Re: Preparation for the quest.





"richard e white" <chiphead@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:49E508D5.CFB8087A@xxxxxxxxxx
Toon wrote:

On Sat, 4 Apr 2009 20:58:04 +0100, "DaveD"
<davedn1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>I can understand the three not having a detailed strategy as they didn't
>know enough about what they faced, and it changed a lot.
>
>But Dd should have been helping with some basics such as defensive >spells
>and first aid - that seems a huge, and obvious, omission on his part.
>
>DaveD

But in the end, they didn't really need that stuff. They survived,
Harry won, babies were born years later.

The problem is that people learn from what they read and bumbling through
something isn't a good idea. When ever posable a writer should think of the
things we are talking about.
In fact I tend to stop reading books because the writer has something happen
to far from what should happen. With characters in a story it is called
forcing the event rather then telling it. This is when the writer has a
character do something for the story that makes no sence to the characters
point of view.
I once read a book where a character came up and told another character to
save there love they needed to do as they said. The next thing they said was
tell no one. And then they aranged to meet to go off and save the person.
The problem was that the person telling us to follow there orders was already
known to hate men, and was of a group of people already hunting the love in
question. Now why anyone was expecting that character to help I still can't
understand. The funny thing was the writer of this set of books often did
this. He would go on for three to five chapters with good writing and then
have someone in his stories do something so forced for the characters that it
made it hard to understand how he sold the books in the first place.

--
Richard The Blind Typer.
Lets hear it for talking computers.
Lets go for talking i-pods!


Exactly - one of the problems I have with soaps is that so often people act in ways you just wouldn't expect and so cease being credible.

Dd seems to have a very laissez faire strategy with Harry of letting him bumble around into Voldy right from the start of book 1, and he carries on like that, with only a few bits of obvious help from Dd, such as letting Harry find the Mirror of Erised once before he comes across it with Voldy. And even then, that didn't help much as Voldy still worked out where the stone was, presumably by using his expertise at legilimancy to "read" Harry's mind.

In fact, his failed attempt to get Snape to teach Harry Occlumency to protect him in such cases was one of the few clear ways Dd appeared to help Harry deal with Voldy.

Admittedly skilling Harry up to help him in the event of a direct confrontation with Voldy or some of his DEs probably wouldn't have been a very good strategy on its own as he would probably have lost. Except that's exactly what did happen in the end, though Harry won, but only because Voldy shot himself in the foot - several times! A strategy where your only chance to win is based on the other person making a very serious mistake repeatedly doesn't seem like a very good one - even if in this case it worked. Perhaps straining credibility a bit too far!

I can't help but think that Dd should have taught Harry a bit more, eg defensive spell work or advanced charms (as I think Ron and Hermione put it when they found out about Harry's lessons with Dd in HBP) as well as some ways to find and destroy horcruxes. Otherwise, their achievements seem more like pure dumb luck rather than suggesting skill or merit on Harry or the trio's part.

DaveD



.