[HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione attempted murder!

[Robert A. Rosenberg]

No: HPFGUIDX 69545

At 15:11 +0000 on 07/11/2003, catherinemckiernan wrote about 
[HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione attempted murder!:

>--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Robert A. Rosenberg"
><rarpsl at o...> wrote:
>>
>>  I made a similar point a few days ago when I referred to the standard
>>  "Find and Kill the Baby" response to a prophecy that A is going to be
>>  born (or just has been) and is destined to Topple/Kill/What-Ever B in
>>  20 (or so) years. I said that B should hedge his bets by insuring
>>  that A stays alive and in a physical condition that the prophecy can
>>  be fulfilled. Remember that such a prophecy ALSO says/means that B is
>>  safe for those 20 years (so protecting A is in B's Best short to
>>  mid-range Interests). As I said then, B may be willing to cut a deal
>>  with A when it is time for the prophecy to come true and or may just
>>  be waiting to turn the job of being head honcho over to the Young Kid
>>  so he can retire.
>>
>>  I read a story once where this plot twist was the finale to the
>>  story. The "Dictator" was just hanging on until the time of the
>>  prophecy arrived and WANTED to pass on the job responsibility (It is
>>  rough when you can not resign because there is no one to replace
>>  you). From the beginning the story's prophecy was misinterpreted
>>  since it only said, in effect, that A would cause B to no longer be
>>  in power - The peaceful (behind the scenes) transfer of power meet
>>  the conditions and allowed the "Dictator" to finally retire.
>
>Would love to read that story - can you remember the author/title?

Unfortunately, I can not. When, as in my case, you have been reading 
Science Fiction (and other genres) for almost 50 years, the details 
tend to run together for all but the classics (and even them). I 
still cringe at a faux pas I committed when I was having a plot line 
conversation (in relation to using a story to get a point across) at 
a Science Fiction convention with an SF author, only to use, by name, 
as an example of the point one of his stories (he later politely 
reminded me that it was HIS story [this was on a Panel Discussion so 
he did not want to remind me in public in front of the audience] but 
it was still embarrassing <g>).

All I can say that it was Science Fiction and (I think) Young 
Adult/Juvenile not a Children's or Adult. I can remember many of the 
details of the plot/backstory/events but that is of limited use 
unless I wanted to try to post the details on a SF list and see if it 
rings bells with someone (it usually does). If you want I can give a 
slightly enhanced synopsis for you in a private message.

The misinterpreted prophecy type plot is not that infrequent a usage, 
btw, since it can keep the plot from going stale (who wants to always 
read the same formula plot with just the names changed).

At 13:45 -0400 07/11/2003, CareALotsClouds at aol.com wrote about Re: 
[HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione attempted murder!:
>In a message dated 11/07/03 15:33:20 GMT Daylight Time, mongo62aa at yahoo.ca
>writes:
>
>>  In the case of this prophecy about Harry and LV, they are both
>>  protected by the prophecy when not engaged in attacking each-other.
>>  Given that such prophecies always come true, you have a situation
>>  where to fulfill the prophecy, nothing else can kill or maim either
>>  party.
>>
>>  Me (Bill):
>>
>>  And in particular, Harry could pass through the Arch without dying.
>>  He and Lord Thingie are, as far as I know, the only two people about
>>  which we can say that.
>>
>>  Bill
>
>No no no, they are not protected.  the only reason that are not going to die
>out of the hands of each other is because they are not going to try and get
>themselves killed.  If Harry was going to through the Veil and decided to just
>walk through.  he would die.  the prophecy doesnt come jumping out and drags
>him back.  the only reason he is not going to die that way, is 
>because he is not going to walk through the veil.  Do you get my 
>meaning?

As the one who started this sub-thread, I agree.

When the author defines the ground rules of the fictional universe to 
include such things as "guaranteed to come true" prophecies, that 
does not (usually) include making the Hero invulnerable or protected 
from any harm caused by dumb actions committed under the assumption 
that they are protected from harm. Fate (or the Universe) has a 
tendency in these types of stories to apply positive reinforcement to 
those who overstep the bounds of common sense thinking that since 
they are destined to do something in the future they can get away 
with rash actions in the present or who just lay down on the job 
waiting for the time when the prophecy has to be fulfilled. Last 
week's Death Zone was an example of this Positive Reinforcement in 
action. The Hero, who can perceive the future that will occur if he 
does not make use of his perceptions to prevent/mitigate the 
disasters he sees, has "opted out" due to being unable to prevent one 
of his predictions from coming true. The episode plot was how his 
refusal to make any use of his powers caused a major disaster to 
start to build up that he had to mitigate by coming to terms with the 
fact that he would not always succeed in preventing the events that 
he saw from finally occurring but that by trying he could keep the 
level (and consequences) of any such failure to a low level.

On a related note to this, Piers Anthony (in his Xanth Series) has a 
background plot element that all of the books in the series are being 
written by the Muse of History (prior to their occurring in the Xanth 
World) and that the History Books are leaking across the barrier 
between Xanth and Earth (ie: Us as the Mundane non-Magical world) to 
appear here as fictional works. A few books back, he introduced the 
"Major Character" Rule which would protect any character who was 
perceived by the reader as being a Major Character. One of the plots 
of that book was the  quest of a just introduced character to become 
a Major Character (and thus get protection under the Rule). She had 
discovered that she had been relegated to being a Minor Character 
when there was an "Opening" for a new Major Character Role in a prior 
book that ended up being given to another character instead (ie: She 
was one of two characters who were candidates to be introduced so 
they could fill the role. Having not been picked, she was became 
instead a Minor Character never to actually be mentioned until this 
book). As it was explained, while the Major Character Rule would 
prevent Death and Permanent injury for a Major Character, it did not 
prevent them from being in danger or require that they would be 
guaranteed a safe non-exciting life. In fact, once you were granted 
Major Character Status, you were not only required to be ready to 
have adventures (with only the knowledge that you would survive) but 
also required to NOT ABUSE your Status (since if you did, the reader 
would no longer want to have you return in later books - thus 
relegating you to Inactive Ex-Major Character Status).



--

Bob Rosenberg