryffindor as anyone else. She has openly stated on more than one occasion that practical action is important and thinking as an end to itself is a waste of time. Her study is all done with an eye towards a real-world goal.

Unfortunately, just as you said, we wind up then not being able to really analyze her actions because they're all just in the service of "the cause." A student interested in the Dark Arts intellectually, I suspect, would be suspicious, but Hermione's right-on because she's just using them to work for Dumbledore.

[mariagoner.livejournal.com]

The Gryffindors (even "brainy" ones like Hermione) really are scarily goal-orientated, aren't they? I wonder what, if anything, they bother to think about when there isn't an enemy to conquer or crusade to throw... that is, if their allies don't arrange for an enemy or crusade on their behalf. After all, we've seen how listless and dangerous Gryffindors without goals get, right? I wouldn't be surprised if a few of them eventually turned on their own for a lack of other people to bother. (Sirius and the Weasley twins alert!)

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

LOL! It makes me think of Mira talking about Harry and Sirius in the beginning of OotP: If Gryffindors aren't entertained every minute they turn into sulky two-year-olds and get into trouble.

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

Hee, I was just going over my chapter for t_s this week and thinking that the Gryffindors don't tend to do well with non-physical problems.
They appear to already have a habit of turning on each other when things go wrong for members of their house in a way that can't be resolved by GRR! SMASH!

[mariagoner.livejournal.com]

Ooooh... I think I just got hit by a vicious Harry/Marvel comics cross-over idea now!

What would happen if mild-mannered (er... previous to OOTP anyway) young wizard Harry Potter's routine magick experiment curses him with the tendency to become a powerful giant green brute under moments of absolute pain and rage?!

(Personally, I don't think the results would be that different from what happened to Harry after Sirius got KO'd by his very own flesh and blood. But at least we'd get to see Harry (albeit a green Harry) scampering around in little more than his underoos.

Heh. Heh. Heh.)

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

Those are some really good points!

The Gryffindor mentality to me seems comparable to people who...make a big deal out of mocking "political correctness" and pride themselves on being "real," which means "totally lacking in tact or self-restraint."

There seems to be an undercurrent of contempt for political correctness in HP (Umbridge and the Ministry's attempt to improve teaching standards being greeted with horror because of traditionalist staff and students wanting things to be kept the same; the whole Buckbeak thing which could have come out of the Daily Mail, the Gryffindor macho 'might is right' 'emotions are silly' 'books and cleverness mean nothing next to physical bravery' 'contempt for the weak' mindset); which is odd because being PC seems to be encouraged when it's a 'good' character being harmed.

This is a group that not only demands that you have the Right opinion, but that you wear it loud and proud and never back down or compromise or agree to disagree or take some time to consider the various options.

Basically don't think in any way, but toe the party line. Exactly what they're opposed to when the line being toed isn't their's.

It's not just enough to be loyal, or brave, you have to be flashy about it. Look at Neville.

http://www.livejournal.com/users/sistermagpie/68193.html?thread=1568865#t1568865

It always strikes me as a little short-sighted of the DA...to not set up a few people who would try to ingratiate themselves to Umbridge, just for reconnaissance...

What's odd is they seemed to have become more simplistic rather than more complicated about their approach to enemies as time goes by.
I mean, in CoS there's one point which stuck out for me when someone was doing a readthrough recently - that Harry pretends to agree with Lockhart's views, which are to him contemptible (that Hagrid is opening the Chamber) to get him to do something.
There's also Harry pretending to get upset to McGonagall to visit Hermione and see the paper she clutches; and of course the Polyjuice potion where the very basis is Harry has to get along with Malfoy, albeit as someone else, in order to find out what he knows.
And yet in OotP he's so proud he won't even pretend to get along with people even when it benefits him (might have avoided some of those detentions) and others (surely if he'd reported Umbridge over said detentions, other people could have avoided all that pain.)

I've always been bothered by the insistence...that Hermione NEEDS to learn that studying and theory aren't the end-all (of course, it never seems to be as important for Ron and Harry to learn to be more respectful of Hermione's talents).

Of course not! Her talents are all silly and girly and unimportant. She needs to ape the menfolk and stop worrying her pretty little head.
What annoyed me was Hermione was the one who had to alter to become the boys' friend. She was the one who had to break the rules and curb her natural impulses.
All the boys did was...um...stop teasing her to her face? And even that they only semi-managed!
Hermione is usually the one to apologize first because of Ron and Harry's monumental stubborness, and they've shown as recently as the last book that they can cut her out with ease.
Hermione in general is portrayed as more concerned with petty issues, also - she's quick to criticise; she focuses on school work whereas Ron and Harry don't and pass anyway, implying that Hermione is wasting her time; she's 'silly' when it comes to her pet, and anytime she shows emotions or acts in any way 'female' she gets slated for it by Harry and Ron.

I wonder if JKR is familiar with: "Heroes are innocent, villians are cunning." Because it seems to me like she's trying to do both, but neither is really working.

Oh yes. The Trio seem to embody every other houses qualities better than anyone else: Hermione is smarter than any Ravenclaw, Ron loyaller than any Hufflepuff, Harry and Hermione more cunning than any Slytherin, they're all brave.
And yet they're portrayed as having none of the various faults that could accompany these traits, unlike the actual house members (Cho, Marietta, Malfoy, Ernie MacMillan...), all of whom are written fairly broadly, morality-wise.

[sarahtales.livejournal.com]

Ah, but that's where the house perceptions break down, isn't it? In the last analysis, it's all about choice, and if the hat is the leaders speaking then well well well, perhaps some were just more propaganda merchant-y than others.

See, we've never seen anyone be *really* cunning. Easy enough to be Umbridge, if you've got the government behind you. Barty Crouch Jnr, well well, he was when all's said and done someone who couldn't call Harry into his office and ask him to hold a book, and my darling Draco... um, er, ahem. Perhaps PHINEAS NIGELLUS is who we need here. I loved him. He seemed subtle, and unappreciative of Harry, and generally fabulous. Let's hear a big heroic story about Phineas, please. They should teach them *Tactics* in Auror training camp, and Harry and Draco can both go! and Draco can hear about Phineas' SUBTLE VICTORY, and be like, 'Hmmm. Iiinteresting. Perhaps I have been going about things the wrong way.' and Harry can be all, 'That was SNEAKY. It shouldn't have worked. I am VERY UPSET.' and Draco can smirk and Harry can glare.

I am so sorry. I just started writing fanfic right there on your computer, when what I meant to say was... I am in New York! Can I see you? When can I see you? Do say yes. and when.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

First--I so adore Phineas. He will become my new hero of the Potterverse!

Second--you're damn right you're going to see me in New York! Should I e-mail you my information to get in touch...?:DDDD