BADD ANGST TBAY, Part II

[Smythe, Boyd T {FLNA}]

No: HPFGUIDX 81851

P!S, your posts are always a pleasure. :) Keep 'em coming!

BTW, I have never thought that any part of your theory was impossible, only
that I saw it as less likely than other interpretations. I still do. :) You
said:

> Pip!Squeak wrote: <snip>
> So it's not wise to go by 'screen time'. Quirrel gets about one-third the
attention Snape gets. Nonetheless, Snape in PS/SS is the distraction,
Quirrel the real villain. If LV is mentioned about 1000 times, then it is in
fact a reasonable supposition that he may not be the real problem. <snipped
more supporting points>

I agree with your point that JKR likes to use the misdirection ploy-and to
great effect-a number of times in the series. Well documented! But I think
we have different conceptions of the structure of the series.

Individually, each of the books in the series has been structured as a
mystery. But that does not mean that the series as a whole is a mystery. I
see this series as more of an epic.

Why does this matter? Because if the series is a mystery, then JKR will keep
us guessing all the way through to the denoument. And we'll say, "oh, that's
what it was all about!" And I will feel a bit jilted that the whole series
was a mystery and I didn't even know it.

But if the series is an epic, then she will not trick us about what we will
see in the denoument: the defeat of LV. Who does what and how are all
unknowns, of course, but the final outcome is set in stone. That's part of
what makes it an epic. So Harry must overcome incredible obstacles to
accomplish this impossible task. We don't need to know what all of the
obstacles will be or how he will overcome them, but we need to know the
task: rid the WW of LV. (This is quite different from rid the WW of all
future Dark Lords.)

Recall LOTR, where the final outcome is known (from very near the beginning)
to be the destruction of the One Ring and defeat of Sauron. How will Frodo
do it? We don't know. What obstacles will he face? We don't know. So the
how's and why's were mysteries of a sort, but the what was unwavering.
Destroy the Ring and Sauron...destroy LV.

> Pip!Squeak:
> So Emeric the Evil was almost certainly a major historical character. To
get a mention in a school history lesson, he *has* to be a major historical
character. <

I'm sure he was important, but in what way we don't know. Evil, yes.
Maniacal pure-bloodist tyrant? We have no idea (yet). I continue to think he
was just part of the books' atmosphere.

> Pip!Squeak:
> So, no, I suppose our evil wizards might not have been racist, or pure
bloodist, but it seems that they would have stood out a bit if they weren't.
Because from the history we are given, the WW itself is largely racist.
Other races feel extremely oppressed - so much so that they revolt more than
once over a period of centuries. And note that when Binns explains about
Salazar Slytherin's pure-bloodist views, he does not condemn them [CoS Ch. 9
p.114 ]. <

Yep, the WW has always been racist toward non-humans and apparently muggles.
No argument there.

> Pip!Squeak:
> Besides, if our evil wizards are *not* racist, and *not* pure-bloodist,
and *don't* seek power - well, what sort of WW is it that calls them evil ?
[grin] <

How about they've tortured and/or murdered wizards? We'd both agree that
that'd get someone labeled "evil." But those are not the same as trying to
take over the WW with a pure-bloodist theology.

> Pip!Squeak:
> Dumbledore is 150. <snip> Professor Marchbanks in OOP is old enough to
have examined Dumbledore for his OWLs.  Wizards live longer than a century.
> And no, it's not likely that there's no way of telling that Voldemort is
the strongest in a century. Cricketing batsmen are regularly judged against
the great W.G. Grace - even though there is probably no one alive today who
saw Grace in his heyday (he died in 1915). Historical records.
> There is no canon (as far as I recall - I could be wrong) that says
Voldemort is 'unique'. Far from it. 'Greatest', most powerful, strongest -
all the terms applied to Voldemort suggest that he is far from unique. The
terms used suggest that he is the worst of a bad lot. No one ever says 'it
had never happened before'. Instead they talk about 'times like that'
[Sirius in GoF Ch. 27]. In Hagrid's explanation to Harry in Chapter 4 of
PS/SS, in Mr Weasley's explanation of the Dark Mark in GoF Ch. 9, neither of
them sound *surprised* about this history. <

Yes, some (maybe many) wizards live more than a century. Point to P!S.

But you make my argument for me in your 3rd paragraph there. They call him
greatest, most powerful, strongest, but these do not have to mean "most
fascist in a century" or "most pure-bloodist in a century." They could as
easily refer to his power/strength. So the previous centuries may have each
seen a wizard as powerful as LV, but that wizard may have been good, or an
evil murderer, or an evil tyrant-all possibilities. Again, I'm just saying
that this doesn't feel to me like reasonable foreshadowing for many
centuries of Dark Lords. Also, we don't know that any would-be tyrants have
ever succeeded. So the WW may see these types occasionally, but always in
the past has been able to put them down. Not so with the immortal LV.
Perhaps it is there that LV is unique?

> Pip!Squeak: (referring to the late appearance of Harry ridding the WW of
racism)
> Except that JKR has already left important facts to later books. <

True, but if this is an epic, then that would be a moving denoument. Not
classic form. If it's a mystery, then I'm not exactly on pins and needles to
find it out, since I thought we were just headed for LV's defeat.

> Pip!Squeak:
> Further, Harry's awareness of prejudice and racism is increasing. <

Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with this. But I think its value is in giving
Harry a reason beyond himself for vanquishing LV.

> Pip!Squeak:
> Societies which brainwash, enslave, discriminate against, and commit
genocide against 'lesser' races are not *imperfect*. <snip>
> Yes, the WW has many problems which could be defined as *imperfect* - but
no. You are deceived, as Harry is, by the undeniable fact that the WW is
'cute'. It's funny. It's full of eccentric wizards, in odd costumes. It
looks harmless. It's comic-opera. <snip>
> Pip!Squeak [on her soapbox]:
> Why must the real world always have prejudice and evil?
> Who told you that?
> What are you supporting when you say that?
> What 'side' do you help when you say 'it's never possible to set
everything right'.
> Why must JKR accept that view in her books? 
> It's up to you to stop evil. Full stop. Whether it's a bad guy, singular,
bad guys, plural, or bad guys as in an entire society. And in fact, in
history, you will find examples of people trying to stop all three.
> Real life. Real worlds. Real societies. 

(sighs) P!S, please get off your soapbox and stop preaching at me. It's all
very good and well to say, "Why must the real world always have prejudice
and evil?" But it's also pointless. I am an adult and already do my part to
better the world as best I can. But I also know that evils do exist, and
always will, because no one is perfect. But if we all try, the world will be
a better place tomorrow.

And that's what Harry will do when he beats LV in book 7. He will rid the
world of one of the bigger evils of today. And perhaps remind everyone what
it means to stand and fight for good. But he will probably not change
everyone's perception of what "good" means. That's just too tall an order.
(How long have we been fighting against racism now in the RW?)

-Remnant