Neville's Role in Books Six/Seven

[celebrimborcormacolindor]

No: HPFGUIDX 82659

Well, after reading hickengruendler's post I think I must clarify two 
points. First, I never intended to question Neville's courage. My 
point is not about courage and cowardice, but about heroic and 
pathetic characters; and with all his courage, Neville is not an 
heroic character, but a pathetic one. We smile when he tries to stop 
Harry, Ron and Hermione when they go for the Philosopher's Stone in 
SS/SP 16; we cry when he shouts "STUBEFY! STUBEFY!" to the Death 
Eaters in OotP 35; and it breaks our hearts to see Bella using the 
Cruciatus Curse on him. In all this his courage only emphasizes his 
naïveté, his defencelessness and his clumsiness, moving us to that 
compassionate pity that is the hallmark of the pathetic character. It 
is certain that we wish he becomes the hero he wishes to be. 
Nevertheless, until now we have only Neville-as-pathos, Neville as 
someone who evokes pity and compassion. And this, I think, justifies 
my surprise with the text in Chapter 37 of OotP that suggests he 
could be the hero referred in the prophecy.

The second point I want to clarify is this: when I say that it's 
possible to tell the tale of Harry Potter without mention of a 
certain character or his/her actions, this doesn't mean that I think 
this character is superfluous or must be eliminated. Of course these 
secondary characters help to make the flair of the books; and of 
course we can sympathize with them even if they don't participate in 
the conflict. For example, I have a special sympathy for Minerva 
McGonagall; and it's certainly possible to tell the tale of Harry 
Potter without mention of Minerva and her actions.

So, when I say that until now Neville is a secondary character, I am 
not criticizing the poor boy, I am not criticizing the readers who 
sympathize with him, and certainly I am not criticizing JKR. I am 
only stressing his reduced importance until now, because Neville 
receives much more space than justified by his importance. In fact, 
this disparity between his importance and the amount of time used by 
JKR to tell things about him was one of the reasons that made me 
think about his character and his role in the future books.

Now, I must say that in my opinion Hagrid is a different case. You 
cannot supress Hagrid's actions without producing significant changes 
in the story. Hagrid is not only the man who rescued Harry when 
Harry's parents were killed; Hagrid is also the man who knew how to 
pass by Fluffy, he was the boy expelled from Hogwarts thanks to 
Riddle, he raised the hippogriff that saved Sirius, he saved the 
centaur who now teaches at Hogwart's and so on. If you suppress all 
this, you will have to change (a) the obstacles in the way to the 
Philosopher's Stone, (b) the story of Tom Riddle, (c) the story about 
Buckbeak's trial, (d) the docents of Hogwarts School. Hagrid's 
actions have consequences in a way that McGonagall's actions (and 
Neville's actions) have not, at least until now. This makes him a 
much more important character in the development of the story.

Ginny is less important; nevertheless she is the girl who was 
possessed by Tom Riddle in CS. Fred and George are even less 
important to the conflict; but they are mini-stars in OotP 29, when 
they make their spectacular flight to freedom under the nose of 
Umbridge. And, if I was forced to put Neville somewhere in this (to a 
certain extent subjective) ranking of importance, I will put him 
right here, after the twins and before Percy, who has the important 
role of a pain in ... well, you know what I mean ;) But, of course, I 
still think that Neville's importance will grow in books six/seven, 
like I said in my original post.

Finally, I must say that the fact that someone survived an attack by 
Voldemort doesn't make this someone the chosen one. In CS Ginny was 
attacked by Tom Riddle and survived; in OotP 21-22 Arthur Weasley was 
attacked by Voldemort and survived; in OotP 36 Dumbledore was 
attacked by Voldemort and survived. Add Harry and you will have 
*four* people-who-lived; they can't be all "chosen ones".
 
But, of course, I can be totally wrong: that is the fun of this kind 
of discussion.
 
  - Fernando Henning (with Kelley Elf's help)