![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Happy birthday ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
roxannelinton! May your day be filled with fish and improv!! I would dedicate this essay to you, but it seems kind of lame. Well, if you want it, it's yours. (Cue Elton John song: “And you can tell everybody this is your poooost, it might be quiiiiite boring but, now that it’s up….” Hey, it’s better than Goodbye English Rose, right?)
I've been thinking about courage lately--I think there's a couple of things that put it in my mind. First the amusing fact that I came up half-Gryffindor on that "What mix of houses" are you quiz. Second was the PS/SS re-read, which is now up to The Forbidden Forest.
I've always been pretty vocal about *not* believing courage was a good basis for a moral system myself, and I still don’t (compassion—yay!), but that quiz made me realize (or reminded me) that I do still value it a lot. In the re-read it was brought up that Draco's behavior in the forest is often used as evidence he's a coward-in OotP Harry, too, remembers that Malfoy had “not being very brave then.” People pointed out that really, what's so cowardly?black_dog said:
I agree, and love how this echoes the words of the Wizard of Oz to that most famous of cowards, The Cowardly Lion, at the end of that movie:
There are times in the books where the characters sorted for courage seem to suffer from the same disorganized thinking. Gryffindor, by offering us a lot of different people with this same dominant strength, can show us both its value and its folly. When Sirius says he'd welcome a Dementor attack to brighten his day, he's not being courageous, he's just a person who needs this kind of excitement. He "pales" when the twins bring up the fact that he's "not out risking his life" because that criticism strikes home. In fact, Gryffindors use that type of insult a lot when they want to get each other to do something (and Snape uses it to get to Sirius as well, probably having learned how well it works). This is a natural downside to putting too much value on the ideal of courage, or of having too limited a view of what courage is. Courage does not have to mean throwing yourself into physical fights.
The thing about the word "coward" is that, in my experience, it has nothing to do with whether or not one feels or shows fear. It is a judgment on a person's behavior--a negative one. For instance, after 9/11 there were a lot of references to the terrorists being cowards. Other people then responded that dude, *they* would be terrified to fly a plane into a building and die. Isn't it more cowardly to be dropping bombs from the air and then flying away?
In HP Draco can’t be considered cowardly just because he shows fear. Neville shows more fear in the forest, yet he is a character associated with exceptional bravery. But why is he associated with bravery? Is it because Neville has been known to pick fights with people bigger than he is, even when outnumbered? I don't think it's just that, because the thing is, Draco does that too. Despite the fanon perception that Draco only antagonizes people from a position of total safety behind Crabbe and Goyle, they are not always present when he’s mouthing off and even when they are, they often don’t act.
The reason Malfoy is the coward, imo, is due to the way he deals with his fear, or just what he does in general. In the forest, he retreats into snobbery ("We're not supposed to be doing this--it's servant stuff") and teasing (jumping out and scaring Neville). These methods are do make human sense and he uses them through the series--he feels more in control through these things. (There's a phrase "to understand is to forgive," but that doesn't seem to apply here. Well, it does for me, but not to some of the characters or some other readers.) The other trouble with Draco, I think, is that he ultimately does do what Phinneas says is a Slytherin trait: maybe he's got some courage, but when it comes down to it he always decides to save his skin. So when faced with Harry on a broom the first time, he throws the Rememberall rather than hand it over (which a Gryffindor would not have done either) or fight for it (which the Gryff probably would have done). The sense that he threw the Rememberall not because he thought it was funny but at least partially to save himself, makes him cowardly.
None of these incidents make me think COWARD in a way that makes me angry, but since I do value courage and aspire to it (as best I can) there probably have been times where I thought badly for a person for something I perceived as cowardice. I think for me it comes more in the form of cowardly arguments. I don't think of it in terms of soldiers getting cold feet in battle or bullies (since I would be scared to try to bully anyone, it's hard for me to relate to bullying as an act of cowardice even when it is).
I think what I do is attach it more to ideas or attitudes especially, I think, anybody claiming victim status. I hate seeing any of the following, for instance:
I don't necessarily think cowardice is at the heart of all these arguments- maybe it isn’t. Because, like I said, calling someone a coward doesn’t necessarily mean you have correctly identified "ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain." It just means that their behavior strikes you as ignobly self-protective. When I hear/see someone using these arguments what I see in my mind is a big man in a diaper with a lollipop bawling like a baby. Ironically, there are times where I feel this sort of thing creeping into canon or discussions of canon—it’s not incompatible with having courage in other areas. Just as any courage I might have wouldn’t mean I couldn’t come across like a coward to others.
