Will there be an ESE!character in Book 7? /Regulus Black

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 147423

Sydney:
> Lord, I hate villain-driven plots.. anyways, I think the classic
> mystery structure is particularily inappropriate for the conclusion 
of
> a children's book with a lot of spiritual themes like Harry
> Potter,with it's hinted denoument in the Room of Love, and I don't 
see
> it heading in an ESE! direction for anyone, really.  I think the
> streets will be full of hidden allies rather than hidden threats, and
> a good thing too!  because boy is Harry going to need them.


Magpie:
I hadn't thought of it in those terms but that's exactly my mindset in 
going into the last book.  The challenge to Harry personally is in 
seeing the good, and if he's seeing the bad having it more be about 
accepting bad parts of the previously good, if that comes into it.  I 
don't think it will be as clear as the flipside, of course, with Fake!
Moody revealed to really be an insane DE in disguise.  So it won't be 
a case of Snape really being a polyjuiced angel whose every bad action 
was really good as Moody's was bad.  

Nrenka:
Personally, I don't understand why people are wanting to shove all of
the BANG over onto book 7. It seems a perpetual delaying tactic to
dispute the solving of mysteries that one would rather see continued,
or thought the solution had holes. Alas, holes to us are often not
holes to another reader.

Magpie:

Heh--the funny thing about that is if the BANG was Snape it didn't 
work very well.  JKR set it off and half the audience is like, "Was 
that a bang?  I didn't hear anything.  Of course it wasn't a bang, we 
just haven't found out what it really was yet.  Well I think it's a 
bang!  But then, I've always thought Snape was a bang..."

If it's revealed that Snape really was evil all the time it will 
almost come in dribs and drabs because we know so little about the 
why's of Snape's actions in HBP we need a lot of explanation to really 
get that he's a villain despite his killing Dumbledore.  There's the 
shock of his action, of course, but I don't think it really sinks in 
until you get it in context.  Like if Moody had just stuck Harry's 
name in the Goblet because he thought he needed the practice fighting 
evil it would like, "Huh, so Moody put his name in the Goblet.  
Weird."  As opposed to the real horror at what Crouch Jr. was doing.

I mean, unlike many other mysteries that people want to see continued 
long past their solution, this one really didn't have a solution 
because we didn't get the villain's confession either through his own 
mouth or through someone else explaining what was going on with him.

Cerridwen:
Bellatrix may be a negative view of the maiden, someone who
has no life experience and no wisdom. I don't know if JKR had this
in mind, but it's prevalent enough, at least in modern practice, that
it may have its roots in some archetypal sort of role. Maybe I ought
to look into that?

Magpie:
The Black sisters are interesting that way, aren't they?  In some ways 
Narcissa seems like such a maiden physically, but her actions in the 
text have been because she's a mother.  And Bellatrix I do see as less 
of a Crone and more of a maiden.  Her marriage doesn't seem to have 
really "taken" somehow--maybe she got married to produce children for 
the Dark Lord and that didn't happen.  But her claim that she'd be 
glad to sacrifice her son, to me, sounds less like the harsh wisdom of 
a Crone saying that sacrifices must be made than the naivite of a 
Maiden (it's easy to say you'll sacrifice children when you don't 
really know what it's like to have one).

Now I'm suddenly thinking about Draco with regards to these sisters.  
He's got no connection to Andromeda we know about, but he seems to 
start with the same naive, childish fanaticism that Bellatrix has, but 
later find what's really important to him is protecting his family, 
like Narcissa.

-m