Role of ESE in Hero's Quest / McGuffins & Horcruxes / House Unity

[Neri]

No: HPFGUIDX 147824

>
> Jen: First, I read the article you posted and even though I snipped 
> your list of ways JKR could resolve the plot, I think it's very 
> possible several of them will be important along with the horcruxes 
> for defeating Voldemort. The first obvious thing that comes to mind 
> is how many alliances Harry has formed over the years which will 
> likely come into play in Book 7. Now, you may call these--what was 
> it, plot vouchers (?)--the cashing in on an alliances (magical 
> spells, potions, etc.) brought into the story only for that reason. 
> But take Viktor Krum, or Dobby, or Beauxbatons, pretty much anyone 
> besides Grawp <g>, and they have been woven logically into the story 
> for more reason than simply "Harry needs them later" from how I read 
> it.

Neri:
No, I wouldn't see them as "plot vouchers" in their classic form.
However, I still think it doesn't prevent the Horcruxes from being
plot coupons if other people or other methods are enlisted to help
finding them. A lot of page time in HBP is dedicated to Horcruxes
background (mostly given by the Wise Old Man) but there's very little
or no development in the alternative directions I mentioned. For
example, the whole promising DA plot from OotP came to nothing in HBP.
It's of course possible that it will be revived in Book 7, but in that
case it would look like inconsistent plotting. So it seems we are
stuck with the damned Horcruxes, for good or for bad, in the center of
the plot.

It's probably no coincidence that many of us didn't like the Horcruxes
and still try to shove them aside. I think we immediately felt, even
before we could formulate it as well as Lowe does, that there's
something disappointing about them. But I think that JKR can only
correct this by giving them deeper meaning. Sure, it would be great if
she will develop ingenious and deeply thematic ways for finding her
plot coupons, but I'd still wonder why did she need these plot coupons
in the first place, when she could have developed ingenious and deeply
thematic ways for vanquishing Voldy without Horcruxes at all.       

> Jen: Here's another point I'm in disagreement with. To me JKR very 
> carefully set up Voldemort as a person obsessed with immortality, an 
> irrational person who sees objects as having a 'magical' value in 
> the sense of having a value beyond monetary. Yes the Wise Man stock 
> character tells Harry about the horcuxes but only after we get to 
> the bottom of the story as to why Voldemort would go that route as 
> opposed to drinking the Elixer, or performing some old dark magic 
> with no psychological fascination for him. 
> 
> What I'm saying is the objects aren't arbitrary to Voldemort, nor 
> are the hiding places. Taking myself completely out of the story as 
> the writer of that article did makes practically any plot sound 
> absurd! JKR did 'make it so' as author/god, but she also tried to 
> back it up and give it a viable reason for being there. Maybe the 
> reasoning appeals to me more than someone else because I thought she 
> did a damn good job creating a psychological case study to 
> underscore Voldemort's choices. And I think it's very possible LV's 
> irrational obsessions could be taken even further, i.e. the gleam.
> 

Neri:
Yes, JKR did manage to convince me that these specific objects aren't
arbitrary to Voldemort, but they still feel arbitrary to *me* as a
reader. After all, real evil people are rarely obsessed with
immortality, and even if they are, this obsession rarely manifests
itself in hiding objects for some hero to find. This is why *I* as a
reader get this absurd feeling that Voldemort and his obsession only
exist so our hero can have his quest. In order to rectify this I
expect JKR to make these objects (or at least one of them) meaningful
to me as the reader, and not merely because Voldy like them. If she
can do that I wouldn't feel the plot is absurd, and I don't think Lowe
would either. 
 
> 
> Jen: It could have the feel of a video game. The idea may sound that 
> way at the moment without the written word. It's impossible to say 
> what JKR can spin it into though, as you mention later on.
> 

Neri:
It feels like this *now*, after a whole book about Horcruxes. I don't
think it's just me. It was Nora who came up with the video game image,
and before that Pippin compared the Horcruxes in Book 7 to the TWT
tasks in GoF, and I think we aren't the only readers with this
feeling. Yes, I expect JKR to change this in Book 7, by giving the
Horcruxes some deeper meaning.

> 
> Jen: I'm wondering if you feel only Harrycrux could achieve this 
> end? Maybe instead Harry does help unite many allies (and possibly a 
> few enemies) by accessing their talents for finding and/or 
> destroying horcruxes. Or Harry's refusal to work with the MOM 
> finally forces a crack in the corruption there and leads the way for 
> at least a faction of the MOM to stand beside him and force some 
> changes in the future. Ancient magic, Dobby being the first of many 
> later House elves to own a wand and go to Hogwarts, Harry 
> discovering he has other powers transferred by Voldemort and using 
> them---the combination of events is endless. JKR could choose any 
> and all to go along with the horcrux search to fit with her major 
> themes. Basically I can't see the horcruxes standing alone because 
> she doesn't write events in isolation for the most part.
> 

Neri:
These suggestions don't make the Horcruxes themselves any less
arbitrary, and they don't give them higher thematic value. You
basically say that they are just an excuse to move the plot in
directions that can be very meaningful, but not due to the Horcruxes.
JKR could have achieved all the above if she never introduced
Horcruxes at all. In fact she could have achieved it better since she
wouldn't have to spend all that page time in HBP on Horcruxes
background. But she did spend it and she did commit herself to the
Horcruxes, so now I think she must, if she want to be consistent, give
this horrible crux of the matter some central, non-arbitrary thematic
value. 