When I first got on the Internet it was harder to post, especially if I knew I was disagreeing with people. I am rather scared of flames or people getting angry. I don't enjoy fights at all. When I started posting places I remember being very aware of posting on the 'net as almost an exercise in courage, as stupid as that sounds, and I actually think it did have an impact on my personality in general. It was just probably a good way to get me used to sharing an opinion, especially one that meant something to me, and putting it out there and arguing it. My opinions usually do mean something to me, something beyond which characters I like or what’s in one set of books.
That's probably just my version of courage--I don't go for the swashbuckler so much as the person speaking the truth even if it's dangerous. I'm not saying I *am* that person, obviously-that's just my ideal, as opposed to someone else's ideal of the person protecting a weaker person from an attacker, for instance. I love characters that look truth in the face even when it’s scary or gets them in trouble. In fact, that's probably another reason I can't stand the fake!oppressed people; they want to claim courage in speaking the truth in the face of oppression when really they a)don’t speak truth and b)are so sensitive and spoiled the mere existence of another point of view is a threat.
I guess really that's what gets one named a coward. Not that one is scared, but that one is laying claim to the exact form of courage one doesn't have.
roxannelinton! May your day be filled with fish and improv!! I would dedicate this essay to you, but it seems kind of lame. Well, if you want it, it's yours. (Cue Elton John song: “And you can tell everybody this is your poooost, it might be quiiiiite boring but, now that it’s up….” Hey, it’s better than Goodbye English Rose, right?)I've been thinking about courage lately--I think there's a couple of things that put it in my mind. First the amusing fact that I came up half-Gryffindor on that "What mix of houses" are you quiz. Second was the PS/SS re-read, which is now up to The Forbidden Forest.
I've always been pretty vocal about *not* believing courage was a good basis for a moral system myself, and I still don’t (compassion—yay!), but that quiz made me realize (or reminded me) that I do still value it a lot. In the re-read it was brought up that Draco's behavior in the forest is often used as evidence he's a coward-in OotP Harry, too, remembers that Malfoy had “not being very brave then.” People pointed out that really, what's so cowardly?
black_dog said:It's interesting that Draco doesn't actually get terrified until he sees the figure sucking unicorn blood. In fact, when Draco and Neville are left alone, it's Draco who thinks it would be fun to jump up behind Neville and frighten him as a joke, and when Hagrid leaves him alone with Harry, he privately tells Harry that at least he won't fall for Draco's tricks. That doesn't sound, to me, like Draco has been reduced to a helpless puddle of cowardly goo, just by being in the forest. It's true that Draco isn't enthusiastic about going into the forest, but for all the alleged panic Harry "hears" in his voice, he seems mostly indignant, assertive of his rights, and fairly levelheaded in asking whether they should worry about whatever hurt the unicorns "finding us first." He's reasonably scared, but he keeps his head until he's actually confronted with a mysterious hooded bloodsucking creature that advances on him. Sounds pretty reasonable to me!
I agree, and love how this echoes the words of the Wizard of Oz to that most famous of cowards, The Cowardly Lion, at the end of that movie:
”As for you, my fine friend— you're a victim of disorganized thinking. You are under the unfortunate delusion that simply because you run away from danger, you have no courage. You're confusing courage with wisdom.”
There are times in the books where the characters sorted for courage seem to suffer from the same disorganized thinking. Gryffindor, by offering us a lot of different people with this same dominant strength, can show us both its value and its folly. When Sirius says he'd welcome a Dementor attack to brighten his day, he's not being courageous, he's just a person who needs this kind of excitement. He "pales" when the twins bring up the fact that he's "not out risking his life" because that criticism strikes home. In fact, Gryffindors use that type of insult a lot when they want to get each other to do something (and Snape uses it to get to Sirius as well, probably having learned how well it works). This is a natural downside to putting too much value on the ideal of courage, or of having too limited a view of what courage is. Courage does not have to mean throwing yourself into physical fights.
The thing about the word "coward" is that, in my experience, it has nothing to do with whether or not one feels or shows fear. It is a judgment on a person's behavior--a negative one. For instance, after 9/11 there were a lot of references to the terrorists being cowards. Other people then responded that dude, *they* would be terrified to fly a plane into a building and die. Isn't it more cowardly to be dropping bombs from the air and then flying away?
In HP Draco can’t be considered cowardly just because he shows fear. Neville shows more fear in the forest, yet he is a character associated with exceptional bravery. But why is he associated with bravery? Is it because Neville has been known to pick fights with people bigger than he is, even when outnumbered? I don't think it's just that, because the thing is, Draco does that too. Despite the fanon perception that Draco only antagonizes people from a position of total safety behind Crabbe and Goyle, they are not always present when he’s mouthing off and even when they are, they often don’t act.
