Neville: Memory, History, Legacy, Power (LONG!) (Was:: Still Life)

[davewitley]

No: HPFGUIDX 38407

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" <skelkins at a...> wrote:
 
> This is one of a series of follow-ups to "Still Life with Memory 
> Charm" (message #36772).  I offer my sincere apologies for the long 
> delay: other matters intervened there for a while, and then, by the 
> time that I got back to this, so many people said such interesting 
> things that it took me quite some time just to process them all!
> 
First, let me applaud Elkins for having the courage to revive an old 
thread for no other reason than that it was not finished.  I don't 
like it when people feel that just because a post got a raft of 
responses within a few hours, and then no more, they are no longer 
free to post on the topic. (I see HPFGU not as a moving picture in 
which only the moment is of importance, but an accumulation of 
understanding.)   I wanted to respond to the Still Life post at the 
time, but did not have time, and sadly, forgot all about it since.  
Well, here it is.

If I have understood Elkins' post correctly, she is saying two things:

That the burial of the past is a major theme, that its uncovering can 
be (is always?) of great significance, and that uncovering is not 
always a good thing.  The example of Voldemort's rebirthing is given 
as a negative uncovering.

That Neville is a kind of anti-Harry, in the sense that he renounces 
an overt legacy that is very similar to the covert legacy that Harry 
discovers and embraces.  She expresses the fear that JKR will show 
such renunciation to be misconceived, and that Neville will be given 
authorial approval for taking up his auror's mantle; Elkins would 
rather that a positive place be given for renouncing the kick-ass 
approach to dealing with evil.

OK, my take on these things.  My understanding is that the burial 
('denial' in all its connotations) and uncovering of the past is 
central to the whole series.  I have pointed out before that each of 
the books, as well as tellign the story of a successive year of 
Harry's life, also uncovers a story about a specific period in the 
past.   PS outlines the attack on Harry as a baby; COS reveals the 
beginnings of Voldemort; POA reveals Harry's father's school years; 
GOF reveals the immediate aftermath of the Voldemort years.  I fully 
expect this pattern to continue.

However, I had seen this almost entirely in a positive light.  It is 
*good* that the past be uncovered and the truth be known.  Even if it 
is initially unpleasant (even misleading), it is ultimately good.  
Thus Riddle's framing of Hagrid is a precursor to Aragog's further 
revelation and Riddle's own eventual admission.   It is actually a 
good thing that Riddle (who describes himself as a memory) is allowed 
out of the diary: only thus can he be exorcised.

In a similar vein, it is my understanding of the developing story 
that Voldemort's rebirth is a necessary precursor to his eventual 
exorcism.  Not that he must be mortal to die - rather, the conditions 
that allow him to flourish are still present, and the whole plant 
must be dug up, not just this year's growth snipped off.   Another 
analogy would be that to get at the buried treasure you have to dig 
up the earth too.

In relation to Neville, I would see it as a positive development for 
his past to be exposed (I think I mean to himself, but we don't know 
exactly what is concealed from whom; at any rate I don't mean 
broadcast in the Daily Prophet.).  This would not necessarily mean 
that he then accepts its legacy uncritically or in total, rather, 
only then can he really make a free choice.   At the moment Neville's 
behaviour is not free IMO in many regards.  He may be free to resist 
the roles that his friends try to thrust on him (and in fact 
Dumbledore commends this in the controversial 10 point award), but he 
is not free, for example, to explain his point of view.

I don't think it necessarily beyond JKR's authorial vision to put 
forward a view of humanity that is outside the scope of the four 
houses - indeed I think there is a case for saying that it exists in 
the House-elves, Giants, and other Beings.  On one side, the Centaurs 
and Merpeople, like Elkins' Neville, have rejected the Wizarding 
conception of humanity (see FB); on the other, Dumbledore asserts the 
necessity for Muggles to be seen as an integral element.   What I 
think *is* outside her vision is the idea that some sleeping dogs 
really are better let lying.

It is interesting that the 'warrior culture' is one of the things 
that is common to the traditional school story (e.g. Kipling's Stalky 
& Co) and to fantasy literature (or Sword and Sorcery as I used to 
know it).  To some extent it is just traditional culture, the stuff 
of all the stories we are brought up on. (If I get time, I will do an 
OT digression on how UK education policy is driven by the public's 
need for competition for its own sake.)

David