|
Post by queenie on Mar 18, 2009 1:34:20 GMT -5
I also hadn't really thought about the significance of Gryffindor's artifact being the only one that was spared until you brought it up. I was angry and Severus and Remus were both killed. They marked the last of that group in the Potterverse (my generation). I didn't like it, but I understood that symbolically, the torch had been passed to the next generation and Harry's group were the grown-ups now. But it still left me frustrated. I don't think that's exactly the impression JKR was trying to convey - certainly, if I had been trying to convey that, I would have had Minerva McGonagall (granted, I love her, one of my favorite characters) die fighting Fenrir Greyback, and have Remus finish him off. That would have, I think, had more relevance to the idea of passing the torch. Remus had a whole new life ahead of him; I think killing him was just sadistic. Snape, on the other hand, his death has merit. His story was completed, and I don't think he could have really lived in the post-Voldemort world - at least, not without undergoing a severe cutesification like Kreacher did. And the destruction of the Founders' relics! Such a waste, when the Diadem of Ravenclaw spent a thousand years in a tree. Miracle that it remained intact, really... that no intrepid little girl in, say, 1500, plucked the thing out of the tree and went, "Oooh, pretty crown!" and started using it... *wallbang*
|
|
|
Post by birdg on Mar 18, 2009 12:05:34 GMT -5
While I agree and it adds to a general imbalance in the series where Gryffindor is the awesome house, Slytherin the evil why-is-it-even-allowed-to-still-exist house and Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff are the rest I think the sword had something the other two did not.
Other than being more useful for destroying horcruxes because it is a sword (imagine Harry battering away at a horcrux with Ravenclaw's diadem, after all) it was coated in basilisk venom which probably made it even tougher.
Actually, the fact that basilisk venom from Slytherin's basilisk was the only thing that could destroy Voldemort's horcruxes is interesting to me. I wonder if JKR was trying to say something with that or if it was just something that happened.
But yes, it's not fair that the others are gone (and I never even thought of the historical aspect - that is sad) and Gryffindor's remains.
|
|
|
Post by vegablack on Mar 24, 2009 13:32:28 GMT -5
I have a completely different take on all of this. I'm going to be ruthless again and say that I'm glad Tonks and Remus and Colin died. I wished she had been more explicit about which beloved characters died. (She did say over 50 and half their forces had died.) Because that is what war is like. The worst thing she could have done in my opinion is give the impression that the only deaths were expendable characters.
If young women fight some of them will be mothers and some of them will leave their children orphans. In war, even necessary wars, priceless artifacts are destroyed,;children are killed, or left orphaned; people are maimed, left mentally destroyed and many many die. I think it would be a crime against her child readers to not make that clear.
(This was especially brought home to me when I saw a BBC TV show about the death of Kipling's son in WWI. He was played by the same actor who played Harry in the Potter movies. The boy was 17 as Harry and Neville are at the end of Deathly Hallows. He died leading one of those pointless WWI charges. He had enlisted. Kipling was broken hearted by the death. He wrote a poem inspired by the death of his son in which he said, "They died because their father's lied." One of the things their fathers lied about was the reality of war.
Many great works of art were destroyed in WWII. I've seen paintings by Caravaggio for instance listed in Art books as destroyed in the Allied bombing of Germany. I sat in a restaurant in a town in Normandy that was completely flattened by American shelling to drive out the Germans. The church which had been a precious medieval building was replaced by a nondescript 1960's one with a few pieces of the original church's carvings randomly mortared into the walls. It was incredibly sad. The American army bombed the historic medieval monastery of Monte Casino into rubble to dislodge the Germans who could control a strategic crossing from the site.
(I'm using American examples to say that the "good side" destroys all the time to win.)
Destruction of precious artifacts in war with little regret at the time is realistic; I'm afraid.
I respect the fact that she showed that Voldemort was destroyed at a terrible cost.
Gryffindor's sword is the only martial artifact. I thought it was fitting that the other more peaceful artifacts were destroyed while the weapon survived. I think that says something about war as well.
The sword could only do its job against Voldemort because it had been imbibed with Slytherin's basilisk's venom. I think that says something as well.
All in all I don't think death or destruction is a plot hole but a portrayal of truth.
|
|
|
Post by Chocolatepot on Mar 25, 2009 12:19:31 GMT -5
Re: My Boy Jack - What's even more poignant about the line is that Jack was turned down for service because of his eyesight, and then Kipling pulled strings to get him in the army, essentially lying. Good movie, isn't it?
