About a messy post, and about Neville (Re:I *love* tragic endings ! )

[iris_ft]

No: HPFGUIDX 85646

On Tuesday, I replied to a post by Jennifer (I *love* tragic 
endings; re: What if Harry dies?).
To which Carol and Siriusly Snapey Susan (messages 85513 and 85572) 
answered:

"You say that the WW has a short memory and I agree, but I think for
Harry, that will be a good thing. Why would he want to return to the
miserable world of his childhood? Why not live happily in the better
one he's helped to bring about? Why not celebrate the release from 
his
burden and share the short-lived glory with the other heroes (he 
won't
be the only one) and when the fickle WW forgets him, why not be "Just
Harry"?

Harry isn't Frodo and JKR isn't Joseph Campbell. There's no reason 
for
Harry not to find a place in the world he saved.

Carol "

"What about the possibility that sometime before the final battle [we
all seem to be assuming it will be some big monstrous final battle,
anyway], MANY MORE wizards & witches will join the ranks of those
willing to fight--The Order, Dumbledore's Army, perhaps a new
organization or army? What if, even if it IS Harry who has to be the
one to kill Voldemort, hundreds of others are right there beside him,
pushing back & eliminating Voldy's Death Eaters? Then, even though
Harry would take that final action to ensure total victory, there
would truly be hundreds [or thousands?] of others right there to
[rightfully!] share in the glory. THAT would remove some of those
pressures you went on to talk about.

In short, I don't see that it would have to be seen as "all Harry"
again. Look at SS/PS. Harry gets 60 points for his actions, yes,
but Hermione & Ron each get 50, and Neville gets 10. Harry DIDN'T do
it all by himself then. And look at what the members of the DA and
the Order already did in the Ministry of Magic near the end of Book
Five. No way Harry could have survived if it had been just HIM.
With another year or two to build up to the climactic battle, who's
to say he won't then be surrounded by a huge number of "helpers",
which will take much of the pressure off of him?

Siriusly Snapey Susan "



Well, it seems that my former post was messy enough, so my main 
purpose didn't appear clearly.  It wasn't a post about whether Harry 
will have to face "the final battle" alone.
It was rather a questioning about whether the Wizarding World will 
be able to realize the necessity it has to change its behaviour. In 
other words: will the Wizarding World put into question its own 
apathy concerning discrimination, lack of a reliable justice, 
teaching traditions that encourage rivalry? Will the wizarding World 
understand the necessity of improving its institutions, for they are 
currently an open door to Dark Magic?
And I finished writing that if Harry sacrificed his life but things 
kept unchanged, he would be as if he had died in vain. It would be 
only a truce until the raise of a new Dark Lord and the beginning of 
a new war. After Grindelwald came Voldemort, after Voldemort will 
come someone else, if wizards keep on following the same way. As 
Carol wrote very relevantly (sorry for the huge snip), there's no 
war without sacrifices, and those who give their lives do it in 
order to improve the world they live in.  Now, what can we think of 
a society that didn't learn the lesson it was given, as the 
Wizarding World did? Wizards didn't learn from what happened with 
Grindelwald, they didn't learn either from the first raise of 
Voldemort.
I agree that Harry won't fight alone, and that the necessity of 
acting together is a major topic in the series. I should have added 
in my post that not only his sacrifice, but every sacrifice, would 
be in vain if the Wizarding World didn't change anything the way it 
goes. They can't keep on waiting for one or thousands heroes to save 
the day; they need to face their own responsibilities, and they need 
to do it quickly. That's what is called citizenship, and it the 
matter of all.
It seems that JKR had it on her mind when she wrote the pages 
of "Fantastic Beasts" in which she depicts the slow evolutions of 
the wizard laws concerning the classification of Beings and Beasts 
(nearly four centuries between the first decree and the definitive 
law! And we can add the revolt of Goblins; it shows that there were 
problems with the way wizards treat the others "citizens" of their 
world). We see it arise too at the end of OotP, when Dumbledore 
comments the way Sirius treated Kreacher or the way wizards 
represented themselves on the fountain in the Ministry of Magic. The 
Wizarding World appears to be rotten from the inside. It needs a 
deep reformation if it doesn't want to disappear. So okay, let's 
agree that Harry, that his friends, that every responsible creature 
in this world will have to fight, and sometimes to make the 
sacrifice of their own lives. But will the Wizarding World be able 
to pay a tribute to their sacrifice, using its memory, changing the 
way it goes so that the story won't repeat another time? 
Carol wrote also that JKR is not Joseph Campbell (he didn't write 
novels, so that's true there's a huge difference between them), and 
that Harry is not Frodo. True: if Harry and others survive, they 
will prefer a different Wizarding World and they probably don't miss 
the old one. But what if this world is exactly like "the miserable 
world of Harry's childhood"? So let's hope they will fight for the 
best, and not for another "Wizengaga", or for a society that will 
consider them as a shield in case of problem but will treat them 
like nutters or enemies the rest of the time; for a society that 
won't remember they have rights, not only duties. Concerning 
Campbell's scheme, though several episodes in the series tend to 
prove that Harry shares some characteristics with other heroes as he 
depicts them, I hope that JKR will find an original alternative, 
something new. Okay, that's certainly a big challenge, but it's what 
we like in her books, no?

And now I come to the message by Siriusly Snapey Susan (nice 
alliteration, by the way), because it's the reason why I decided to 
give a reply.You remind the part Neville played in Gryffindor' 
victory at the end of Book 1. Let's 
see:                                                                 
1) Harry gave his house 60 points, making it the equal of 
Slytherin.                                                         
2) Neville gave it 10 points. Only 10 points, yes, but those 10 
points were decisive. Without them, Gryffindor wouldn't have won the 
Cup.  
That's very interesting; aside from the fact it's a very relevant 
example of the necessity of unity (a lesson Harry will have to learn 
quickly, I entirely agree with 
you).                                                                
                                                                     
       Now, if we transpose the anecdote from Book 1 to the war 
against Voldemort and the Dark Side, it could 
give:                                                                
                                                                     
1) Thanks to Harry, Good and Evil will come to a kind of status quo 
(neither Harry nor Voldemort can defeat the other without dying, and 
we already saw how they happened to neutralize each other because of 
their brother wands). Here are the 60 points.
2) So Neville will interfere and make the difference (How? It's 
anyone's bet. If he could kill Voldemort without killing Harry, I 
think it would satisfy many people
) Here are the 10 decisive points.
 
Of course, that's only a supposition. But, well, it's part of the 
guessing game, isn't it?
And that's how this long post ends. Hope it didn't bother you, for 
it's mainly "Bis repetita", atque non semper placent.

Amicalement,

Iris