The reason Malfoy is the coward, imo, is due to the way he deals with his fear, or just what he does in general. In the forest, he retreats into snobbery ("We're not supposed to be doing this--it's servant stuff") and teasing (jumping out and scaring Neville). These methods are do make human sense and he uses them through the series--he feels more in control through these things. (There's a phrase "to understand is to forgive," but that doesn't seem to apply here. Well, it does for me, but not to some of the characters or some other readers.) The other trouble with Draco, I think, is that he ultimately does do what Phinneas says is a Slytherin trait: maybe he's got some courage, but when it comes down to it he always decides to save his skin. So when faced with Harry on a broom the first time, he throws the Rememberall rather than hand it over (which a Gryffindor would not have done either) or fight for it (which the Gryff probably would have done). The sense that he threw the Rememberall not because he thought it was funny but at least partially to save himself, makes him cowardly.
None of these incidents make me think COWARD in a way that makes me angry, but since I do value courage and aspire to it (as best I can) there probably have been times where I thought badly for a person for something I perceived as cowardice. I think for me it comes more in the form of cowardly arguments. I don't think of it in terms of soldiers getting cold feet in battle or bullies (since I would be scared to try to bully anyone, it's hard for me to relate to bullying as an act of cowardice even when it is).
I think what I do is attach it more to ideas or attitudes especially, I think, anybody claiming victim status. I hate seeing any of the following, for instance:
*The only people you're allowed to be intolerant toward nowadays are [insert group to which I belong that’s no longer exclusively catered to but still wields plenty of power].
*Disagreeing with me is the same as censoring me!
*Respecting my beliefs means never challenging anything I say, no matter how illogical.
*Anybody who disagrees with the stupid thing I'm about to say, no matter how politely, will just be flaming me to prove my point that I'm unfairly victimized.
*I said something really stupid and more than one person spoke up to disagree--they are a mob ganging up on me. I must be superior and right!"
*I have plenty of facts to back myself up but I’m not going to post them because you won’t listen because you’re so angry.
*I get to insult, tell lies and promote discrimination against whatever you are and you have to be my friend while I do it—cause that’s what tolerance means and you’re the one who’s supposed to be tolerant!
I don't necessarily think cowardice is at the heart of all these arguments- maybe it isn’t. Because, like I said, calling someone a coward doesn’t necessarily mean you have correctly identified "ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain." It just means that their behavior strikes you as ignobly self-protective. When I hear/see someone using these arguments what I see in my mind is a big man in a diaper with a lollipop bawling like a baby. Ironically, there are times where I feel this sort of thing creeping into canon or discussions of canon—it’s not incompatible with having courage in other areas. Just as any courage I might have wouldn’t mean I couldn’t come across like a coward to others.
When I first got on the Internet it was harder to post, especially if I knew I was disagreeing with people. I am rather scared of flames or people getting angry. I don't enjoy fights at all. When I started posting places I remember being very aware of posting on the 'net as almost an exercise in courage, as stupid as that sounds, and I actually think it did have an impact on my personality in general. It was just probably a good way to get me used to sharing an opinion, especially one that meant something to me, and putting it out there and arguing it. My opinions usually do mean something to me, something beyond which characters I like or what’s in one set of books.
That's probably just my version of courage--I don't go for the swashbuckler so much as the person speaking the truth even if it's dangerous. I'm not saying I *am* that person, obviously-that's just my ideal, as opposed to someone else's ideal of the person protecting a weaker person from an attacker, for instance. I love characters that look truth in the face even when it’s scary or gets them in trouble. In fact, that's probably another reason I can't stand the fake!oppressed people; they want to claim courage in speaking the truth in the face of oppression when really they a)don’t speak truth and b)are so sensitive and spoiled the mere existence of another point of view is a threat.
I guess really that's what gets one named a coward. Not that one is scared, but that one is laying claim to the exact form of courage one doesn't have.
Tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
In a way that's why Neville is courageous, even when he's also very timid. And why the way Griffindors tend to be courageous doesn't always impress me. They're not afraid to break rules and disobey, but they never show the kind of courage that means fighting against the opinions of the people in charge of your life. Then again, there hasn't been a lot of opportunity.
Looking for truth even when it's scary or inconvenient falls into the same kind of category for me. I'm not sure I'd say Gryffindors are so hot at that, either. I'm not sure any particular House would specialize in that.
blah running out of time but I'll get back to this
I also don't think Draco was cowardly in the forest--just more freaked out than Harry, and so mocked. It's an 11 year old thing--being able to be stoic like a hardened adult looks like a good thing to them.
