The Big Bangers and Neville

[ssk7882]

No: HPFGUIDX 35697

Cindy, who only beats up men, wrote:

> So I issue a challenge. Something Big must be going on with 
> Neville. Surely he isn't going to spend seven books as a timid, 
> forgetful boy chasing after a useless toad. What is Neville's 
> backstory, then? Any takers?

Hmmmph.  Well.  The *last* time we tried to discuss Neville, I seem
to remember that you gave me my ring back.  And all of the love 
letters.  *And* you mocked my SYCOPHANTS badge.

But maybe now that you're captaining that big scary destroyer, I can
convince you to change your mind?

Cindy:

> But look what happens if we push back the attack on the Longbottoms 
> into 1983. Suddenly, Neville is over 3 years old. And do you know 
> what happens next? People come streaming out of the woodwork to 
> tell me all of the horrors visited upon them when they were 3, how 
> they vividly recall being spanked in the supermarket at this age, 
> how desperately they wish they had received a Memory Charm...

But that's the entire *point,* Cindy.  We *want* him traumatized.
We want poor little toddler Neville, huddling in the closet while
the Evil Death Eeaters horribly torture Mum and Dad.  And do you 
know *why* we want it that way?

Because it's a Very Big Bang.  *That's* why.

I mean, please.  What is all this wishy-washy "oh, let's keep him only
an infant, because that way he could never have really been 
traumatized much anyway" nonsense?  What is all this "Oh, we can't 
give the poor kid a suppressed traumatic memory -- that's just so 
ugly, it's all so *crooo-el* -- so let's just make it a Reverse 
Memory Charm instead" tripe?

Really!  What sort of talk is *that* for the Captain of the Big Bang 
Destroyer?

Sheesh.  Some people just have no idea where their best interests 
really lie, do they?

Look, Neville at the Court Hearing is a *Dud,* okay?  You know it, I 
know it. Everyone knows it.  It lacks drama.  It lacks pizzazz.  It 
lacks oomph.  It lacks any sturm-und-drang at all, frankly.  An 
infant gurgles his way merrily through a scene of unspeakable 
atrocity, but is later enchanted to be able to point one pudgy finger 
at the Lestranges and blurt "Gah?"

Booo-ring.

No.  No, what you *want* here is toddler Neville.  You want sentient 
Neville.  You want capable-of-understanding-cause-and-effect 
Neville.  You want huddling-in-the-closet-whimpering-pitifully-with-
his-eyes-squeezed-tightly-shut-while-rocking-back-and-forth-
autistically Neville.  Come on.  You *know* that you do.  You *know* 
that deep down in your heart, you want it that way.  It's Bigger.  
It's Bangier.  It's far more cinematic.  And besides all of that, it 
also gives you the opportunity to remove that Memory Charm later on 
and get the even Bigger and even Bangier Flashback Neville.

Or, if you *really* wanted Big and Bangy, you could even grit your 
teeth and adopt Tex's suggestion of Tortured Neville.  I've not got 
quite the Edge for that one, myself, but you're the one with the 
passion for the catalytic backstories.  And really, you can't get 
much more catalytic than Tortured As a Toddler To Get Stalwart Hero 
Father To Crack, now, can you?

Heh.  If I didn't know better, I would be starting to suspect that 
deep down inside, Cindy just might be a tad...well.  Dare I even 
suggest it?  *Squeamish,* perhaps?  

And besides, who ever heard of a "Reverse Memory Charm," anyway?  
There's no such thing in canon.  What we do have are Memory Charms.  
They mess up your mind; they make you absent-minded and forgetful; 
they make poor Mr. Roberts talk just like Neville does after Fake 
Moody's DADA class; they've been amply foreshadowed through the last 
*three* volumes of the series -- and you want to make it a Reverse 
Memory Charm just 'cause you're a little bit *squeamish?*  Just 
'cause you're not man enough to Tough It Out when it comes to 
traumatized Neville?

<shakes head sadly>

Oh, Cindy.  Cindy.  Can't you see reason here?


Cindy wrote:

> Big Bang is actually quite a busy-body, because Big Bang also plans 
> to weigh in on CUPID'SBLUDGER (that is, that Florence's kissing 
> behind the greenhouse is important for some reason and is related 
> to why Sirius hates Snape). As soon as Big Bang can think of a Bang 
> that is sufficiently Big, we will report back to the group. 

Jake said:

> And I propose that we put Cupid's Quaffle to the Big Bang test. 

Hear, hear!  Enthusiastically seconded!

> I'm tempted to believe that having her surreptitious snogging with 
> Sirius brought to light, combined with the 'realisation' that she's 
> been being used, nay *pitied* by Sirius in the first place is 
> enough to turn her from simply a nasty-tempered but bookish girl 
> into the Vamp that becomes Dead Sexy Mrs. Lestrange.

Well, it's certainly catalytic, all right.  And I personally think 
that it's quite Big Bang-worthy.

It would be even Bigger and Bangier, of course, if only we could up 
the adult content a bit and make it so that Florence is actually 
carrying Sirius Black's _love child_ at the time...but of course, we 
can't do that.  JKR has stated that she isn't going to deal with 
those sorts of issues so <very earnest look here indeed> *that* would 
make the theory *non-canonical.*

And heaven knows we can't have that.


-- Elkins