Re: My Mercy and Not Yours, (or Why I Hated Book 7).

Richard Eney wrote:
In article <1189496266.608398.87840@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Karnak17 <karnak17@xxxxxx> wrote:
Richard Eney wrote:
Karnak17 <karnak17@xxxxxx> wrote:
Richard Eney wrote:
Karnak17 <karnak17@xxxxxx> wrote:
Richard Eney wrote:
Karnak17 <karnak17@xxxxxx> wrote:
<snip>

<snip>
IF the POINT of the flawed hero is to "teach" and "inspire",
then he should attain moral growth by the end.

That depends on what the writer is trying to teach. JKR has a
different agenda. I don't agree with some of her opinions
either.

Whatever they are. She seems to set up a morally compromised
situation, and has the hero buy into it, which she does very well
and very plausibly and, in B1-6, with great dramatic
effectiveness. Then she leaves the whole situation lying around
like a dead fish in Book 7 and has our heroes wander in the woods
for a bit.

I think a great deal of the problem is that, according to her
interviews, JKR herself thinks the Twins are entirely funny.
I think she refers to their behavior as "antics" rather than,
say, "pathological abuse".

She really HAS to know that it is pathological abuse though.
Considering how she portrays young Tom Riddle's behavior, she clearly
knows enough about psychology to know that. (Although GJW disagreed
with me about this, and he was right about a FEW things.)

On another thread, a poster said she knew the last book was going to
be a dissappointment when she heard about the HP Them Park. I wonder
if Rowling had different plans orginally, but decided to sell out. It
seems she's rich enough not to need to, but . . .

<snip>

<snip>

I would like to have seen a bad Gryffindor and a good Slytherin in
the same generation.

Ditto.

<snip>
<snip>
He is shocked to observe some bad behavior of the Marauders -
but he himself is just as guilty. He too bullies like James

<snip>
He is not QUITE the same as James, obviously. But his relationship
with Draco is meant to parallel James/Snape, becomes increasingly
brutal, and nearly ends in Draco's death in Book 6. But what I was
referring to was his condoning of the TWINS behavior -- they are
the REAL James and Sirius of this generation.

Good point.

Harry is a James/Lupin mix. Like James in 1) his rivalry with
Draco and 2) his flirtation with the "Prince", who turns him into
a guy who likes jinxing people (Crabbe and Filch) in the halls for
fun, as James did. (BTW, I know he DID feel remorse for that,
which was a very good scene, but he only wised up after he
realized the Prince was Snape).

But I think Harry is MOSTLY like Lupin. He has a vile temper like
James, but also a good heart. It is his tendency to turn a blind
eye to the twins which I found more disturbing. He didn't seem
aware that there was anything wrong with them at all.

I think a big part of that is his relationship with the Weasleys.
In book one, George offered to help him with his luggage (and called
Fred over to help); then at school everyone else in Gryffindor
seemed to think the Twins were the greatest. Later on we see Harry
vowing never to accept food of any kind from them, and watching as
Hermione chewed them out for abusing the first-years with their
medical experiments -Harry being utterly withdrawn, and watching
Ron shrink under the table and avoid conflict with the two bullies
he'd had to grow up with. Neither Ron nor Harry had any way to
deal with the bullying they had grown up with except by running
away, and when the rule was to stay in the common room, the only
escape was to hide or be silent and hope they didn't pick you as
the next target. Later Ron could at least yell out the window at
them, which was about as far as his own growth went; after they
left, he became more competent in many ways.

There was an old thread discussing whether the twins ever pranked
Harry. They actually left him totally alone, though they bullied
Ginny and Ron and Percy.

But even Flitwick seemed to like the Twins. (I hated them.)

Well, they have charm, like Tom. But I hated them too. I was
cringing during the Twins v Percy stuff. (It was no suprise to me
when Percy quit the family).

<snip>
<snip>
He improved to the point that he would save Draco and Goyle even
in the literal heat of battle.

That isn't an improvement. Since when would he ever have killed
Draco (on purpose)?

Possibly when Draco said he hoped that Hermione would be killed
next by the basilisk, but since he was polyjuiced at the time,
he controlled himself (for once) and didn't blow his cover.

"Murder is not so easy as the innocent believe". Harry was nowhere
near a murderer in Book 2, however mad he got.