I sort of feel that that's what happened, though. It depends on how you'd define "expendable" in this context. Fred was expendable because there were two of him (essentially), Moody was expendable because he was comic relief, etc. Remus and Tonks really weren't that important in terms of page time. Molly and Arthur are much less expendable, as they're fairly significant, and the same with McGonagall and Hagrid. But anyway, I think the anger/annoyance/sadness about Remus and Tonks's deaths is more about personal expectations of what their story could have said - it's not that they were too important to die, but that "Remus and Tonks withstand difficult trials but ultimately love prevails and p.s. Remus's tragic life has a happy ending" is seen by some to be a better point than "all the Marauders are dead and this time the orphan will be brought up by people who love him".
|
|
|
Post by vegablack on Mar 25, 2009 19:41:19 GMT -5
I probably should have said characters that they cared about or were emotionally attached to rather than expendable.
I think JKR had a problem where she wanted Harry to be noble in his suffering to have suffered for the people he helped. If he survived and another major character had died then they might have overshadowed him and his sacrifice which is why the major chartacters had to live. She at the same time still had to make Harry's work important that people really were at risk. To make the war real some people had to die.
I do think she felt concern after creating so many orphans that there be an intact family somewhere in the story.
|
|
|
Post by MWPP on Mar 26, 2009 1:34:24 GMT -5
My annoyance with killing off Remus and Tonks is that a really good storyline was wasted.
We hear Remus is out on the lawn somewhere, and there is a sentence or two about battling Dolohov and that's it. Tonks goes tearing off to find him and Bellatrix kills her. No rich/good details. The story of the battle from various areas/viewpoints could have been an entire book on its own.
There could be an arguement for "random and senseless", but it isn't even done well enough for that.
.
|
|
|
Post by vegablack on Mar 26, 2009 3:10:18 GMT -5
mwpp the same could be said about the whole seventh year at Hogwarts. A lot of very exciting and important plot and thematic things went unseen. Such are the effects of the tight Harry POV.
I don't know what I think about it.
|
|
|
Post by kelleypen on Mar 27, 2009 13:47:32 GMT -5
I know what to think about it . . . I want to see Jo write the seven books all over again from Neville's perspective.
I know, I know, but a girl can dream, can't she?
|
|
|
Post by vegablack on Mar 28, 2009 10:48:33 GMT -5
I would like that very much.
|
|
|
Post by MWPP on Mar 28, 2009 23:06:32 GMT -5
I'd like omnipotent POV so that the story could switch around and explore all sorts of things I'd like to know about....
*sigh*
.
|
|
|
Post by queenie on May 1, 2009 23:01:02 GMT -5
The most random thought occurred to me today during History of the English Language class ("welcome to HEL!")
In Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, Harry regrets having promised to attend Nick's Deathday party because the Halloween feast that year was rumored to be quite spectacular, to the point where it was rumored that Dumbledore had "booked a troupe of dancing skeletons." I found myself wondering, what on earth?
Are the dancing skeletons some kind of ghost or spirit that cannot find rest and is doomed to dance for children's fun and entertainment? Are they wizards & witches who disguise themselves as skeletons? And dance for fun and profit? Are they skeletons under the control of a wizard? If so, they must be fake skeletons, because as we see with Inferi, violation of the bodies of the dead is seen as a reprehensible act, and Dumbledore would have nothing to do with such a wizard. And come to think of it, why would Dumbledore book a group like this? Understandably in the spirit of Halloween, though I imagine that such a group would have a lot of trouble finding business in the Second War against Voldemort. It would be difficult to stomach while an actual war was raging. Would Dumbledore view such a group, such an act, as diffusing some of the fear and mystery surrounding Death? I can imagine that if such a rumor had come around during Tom Riddle's Hogwarts days, that he would not go to that feast. He'd make up any excuse, but not want to have to confront his fear of death in the open like that.
And of course, the greatest question: was that real, or just a rumor?
|
|
|
Post by vegablack on May 2, 2009 11:36:26 GMT -5
Sometimes I think JKR just put things in that she knew a ten year old reader would think was cool. Dancing skeletons would fit that bill.
But my thinking on this is that the dancing skeletons are fakes made to dance like puppets on strings. Perhaps they are real skeletons used the same way. They not associated with inferi because all adults know they are not inferi. People can be very insensitive to dishonor done to other foreign graves or peoples. Perhaps the skeletons are imported. (Think of the contraversy over the treatment of skeletons of non-western people used in museums etc.)
The fact that Harry talks about them as if they were real skeleton dancers could easily be attributed to the fact that he comes from the Muggle world and doesn't know how things work. (When I write, I often realize that a character needs an to have an opinion or to be ignorant of something, because of who they are. Sometimes this fits oddly in a story and I don't have the opportunity to explain it. I pity JKR sometimes for this reason.)
I think the dancing Skeletons are meant to make the students comfortable with death and to lead them to embrace it and consider it. I think it functions like the rituals and celebrations involved in the Mexican Day of the Dead. It's not meant to be dark magic at all, but I way to embrace death as part of life and therefor life affirming.