From:
no subject
I'm definitely in the group of people who thinks Neville is best when he's courageous by being independent and just going along no matter what people think of him--or asking people to the ball until someone says yes. (Since I imagine Neville has a fairly realistic idea of who he is--I don't think he's one of those guys who doesn't realize why he should be worried about asking a girl to a dance!)
From:
no subject
Precisely the kind of thing I think about at three in the morning when I should be sleeping, so I thought I'd add my own take on courage.
For one thing, courage is very subjective. What is courageous for one person is fairly passe for someone else. I'll use a few examples from my own past of things people have called 'courageous' but I've called other things.
Example 1-- I once drove through a tornado. Literally. Right through the vortex. Was that 'brave'? No. I didn't see the stupid thing until it caught my car and whipped me across the road. I merely didn't panic (largely because there wasn't time). I held onto the wheel and held my breath. There was no courage to it, just a matter of not losing my head. Lack of panic does not equal courage. For another thing, I'm not precisely afraid of tornadoes, being as I've grown up in Texas and they're a part of life. I have a healthy respect for them, yes, but when the tornado warning sirens start going off, I'm not heading for shelter. I'm one of the idiots who is either ignoring the sirens, or standing in the back yard watching the funnel cloud. That makes me an idiot, which is not courageous. To me, courage involves purposely facing something you fear.
Another example, when I was in college, I worked as a supervisor in retail, and we had an angry customer who started throwing a swearing fit at one of the cashiers. I told him off and ordered him out of the store, and afterwards, I had half a dozen people tell me how 'brave' that was. No, it was careless. He pissed me off, so I yelled back, and that is not courage. THat's stupidity, especially in a state that allows people to carry concealed weapons. Courage implies forethought, in my opinion.
I could go on about things I've done that people say I'm 'brave' for, but generally, I'd say that I'm not being 'brave', I'm being stupid, level headed or not thinking.
Courage is not the absent of fear, and it is not something that happens because you're too stupid to realize that you should be afraid. Courage is facing something that you fear, with the full knowledge of what you are doing, when you have the choice of whether or not to do it. Most acts of true courage go unnoticed.
I have a coworker who had to have major surgery on her shoulder a few years ago. She didn't have a choice, it was necessary because she was in a bad wreck. She didn't know what she was getting into. She didn't know how bad the therapy was going to be. It took no courage, because there was no option and she went in blindly. Then last year, she began having problems with her other shoulder, and after some x-rays, the doctors recommended the same surgery again. This time she *did* know what she was getting into, and it was elective, and she knew how long the recovery period would be (18 months later she's still not fully operational). The second surgery took courage because she had a choice, she knew how bad it would be and it terrified her. To me, that is the sort of thing that takes courage.
From:
no subject
It's weird too, like with the tornadoes, how familiarity can make you seem brave when you're probably just complacent or something.
I definitely agree the woman getting the operation the second time was having to find courage for all the reasons you said. Much harder to make that decision knowing what you're really in for.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
I friended you, btw. I like reading your posts over at the snarkery and pauraque is always linking over to interesting posts that you made.
From:
no subject
And I willingly do credit Tolkien--good point! I remember bringing a friend to TTT and ROTK and she never shared my love for hobbits and Frodo. (She's more of an Aragorn person.) Then finally in ROTK she got how great they were once she realized how small they were, but still brave.
From:
no subject
*yoink* Mine! Bye! *flees*
Aw, thanks! <3
Already had some fish, if not improv.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/roxannelinton/29448.html?thread=526600#t526600
The other trouble with Draco, I think, is that he ultimately does do what Phineas says is a Slytherin trait: maybe he's got some courage, but when it comes down to it he always decides to save his skin.
Maybe that's what's so cowardly about the forest scene? He didn't make sure anyone was else was ok.
(Hee, except in Movie!Canon. Which cracks me up no end.)
