I don't think many people are actually saying that Draco and the Malfoys are better than Dumbledore, MWPP and the Weasleys, but there is a huge great disconnect between what you hear JKR saying about her characters and how she actually writes them(and you are quite right; you say I think it's obvious from JKR's writing and interviews where her love lies. Part of the problem is that when she is talking about characters she comes over as infuriatingly partisan, almost blind to the faults of Gryffindors. Now, she may well be setting up a huge great misdirection here but she hasn't left herself a lot of time for the denouement if so.
But if you actually look at what the Gryffindors do as opposed to the values they espouse they have, actually, canonically, been responsible for much worse deeds than we have ever seen any Slytherin of school age perform. Actually, in terms of wizard-on-Muggle violence, Gryffindors of any age outscore Slytherins of any age by a serious and noticeable margin.
I mean, take the Dursleys. They treat Harry abominably, true. But the root cause of their treating Harry abominably is fear. And why not? I don't know what James was like by the time he was introduced to Petunia, but all Remus and Sirius say about him was that he'd "cleaned up his act around Lily" suggesting that he didn't actually improve much. Anyway, from Petunia's pov, what she first knows about magic is that it killed her sister (and yes; Voldemort was a Slytherin but it took a Gryffindor to get him close enough to land the fatal blow). I think it tells you a lot about the qualities of "self-sacrifice, love and courage" dsiplayed by MWPP that when James was betrayed, each of Remus and Sirius genuinely believed that the other had done it, and the third of these four devoted friends actually had done it.
Their next encounter with an adult wizard (Gryffindor) puts a pig's tail on their son, which has to be surgically removed. Dudley is a wart, but grown men physically humiliating and abusing children is bad news in my book.
We get up to Goblet of Fire and the twins get in on the act. Ton tongue toffee is not funny; it's potentially lethal (would be lethal without a wizard on hand to reverse the effects) and its use is designed to cause pain, fear and humiliation.
During Phoenix we see the twins also stealing Dark Artifacts from a house where they are guests, acquiring "Doxy venom", testing potentially dangerous potions on unwarned younger children and generally behaving like out-of-control hooligans. No-where does anyone pull them up for their atrocious behaviour.
I would go on about the diabolical way Neville gets treated (Canary creams, full body bind etc etc)but I expect my views on Neville are well-known.
So I think the frustration with JKR is that there is all this wonderful textual evidence in plain sight that things are not as simple as it appears (look at the denoument of POA if you want to understand why people regard Dumbledore as amoral, btw: "My dear Harry; your father's best friend; your only link with your wizarding family and the only hope you have of escape from the abusive home life I insisted on saddling you with 14 years ago is facing a fate infinitely worse than death. Despite being the president of the Wizangemot and the country's representive on the international council of warlocks, to say nothing of the most powerful wizard the world has known for a hundred years, I propose to do nothing to save him. Instead, i expect you and your best friend to break a large number of laws and risk your own lives and sanity to rescue him. Oh, and you're only at this school on my say-so, you having already done more than enough to get yourself expelled on any normal application of the rules. But no pressure, Harry!")
But every time you get her in an interview she behaves as if a red and gold scarf allows one to get away with murder - literally.
no subject
But if you actually look at what the Gryffindors do as opposed to the values they espouse they have, actually, canonically, been responsible for much worse deeds than we have ever seen any Slytherin of school age perform. Actually, in terms of wizard-on-Muggle violence, Gryffindors of any age outscore Slytherins of any age by a serious and noticeable margin.
I mean, take the Dursleys. They treat Harry abominably, true. But the root cause of their treating Harry abominably is fear. And why not? I don't know what James was like by the time he was introduced to Petunia, but all Remus and Sirius say about him was that he'd "cleaned up his act around Lily" suggesting that he didn't actually improve much. Anyway, from Petunia's pov, what she first knows about magic is that it killed her sister (and yes; Voldemort was a Slytherin but it took a Gryffindor to get him close enough to land the fatal blow). I think it tells you a lot about the qualities of "self-sacrifice, love and courage" dsiplayed by MWPP that when James was betrayed, each of Remus and Sirius genuinely believed that the other had done it, and the third of these four devoted friends actually had done it.
Their next encounter with an adult wizard (Gryffindor) puts a pig's tail on their son, which has to be surgically removed. Dudley is a wart, but grown men physically humiliating and abusing children is bad news in my book.
We get up to Goblet of Fire and the twins get in on the act. Ton tongue toffee is not funny; it's potentially lethal (would be lethal without a wizard on hand to reverse the effects) and its use is designed to cause pain, fear and humiliation.
During Phoenix we see the twins also stealing Dark Artifacts from a house where they are guests, acquiring "Doxy venom", testing potentially dangerous potions on unwarned younger children and generally behaving like out-of-control hooligans. No-where does anyone pull them up for their atrocious behaviour.
I would go on about the diabolical way Neville gets treated (Canary creams, full body bind etc etc)but I expect my views on Neville are well-known.
So I think the frustration with JKR is that there is all this wonderful textual evidence in plain sight that things are not as simple as it appears (look at the denoument of POA if you want to understand why people regard Dumbledore as amoral, btw: "My dear Harry; your father's best friend; your only link with your wizarding family and the only hope you have of escape from the abusive home life I insisted on saddling you with 14 years ago is facing a fate infinitely worse than death. Despite being the president of the Wizangemot and the country's representive on the international council of warlocks, to say nothing of the most powerful wizard the world has known for a hundred years, I propose to do nothing to save him. Instead, i expect you and your best friend to break a large number of laws and risk your own lives and sanity to rescue him. Oh, and you're only at this school on my say-so, you having already done more than enough to get yourself expelled on any normal application of the rules. But no pressure, Harry!")
But every time you get her in an interview she behaves as if a red and gold scarf allows one to get away with murder - literally.