<snip>
"Look, he made it through the series without becoming a
murderer" is quite an acheivement for DRACO, considering his family
and situation. From Harry I wanted more than "Oh, look he is not a
murderer". Draco was trying not to kill Harry too. Maybe
Rowling's point was that they were a lot alike, but neither of
them gets morally any farther than did James Potter.

That may be JKR's limit.

Eeeek!

But that's possible. She said in interview (I hear) that Marietta was
stuck with pimples permanently because "I hate traitors". When Harry
displayed this attitude in the book, I thought it was an example of
his "dark side", but Rowling appears to feel the same way. I thought
Marietta was misguided, but acted according to what she thought was
right and showed Neville-style courage in doing so. She was "an
enemy", but close to the last person in the series I'd waste spite
on. Rowling appears to feel differently.

<snip>

Rowling could have done WONDERFUL things with the issue of the
Trio having to use despised methods a la Crouch. I'd have
loved to have seen them ally with a Death Eater. I'd love to
have seen a REAL
break among the trio over a serious moral issue, rather than a
replay of RON SULKS LIKE A FIVE YEAR OLD from Book 4.

Agreed. Hermione never seems to regret sending vicious magical
birds after Ron out of sheer jealousy, either, and Ron doesn't
even complain about it.

Another SLEDGEHAMMER bit. Like the bit where she helps him cheat
at Quiddich.

Having previously been on her high horse about cheating...
Hermione's moral downslide is a rather sad part of the books, too.

That and letting Krum get away. <sad sigh of the disappointed
shipper> And I really expected the RON V TWINS character arc to come
to something. Instead I got RON V THE SELF-SNOGGING HORCRUX.

<snip>

How do you confuse Yet More Moral Downsliding with Aspiring To
Better Behavior? They didn't even Downslide reluctantly and with
Angst. They just do it.

They are demonstrating the way humans under pressure will begin to
justify the means by the perceived rightness of the intended result.

Yes.

However, they are trying to defeat Voldemort, and trying at least
not to become outright murderers in the process. It may be a
British thing: "There's a war on, don'tcherknow" excused almost
anything for a while.

I've seen really GOOD British war stories which involved making nasty
moral compromises, though.

Six books of wincing through PAINFUL viciousness, and
Book 7 gives us not growth or trancendence, but more of the
same, only now no longer even plausible.

Harry does grow to the point that he can sacrifice himself (to
destroy Voldemort and) for the protection of everyone at Hogwarts.
I was about to say "including Slytherin" but come to think of it,
JKR had McGonagall order the entirety of Slytherin house to leave,
even if one of them had wanted to stay, so they weren't included
in the sacrifice.

That was a pretty dumb scene. Rowling often said that many Slytherins
are not DE's. So why should THEY leave. It would be one thing if
they were following their Head of House, but Slugggie stayed behind.

<snip>

The
first six books didn't pose quite the same problem as the last one.
The way I see it, Harry was a weapon aimed by Dumbledore. As long
as Harry didn't kill anybody, his soul would be unbroken, and that's
apparently all Dumbledore cared about.

The Potterverse has some of the most self-contradictory and peculiar
concepts about magic, souls, and the afterlife that I've read in
any fantasy.

You mean how your soul is damaged if you "murder" an evil overlord in
self defense, so you have to find a tricky way around that? But you
can engage in pointless cruelty which leaves "wounds too deep for
healing" on your victim, and your soul is okay?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: My Mercy and Not Yours, (or Why I Hated Book 7).
    ... JKR herself thinks the Twins are entirely funny. ... :>>He is not QUITE the same as James, ... Later on we see Harry ... Neither Ron nor Harry had any way to ...
    (alt.fan.harry-potter)
  • Re: Are You Satisfied With The Back Stories
    ... frankly the myth that Hermione was some sort of super witch ... OTOH don't forget the number of times that she has saved Harry and Ron ...
    (alt.fan.harry-potter)
  • Re: The seventh annual Sybil Trelawney awards
    ... Draco has Harry at his mercy in book six and.. ... peck at Ron, for instance. ... breaking loose from his old submission to the twins' bullying, ...
    (alt.fan.harry-potter)
  • Is it all over?
    ... characters are Severus, Harry, Hermione and Ron, oh and the Twins! ...
    (alt.fan.harry-potter)
  • Re: Is it all over?
    ... characters are Severus, Harry, Hermione and Ron, oh and the Twins! ...
    (alt.fan.harry-potter)