Because, really, since even the Gryffindor bravery definition doesn't mean not being afraid, I can only presume that the definition of cowardice is either a) overt self-protectiveness and neglecting of protecting others or b) showing *gasp* your feelings (of fear, in this case)
But then, if a) applied at all, it wouldn't make much sense, because for all the 'hero complex' jive and talk of 'chivalry', the Gryffindors kind of warrior ethos doesn't leave much (not that I want to criticise the house, lest I be seen to need to discredit a fictional group or anything!) room for the weak. It's okay to rescue girls, or defend absent friends, but the boys seem to have a system of 'stand on your own two feet, sink or swim'. Look at Neville, the timidest, most emotional; and least popular. Not to mention, there are plenty of scenes, the three-headed dog one, for example, which are extremely similiar (no screaming, except again, in movie canon, but some pretty quick running, and no indication of anybody checking to see if the others are okay.) Not to mention, Harry shows no concern for Malfoy when Neville and his flare goes up. I'm sure he would help out an enemy, in an emergency (especially what with those Snape-James parallels that keep cropping up) unlike Malfoy, but we've not had that much indication of that yet, really. It's not like there's exposition of 'By the way, Malfoy didn't get eaten by the giant spiders/wandered the whole forest all night, since Hagrid was so very professional and oh, I don't know, made sure?!'
I think for me it comes more in the form of cowardly arguments.
Yes, I think being honest with yourself is a form of bravery. If you're kidding yourself, you can be physically heroic, but it's ultimately meaningless if you've no idea of your own motives.
I often find myself running into trouble because I assume everyone is as aware of their nasty sides as I am! (Gosh, that sounds so arrogant, and yet, pathetic...)
When I started posting places I remember being very aware of posting on the 'net as almost an exercise in courage, as stupid as that sounds, and I actually think it did have an impact on my personality in general.
Totally. Even now, I try to avoid outright arguing (wouldn't know it, would you? ;) or discussing anything too personal (I can't bear it when people bring up their life experiences as a way to win unrelated fandom arguments, anyway.) and get nervous doing stupid things like chatting on AIM or writing an email.
That's probably just my version of courage--I don't go for the swashbuckler so much as the person speaking the truth even if it's dangerous.
Oh, yeah. I often find on soap operas, even, the 'villainous' characters are the ones who say true things, but things you're 'not supposed' to say. But...they're *true!* Heh. I guess I really must be a Slytherclaw, because I think an ability to be perceptive and identify others weaknesses is very useful, and not really something to be ashamed of. Especially since, as always, good characters are allowed to say hurtful but correct things all the time.
From:
no subject
Yes, I'd thought of that--though Harry saves Dudley from the Dementors. And of course nobody feels the need to help out in rescuing Montague. I think the difference is that if you're being smug you can still be courageous.
Totally. Even now, I try to avoid outright arguing (wouldn't know it, would you? ;) or discussing anything too personal (I can't bear it when people bring up their life experiences as a way to win unrelated fandom arguments, anyway.) and get nervous doing stupid things like chatting on AIM or writing an email.
This is exactly what I like about this kind of posting--AIM? No thanks. That way even when somebody points out something nasty about me I can deal with it in my own time and come back like I always knew it.:-)
not that I want to criticise the house, lest I be seen to need to discredit a fictional group or anything!
You have no idea how much I love you right now. *Bends Roxie over backwards and smooches passionately*
More balloons for you! And a million baboons. And a bean feast.
From:
no subject
Maybe it's okay to rescue Dudley because he's a Muggle, and thus absolutely incapable of rescuing himself (like a girl!) Like it was okay to help Sirius because he was crazy and weak.
Whereas Montague, and all the Slytherins are big (and fat, don't forget!) so they can help themselves. Or die. Meanwhile, they suck, apparently for not being concerned with saving Gryffindor lives or something.
Hee, this is just reminding me of the infamous suicide fic, and Harry's pause. I hope if he ever does more enemy!rescuing, there'll be a significant pause, in honour of it, and so that I can discredit him further.
Yes, AIM is too instant. What if you don't know what to say? Then there'd be an awkward pause. Yikes. And yes, I need extra time to formulate my arguments in order that I WIN!111 (*is sekrit Gryffindor* ;)
This smooching is reminding me of chief's dream! ;)
http://www.livejournal.com/allpics.bml?user=queenkakia - a million baboons!1111
From:
no subject
When it comes to classic definitions of the virtues, Aristotle is always there with something handy: courage is the golden mean between pusillanimity and rashness. Lovely if you're looking for a map, and it makes some helpful implicit distinctions, but something more substantive might be nice. Hemingway's not bad: "grace under pressure." Maybe what courage has in common with other virtues is that it's something that lets you remain self-directed despite the random pressures of external circumstances. Just like other virtues such as initiative, which sets you to work even when you don't feel like working, or honesty, which compels you to speak the truth when circumstances would make it more advantageous to lie, courage lets you stick to a course of action that you've decided is right, in spite of distractions from physical or moral fear.
