[HPforGrownups] RE: if Harry survives

[Lisa G]

No: HPFGUIDX 74064

dan says:
<snips>
"Rowling has consistently avoided explaining characters
motivations. 
But much of the list is just that, imposed explanations of
characters 
motivations, and of their so-called morality. That kind of
debate is 
absolutely no different than cheering for The Undertaker instead
of 
The Rock, or whoever. It turns Rowling into a form of wrestling,
of 
the WWF. This is, frankly, silly.

Rowling's work is a trap, in a way, for certain kinds of
moralistic 
thinking. Never, anywhere in the 5 books, has moralistic
thinking 
been anything but useless and destructive."

Of course she's avoided discussing every nuance and driving
force behind her characters. How utterly boring a book would be
if it laid everyone bare and didn't let us think for ourselves,
or discuss the whys and hows, or allow us to make suppositions
at night when we know we should be sleeping instead. How utterly
pointless would this list be.

I enjoy hypothesizing and not knowing what the answer will be.
It's much better than reading 200 messages a day simply quoting
the book and saying "Well isn't that interesting. I bet you read
it too. Not going to guess what it means, though. I don't want
to pick sides."

You're certainly right, assuming we know these characters and
their moral fibers is silly. But it's entirely normal and what
makes literature so enriching. Good authors leave little bits to
chance and keep people wondering. It makes us buy the next book.

And, by the way, Snape could beat Harry in a wrestling match
with one arm tied behind his back. GOOOOOOO SNAPE!

Lisa G

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com