God in the WW/Draco as underdog/Alchemist Theory in Two Acts

[Geoff Bannister]

No: HPFGUIDX 132128

In message 132050, Tania wrote about "God in the WW":

"kay, I have a question about the WW in general. Actually, it is my
husband who likes to tease me about "problems" he finds with the HP
series. This is the question: Does the WW believe in God? He asks
this because they celebrate Christmas with a dinner and exchange
presents, but nothing is ever heard about going to church or anything
like that. Any thoughts?"

Geoff:
I think my first comment would be similar to one previously mentioned 
in that the Wizarding World echoes the modern world, at least in the 
UK, in that many people do not attend church and, sadly, view it as 
an irrelevance. 

But, again, how many books do you read which specifically mention 
churchgoing? To be flippant, someone recently remarked that we never 
saw Harry going to the bathroom – how does he stay clean? How many 
stories dwell on the hero taking a bath or going to the toilet?

Speaking seriously though as a Christian, I have commented on 
numerous occasions that you can see the presence of the writer's 
commitment even if it isn't overt. Tolkien's faith shows in the way 
in which his sub-creation works; we hear occasionally of Eru or The 
One. Similarly with JKR. We see from the way her world works, how 
right and wrong are viewed in it and. as a result, something of her 
feeling about faith.


+++++++++++++

Geoff:
I feel, that in this matter of Draco as the underdog – generally 
speaking – that we cannot assume that everything Harry does is 
honourable (if that is the word that fits) and that everything that 
Draco does is despicable; and I say that as a dyed-in-the-wool Harry 
supporter.

I have suggested in the past that, except perhaps in the instances of 
facing up to Voldemort, Harry generally seems to be in the better 
position that Draco. Even so, the fact is that they both engage in 
activity on occasions which is questionable - or downright rotten. 
One of the things that I like about JKR's writing is that she paints 
her heroes (and villains) as having flaws. As a young person, I used 
to hate the sort of children's book where the heroes were terribly 
goody-goody and never put a foot wrong – Enid Blyton's characters 
often fall into this category. I want characters to be like me. I can 
remember doing things in my teens, sometimes in anger and sometimes 
by calculation, which I much prefer to forget about in hindsight and 
consign to the dustbin of personal history. Both Harry and, possibly 
more so, Draco have had moments like this. Harry joins in the attack 
on Draco after the Quidditch match; he looks into Snape's Pensieve; 
he smashes up Dumbledore's office. But these balance out against the 
positive things he does as a relatively normal growing teenager. 

With Draco, the balance is perhaps the other way some of it perhaps 
coming from the frustration of not being able to best Harry at 
situations where he wants to be top dog.

+++++++++++++

In message 131975, Tinglinger wrote in the thread about "Major, Major 
Spoiler, the Alchemist Theory in Two Acts":

"Dumbledore feeds Harry the Elixir EXPRESSLY to lure Voldemort to 
Godric's Hollow at a time when Harry is temporarily immortal due to 
the elixir of life.

Voldemort goes to Godric's Hollow and uses the AK spell on Harry, but 
it does not work because though unstoppable, IT CANNOT KILL A HUMAN 
WHO IS IMMORTAL, even if only temporarily so. So what happens when an 
irresistable force meets an immovable object? The force rebound back 
to it's caster with disasterous results.

Then, after Voldemort's body is destroyed, the Elixir wears off and 
Harry goes back to being The Boy Who Lived, and nothing more......."


and later in the post:

"BECAUSE DUMBLEDORE HAS DONE IT ALL BEFORE AND SUCCEEDED..... almost.

When? in his defeat of the Dark Wizard Grindelwald in 1945. Huh? 
Howzzzat?

How The Dark Wizard Grindelwald was Defeated
---------------------------------------------
Remember, Tom Riddle was in his final year at Hogwarts in 1945. He is 
a Slytherin - only concerned about himself. Bright, but flawed, an 
orphan with no family. Brilliant, but starting to lean to the dark 
side, capable of ruining the career of a fellow student (Hagrid) just 
so that he won't have to return to the orphanage. He wanted an edge.

And Dumbledore had this plan........
He approached Tom Riddle and says "How would you like to live 
forever?"
Riddle goes "Sure, but what's the catch?"
"You must drink the Elixir of Life that I and my partner have 
produced from the Sorcerer's Stone. That will give you immortality. 
Then you must face this dark wizard Grindelwald, who will try to kill
you with an Avada Kedavara spell. But don't worry! You can't die 
because the Avada Kedavera spell cannot work on an immortal! And 
guess what YOU will become after you drink the Elixir of Life!"
"Oh," continued Dumbledore. "Don't worry - I'll be right behind you 
if something goes wrong. You won't see me because I will be 
invisible, but I WILL be there..."

Riddle was stunned, but like all Slytherins, clearly sees what is in 
it for him, and agreed.

Dumbledore figured that either way he can't lose. He can get rid of 
Grindelwald if the plan works, or if it doesn't and Riddle dies, his 
only loss would be a student with no morals or ethics who would turn 
bad eventually anyway......

To win a war, sacrifice a pawn....."

Geoff:
I have serious reservations about this theory on two counts.

First, it is suggested that if a person takes the Elixir, it would 
grant "temporary" immortality at least until another dose was 
required. If that were the case, why didn't Dumbledore organise 
taking some for himself and tackling Grindelwald and Voldemort 
personally? It would have been simpler than the suggested scenario 
that Harry was given some as a baby and a false prophecy was created 
to lure Voldemort to Godric's Hollow. It also doesn't explain the 
ambiguity about which child was meant – Harry or Neville. Dumbledore 
could have created a false prophecy to be "leaked" stating that the 
person with the possible power to defeat Voldemort was Dumbledore 
himself. This could have drawn out Voldemort into the open. Avada 
Kedavra fired off and "Pow" - vaporised Dark Lord. In Grindelwald's 
case he could have set up a similar kind of arrangement.

This would have avoided the convoluted scheme of things suggested in 
this thread which has the usual complications of conspiracy theories. 
I view these with a measure of distrust having seen the mind-boggling 
ideas which have surrounded, for example, the assassination of 
Kennedy in 1963 and the car crash which killed Princess Diana in 1997.

My second reservation hinges on the fact that JKR started writing her 
books as books about children and mainly for children. The first two 
books are certainly fit that pattern although they become darker and 
more serious as they progress. I believe that, if JKR was using a 
plot line such as is suggested here, that many of her younger readers 
would just not understand what was going on; they would be left in 
the dark. Additionally, in the earlier books, Dumbledore was 
certainly portrayed as someone to whom Harry could look up to, a wise 
adult who would guide him and advise him. True, as we grow up through 
adolescence, we often find that our mentors have feet of clay and are 
not as omniscient as we thought as children, but to suggest that 
Dumbledore is really an evil, Machiavellian manipulator would send a 
whole raft of wrong messages to young readers. In the real world, we 
see far too many children being mistreated and abused by those who 
should be looking out for them; for this to happen in the books, 
especially where the person concerned is the Headmaster with the 
responsibility for so many young people would be a highly dangerous 
scenario to place before a young readership.

Geoff
(who still is having trouble believing that London got the 2012 
Games)