Sometimes the right course of action is expeditious retreat -- nothing wrong with that! If you don't feel the fear, if you don't sense that a situation is dangerous, you're hardly perceiving reality well enough to be exercising real judgment. I've heard that in military training, one key lesson they have to teach is not to get wrapped up in some fantastic sense of invulnerability when things are going badly -- you don't reinforce tactical failure. But the point is to be able to stick with a course of action -- advance or retreat, as judgment dictates -- because it seems the best or most proper thing to do, and not because you panicked and broke down on the one hand, or were indulging some fantasy of machismo on the other. Like other virtues, courage ideally puts your judgment firmly in control over your irrational side.
You make a good point about Draco in PS/SS that I really didn't consider. I was focusing on his absence of panic. But clearly, his fear is making him squishy in other, undesirable ways. The way he teases Neville is probably a reflection of his nervousness, as you say, and is not terribly responsible behavior. His complaints against going into the forest are classic whiner behavior -- they're not going to change anything, and they suggest that even if he's more or less keeping his head for the moment, his mind isn't on the situation at hand but on cultivating his own sense of grievance. So, you probably wouldn't want to be with someone like that when real danger appears, because you might reasonably assume he doesn't get the point of courage, and is likely to crack at any moment.
So maybe the Slytherin vice mentioned by Phineas isn't self-interest, per se -- healthy selfishness ought to be one factor in good judgment -- but a reluctance to put self-interest aside when you're sizing up a situation coldly and dealing with it and you have wider responsibilities to answer to.
[continued . . . ]
From:
no subject
Thanks! I didn't even think of it as a correction--you were right, and that's what made me think about exactly what is it that makes people always associate this character with cowardice.
When it comes to classic definitions of the virtues, Aristotle is always there with something handy:
Ah, Aristotle. *sips cognac*
So maybe the Slytherin vice mentioned by Phineas isn't self-interest, per se -- healthy selfishness ought to be one factor in good judgment -- but a reluctance to put self-interest aside when you're sizing up a situation coldly and dealing with it and you have wider responsibilities to answer to.
That does seem like it could be the problem with Phineas' point. It's not so much that self-interest is always bad, because being with someone who's so unstable he doesn't look after himself at all could cause trouble too, as you pointed out. Sirius is sort of fighting with that himself in OotP when he tells the twins they have to put the safety of the Order above Arthur...but then he can't wait to run off and get killed.
But to take the idea that courage is at the basis of all virtues, Phineas could be saying that a Slytherin can only act so far as it won't inconvenience him, so he's never going to risk his life at all. I don't think this is exactly true, since we've seen Slytherins risk their lives, so they might just do it in a different frame of mind.
Which brings us to the idea that you could see any virtue as the basis for the others the same way. I think that's the basis for a lot of personality test systems. Whatever virtue is your basis is the one you use to reach for all the others. So if you're thing is that you're honest your honesty would give you courage. So while striving for courage might inspire Gryffs to be other good things, so could ambition lead a Slytherin to do something courageous.
Is there anything lamer than a jerk who thinks it's "courageous" to be a jerk, and uses as evidence the fact that everyone despises him?
Right--and this kind of thing can be explored when you've got a house full of people who are sorted for courage. It's like in the CoS rereads when we had a good discussion about what house Lockhart was in. Many people assume Slytherin because he's bad, cowardly and ambitious, but I like to think of him as a Gryffindor who loved the ideal of courage but then settled for the trappings of it without the real thing.
At last check I had a rambling 2-1/2 page draft,
Wow! Naturally the idea that you were too cowardly to reply hadn't occurred to me.:-)
From:
no subject
*sips cognac*
Now, now, don't make fun of poor Aristotle. Besides, I was thinking less of a cognac-and-sherry Cambridge Aristotle, and more of a beer-and-franks at the White Sox game Chicago Aristotle. :)
Phineas could be saying that a Slytherin can only act so far as it won't inconvenience him, so he's never going to risk his life at all. I don't think this is exactly true, since we've seen Slytherins risk their lives, so they might just do it in a different frame of mind.
Maybe the issue is that Slytherins are too inclined to overvalue their own lives compared to those of others. I mean, people who are accustomed to being puppetmasters can easily come to see themselves as indispensible. Who was that English aristocratic twit during WWI, who said, "I am what the working classes are fighting and dying for?" Or was that a character in a Waugh novel?
Which brings us to the idea that you could see any virtue as the basis for the others the same way. . . Whatever virtue is your basis is the one you use to reach for all the others.
This is a really interesting idea -- that every person tends to have one central or dominant virtue that they use to coordinate all the others. Have to think more about this.
I like to think of him as a Gryffindor who loved the ideal of courage but then settled for the trappings of it without the real thing.
Oh, Lockhart is such a Gryffindor! I don't know why, but I always assumed that, too.