This might fit with the larger theme of accepting death as an adventure. Using something playful like dancing skeletons to achieve that would fit with Dumbledore's personality. A lemon drop anyone?
|
|
|
Post by queenie on May 2, 2009 16:02:45 GMT -5
Yeah, those were the conclusions that I reached too, vegablack. And I kind of like it, too, in a Day of the Dead sort of way. There's nothing to fear from dead bodies; live life up while you have it. I don't think that Dumbledore would hire someone who used real skeletons, though - unless they were the bones of performers who wanted to go on entertaining and dancing, the way that some people offer their bodies to science.
Now I get this image of an opening act of teeny-tiny marzipan and sugar paste skeletons (no one said all the skeletons were the same type) dancing down the tables in the Great Hall and then being devoured by the delighted students. Now I want to choreograph write this scene!
|
|
|
Post by vegablack on May 2, 2009 22:12:41 GMT -5
That was a brilliant idea.
|
|
|
Post by dancingpony on May 6, 2009 23:30:55 GMT -5
I posted this question over on Project Ferret, but since McGonagall's Cat and I seem to have the place pretty much to ourselves recently, I'm going to post it here as well.
I have a story idea brewing, but I want to make sure I'm not missing something in canon.
The story /question concerns Colin . . . and what happened to him between the end of Half Blood Prince and his death in Deathly Hallows.
Everything I can find in the series points to Colin being muggle born (his dad is a milkman . . . he didn't know about magic until he got his letter . . . everything seems new and exciting to him . . . he was one of the targets/victims in Chamber of Secrets . . . )
As far as I can tell, none of the other muggle born students were actually in school during that last school year. Dean, for instance, was on the run -- although he showed up for the final battle.
But Colin was apparently there, in school. He must have been at school, because Professor M spoke to him (or possibly his brother -- she only used the last name) when she was evacuating the students. (He wanted to stay . . . she told him to leave.)
I'd assume that, like Dean, Colin was in hiding but got the signal through his coin, and showed up for the final battle. Except he (or Dennis, same difference) was there when Professor M was evacuating students.
If he was muggle born, he should have either (1) had a hearing with the Muggle born Registration Commission and lost his wand / been expelled or (2) gone into hiding. He shouldn't have been in school.
I can't even explain it by thinking he had sneaked in through the Room of Requirement and gone down to the Great Hall just before the evacuation. Professor M wasn't surprised to see him (and she HAD been surprised to see Harry a few minutes earlier).
Any thoughts on this? Have I missed something?
|
|
|
Post by Mirabelle on May 7, 2009 0:59:38 GMT -5
I think JKR just forgot he was supposed to be a Muggleborn.
As for ways to get around it, I can't really think of any that aren't really complicated. Maybe he was able to fake a magical pedigree through the help of a friend.
|
|
Rugi
Third Year
Norberta's Chief Cook and Librarian
Posts: 33
|
Post by Rugi on May 7, 2009 5:04:53 GMT -5
I just read a fic where he was at Hogwarts sort of hiding in plain sight - because he'd bought fake papers which showed that he was a half-blood. That seemed like a nice work-around for his presence.
I mean Colin sort of leads into the general question of what happened to all of the muggle-born first years. Harry mentions that they have all gotten letters and worries about them, but it's the last we hear about it. It wouldn't be the same situation as the wandless people because they would start out without wands. Were they all killed? Rounded up and locked in prison? Sent letters canceling their invitations to the school?
|
|
nundu
Second Year
Posts: 25
|
Post by nundu on May 7, 2009 20:18:58 GMT -5
I've been thinking about Colin and Denise for a bit as well. It seems a bit improbable to me that two muggle parents produce two wizards. Since mother is never mentioned, I got to thinking the other day that perhaps mother was secretly a witch and later died without ever revealing that information to her husband or children.
|
|
|
Post by queenie on May 7, 2009 20:43:46 GMT -5
nundu: Really? Because it never seemed that way to me. No-one commented on it in Goblet of Fire. Then again, we never hear of any of the attacked Muggle-borns in Chamber of Secrets having a sibling who was particularly affected - then again, perhaps any siblings they would have had were out of school.
See, I thought the norm would be either fifty-fifty, or usually siblings of one Muggle-born wizard would also be wizards. When there was that rumor flying around in DH that someone would turn out to be "A Squib," I thought it would be Petunia, simply on the logistical point that a Squib is a child without magic, produced when circumstances dictate that the child should have magic. Hence, a child of two wizards, a child of a wizard and a Muggle, or a child of two Muggle parents who have already produced (or eventually produce) a wizard.
Just my humble opinion.
|
|
|
Post by dancingpony on May 7, 2009 22:31:49 GMT -5
In the story I've (sort of) started, Colin is going to try to use the ambiguity about his mum to try to get back into Hogwarts after he's expelled for being muggle-born. He's going to get a little help from an ex-professor. Since wizards tend toward the illogical, it may work, if his mum is never mentioned in canon. I posted the first little bit over at Project Ferret while I was trying to see whether the concept would work.
|
|