Can only Harrycrux achieve this end? I'm sure there are other
possibilities, but right now I can't think of anything that would be
as half as foreshadowed, as half as tying together the remaining plot
threads, and especially as half as thematic. You wrote upthread that
this is a metaphysical story of two souls being tied together. What
better way to show Harry untangling himself from Voldemort than them
sharing a soul? What better way to make the thematic point that
destroying an evil soul endangers your own soul? What better way to
make the thematic point that it's only the different choices that
differentiate Harry from Voldemort? Many of us wondered when JKR
failed to show us Tom's gradual fall into Evil in HBP, but I suspect
this was intended. If Tom's soul is described as completely and
utterly "evil", then by sharing it Harry would show that it isn't the
soul, but the different *choices* that matter.

Plus Harrycrux definitely wouldn't be a cliché. If Harry would indeed
turn out to be the last Horcrux, even Nick Lowe in his most derisive
mood wouldn't be able to claim that the Horcruxes were mere plot
coupons.    

> 
> Jen: I'm glad she chose that route because the prophecy was ...not 
> my favorite part <g>.
> 

Neri:
It wasn't my favorite part too. I remember right after OotP many of us
didn't like the prophecy. The common critique was, IIRC, that "it was
so obvious!" but now I think the real critique should have been "it's
so arbitrary!" So I'm very glad she rectified it, especially her use
of the Choice theme. Note that she actually invoked the Choice theme
here *twice*: First in Voldemort's choice to act upon the prophecy at
all, secondly in him choosing Harry rather than Neville. It suggests
to me that this is indeed the most important theme in the story, and I
predict she'll use it again to correct the arbitrariness of the Horcruxes.

 
> Betsy Hp:
> <snip>  I want to deal with 
> the "stock" fantasy devices JKR has used in her story thus far.  
> There's the prophecy, which I agree she rather brilliantly subverted 
> by going the more interesting "MacBeth" or "Oedipus Rex" route where 
> the prophecy only has power if it is believed.
> 

Neri:
Well, I wish to differ somewhat about the "brilliantly" part. It
*would* have been brilliant if only we found about it together with
Harry from some shattering plot turn, rather than being lectured about
it by the Wise Old Man. But as a whole I'm very glad that JKR rescued
the prophecy, and I hope she'll do an even better job with rescuing
the Horcruxes in Book 7. At least it seems the Wise Old Man won't be
there to give the lecture anymore, so it's down to Harry and the plot.

> Betsy Hp:
> There's Dumbledore who has the earmarks of the "Wise Old Man" but 
> gets subverted, I believe, by having him come so close to, and 
> sometimes hitting out and out, failure in just about every book.  I 
> picture him as hanging by his fingernails most of the time.
> 

Neri:
I don't pretend to be an expert on poor fantasy writing, quite the
reverse <g>. I usually try to avoid it, so I can't say how original
has JKR been in "subverting" her Wise Old Man. I refused, out of
principle, to pay money to see the last horrible Star Wars prequels,
but I seem to very dimly recall that Yoda made some mistakes too.

Don't get me wrong, I like Dumbledore, but there's no talking around
the fact he's quite a stereotypic Wise Old Man, not only in his
characterization (which is moderately original and quite likable) but
mainly in the ways he is used to advance the plot. JKR really has to
be careful there if she wishes not to be confused with Star Wars.  

> Betsy Hp:  
> And finally there are the horcruxes.  The reason I don't consider 
> them "plot coupons" is that I don't think they really fill that 
> function.  The horcruxes don't *give* Harry anything.  Which goes 
> against the video game analogy, I believe.  They *take away* 
> something from Voldemort.  And they're a perfect reflection of 
> Voldemort neurosis.  
> 

Neri:
I think you might be mixing "plot coupons" with "plot vouchers", which
are indeed devised to help the hero. It's true that the same object
can fill both functions, but this is rare. The Horcruxes are classic
plot coupons in the same sense that Tolkien's One Ring is a classic
plot coupon – it's a rather arbitrary object that the hero, in order
to win the game against the evil overlord, must collect and "cash in"
in some arbitrarily pre-specified way – destroy it, throw it into a
volcano, etc. (thus saving the author the trouble of plotting a more
believable way to achieve victory). The Horcrux coupons don't have to
*give* Harry anything, the same way that the Ring coupon didn't
actually give Frodo anything, except that cashing them in would win
the game. 

However, the Horcruxes are, as of now, much cheaper plot coupons than
the One Ring, because there are six of them rather than just one, and
because their thematic value is currently much lower, and this is
exactly what I hope JKR will rectify. 

Neri