From:
no subject
Or was that a character in a Waugh novel?
LOL! Isn't it great that you can't immediately tell? But yeah--think, after all, of what Voldemort wants: immortality. Something I would consider a curse!
This is a really interesting idea -- that every person tends to have one central or dominant virtue that they use to coordinate all the others. Have to think more about this.
I think I got it from some of the self-help/new-agey books I sometimes get sent at work. Though one version of the Enneagram I really enjoyed reading--personality systems are just addictive. Anyway, that was sort of the idea, that one virtue could often be your doorway into all the others.
Oh, Lockhart is such a Gryffindor! I don't know why, but I always assumed that, too.
He knows how to appeal to Hermione, so it would make sense if they spoke the same language, somehow. I think this is why it's really natural for readers to start getting interested in other "house personalities" and want to see the light and dark side of each. You can easily imagine how a generic "Ravenclaw" or "Hufflepuff" could be heroic or villainous. It's sometimes harder with Slytherin to imagine the good version, though. I mean, I enjoy a lot of Slytherin characters, but we don't get to see them being noble. Even Snape, who may have made a moral choice that's admirable, isn't noble except in fanon.
From:
no subject
I like your point about variations within House types. I heard about that meme you cited, about people being a combination of house traits, and I've often wondered about this within our fab foursome: we clearly have met four different types of Gryffindor that reflect a kind of cross-product with other houses, Neville being a Hufflepuff!Gryffindor, Herminoe a Ravenclaw!Griffindor, Ron a Gryffindor!Gryffindor, and Harry a Slytherin!Gryffindor.
I think we're both frustrated at the lack of attention to characters from other houses, to sort of flesh out the typology. But Draco is probably a Gryffindor!Slytherin (I do give him credit for resilience and boldness, if not exactly courage). What is Snape, then? Perhaps also a Gryffindor!Slytherin due to his dangerous double-agent role and his desire to teach DADA -- or perhaps he only aspires to Gryffindorhood and is more of a Ravenclaw!Slytherin engaged intellectual at heart. Dom!Ernie has something Gryffindorish about his Hufflepuffness, while skeptical Zach seems more tinted with Ravenclaw critical thinking. And then we could add positive and negative aspects to each variable . . . Hmmm, hours of fun. Or not! :p
From:
no subject
There's an argument -- I think it's a straw man in one of the platonic dialogs -- that courage is the basis of all virtue, because without courage you'll never be able to stick to any course of action, so you can't exercise any other virtue in the face of adversity. I think the answer here is that this isn't unique to courage -- that all virtues, as above, are maybe about maintaining personal direction and integrity in the face of random shocks from the environment.
Finally, you make a really interesting point about courage in argument, and about the misuse of the label for various moves that are really evasive and defensive rather than courageous. Is there anything lamer than a jerk who thinks it's "courageous" to be a jerk, and uses as evidence the fact that everyone despises him? I suppose any virtue that helps you stick with your judgment has to assume that you have good judgment in the first place, so that judgment itself is another, related virtue. There is a certain psychological state that some people seem to occupy, where their own identity is so wrapped up in certain ideas that any challenge seems intolerable, so that they manifest resistant behavior that is probably more attributable to panic than to courage. But sorting through this would take more brainpower than I can ration out at the moment.
[Speaking of rationing time and brainpower, I still owe you a long, long, reply on ways of reading JKR and her attitude toward rulebreakers. At last check I had a rambling 2-1/2 page draft, and some day I will have the time to edit and post it. Just so you know I haven't cowardly run away from the argument! :) ]
From:
no subject
Plus, I seem to remember that the reason Harry didn't run away was that he was "frozen with fear". Standing his ground doesn't make him brave, because he didn't do it on purpose. There was no point to him standing his ground. You know, besides plot contrivance.
I agree with you about courage not being a great thing to base one's moral-system on . . . But I think in many ways the Potterverse is not a moral world, for all its high-falutin' ideals.
From:
no subject
From: (Anonymous)
no subject
courage
n : a quality of spirit that enables you to face danger of pain
without showing fear
Source: Wordnet 2.0
cowardice
n : the trait of lacking courage
Obviously, Wordnet's definitions of cowardice and courage don't hold true for everyone, but these are still widely accepted definitions of both terms.
Draco Malfoy is often seen as a coward because when placed under these two (admittedly general) headings, he very clearly goes under the heading of "cowardice", as exampled in the Forbidden Forest scene, in Hagrid's many classes, etc, etc.
