Happy birthday
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.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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?
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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:
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