Now I personally don't think that JKR operates under these two definitions of cowardice and courage 24/7. For one thing, Draco does, in fact, do many things that would fit under the definition of courage, yet she prominently labels him a coward. For another, there
is Phineas's own definition of "courage", which leads me to believe that courage exists on many levels in the HPverse (which would, undoubtedly make sense, since it IS JKR's most valued virtue by her own admission, and the moral code on which her story stands).
But Wordnet's definitions still seem to have very strong standing in JKR's HP world, and IMO, this is why Neville is often associated with bravery, especially in and/or post OotP. This also happens to be why I think expecting any member of one house to show that House's defining qualities all the time in canon (or even frequently) is ridiculous. Just as Slytherins are not cunning and sly 24/7 (and they most definitely are not. Not even most of the time), Gryffindors aren't brave and chivalrous all the time either. Also why I disagree that Neville is the least popular Gryffindor for this reason alone. Lavender and Parvati squeal and scream at the sight of Hippogryffs, Blast-ended Skrewts, and countless other things -- while a case can be made for Parvati, we have yet to see Lavender show any signs of courage (as defined by WordNet) in canon (with the possible exception of joining the D.A.), and yet both girls are described as "very popular". Hermione, apparently fandom's (and possibly canon's) idea of the ideal Gryffindor girl, does her fair share of nervous squeals and cringes too -- Grawp, Voldemort, her own best friend, for Christsakes. Even Harry, for all the reckless barging into danger he does, shows fear in the face of it often, too. (The graveyard scene comes to mind.) I do notice, though, that some characters in the canon DO hold the unhealthy belief that one must show their House's defining characteristics 24/7.
In fact, Gryffindors use that type of insult a lot when they want to get each other to do something (and Snape uses it to get to Sirius as well, probably having learned how well it works).
Out of curiousity, could you please give an example of "a lot"? The one other time I remember seeing it used (if this could even count as an example) is the time Sirius called Peter a coward (after the matter, which kind of makes it a useless point).
Sammy,
who really needs to get an LJ
From:
no subject
Off the top of my head, the moments I can think of where Gryffindors respond to the idea of not showing courage (sometimes non-Gryffindors use it to needle Gryffindors):
The twins make Sirius "pale" in OotP when reminding him he isn't out risking his life;
Snape needles Sirius with the same fact elsewhere; Phineas annoys Harry by suggesting he's "running away" from Grimmauld Place; Voldemort taunts Harry that his parents died begging for mercy, Harry furiously says that he's lying, and Voldemort changes tactics, assuring him that his parents were brave; Harry's friends worry Harry will follow Malfoy's advice and try to go after Sirius himself because Malfoy says "if it were him" he'd go after them; Sirius tries to get Harry to meet him in Hogsmeade by sulking that his father would consider extra a risk attractive.
I feel like there's things I'm forgetting because I was just talking about them with somebody, but oh well. It's tied to the idea that you should be out there doing something--a related moment is Sirius meeting Harry in OotP and saying he would have welcomed the Dementor attack to break up the boredom.
From:
no subject
From: (Anonymous)
no subject
I'm not denying that Gryffindors respond to the idea oof showing courage. As I said earlier, a lot of them seem to think that courage must be shown 24/7, and I only expect that one of many Gryffindors' biggest weaknesses is to be told that they are in fact NOT doing this. But it's a tact that I mostly see outside characters (almost always Slytherin) use to bait them. I've rarely seen them use it on each other successfully (keeping in mind that when Sirius tried it on Harry, it didn't get him to meet him in Hogsmeade, or to even seriously consider it).
I would agree I don't think popularity has to do with courage all the time exactly--first just because how often do you get to be courageous in the course of a normal day? But also Neville faces situations that scare him often and while he *shows* fear, it doesn't always make him not face those situations.
Which is why I would assert that one doesn't have to be able to display courage round the clock, or even whenever the situation would presumably call for it, to be placed in Gryffindor -- just as one wouldn't have to be blindly loyal to any one thing to be in Hufflepuff, or a never-failing genius to be in Ravenclaw. I think that it probably depends on whether one has the "quality of spirit" as defined by WordNet, to display courage/intelligence/loyalty/cunning whenever they deem it necessary.
Sammy
From:
no subject
I don't mean he's unpopular in fandom, or even that he should be in canon (he's certainly more high-profile than say, Seamus or Dean) but that his main friendship appears to be with the Trio, and he isn't that close to them.
From: (Anonymous)
no subject
Oh I know, I wasn't alluding to fandom either. I meant canon; and that, if Neville IS the least popular Gryffindor friends-wise in his house, it most likely isn't because of his lack of Gryffindor courage...we have yet to see over half the house display their idea of courage too.
Sammy
From:
no subject