Subverting Prophecies, Wisemen, Horcruxes (wasRe: Role of ESE in Hero's Quest...

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 147899

> >>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.

Betsy Hp:
Yeah, I'll give you that.  I'm just pleased that it wasn't so much 
the prophecy running the show than how Voldemort chose to interpert 
the prophecy, even down to giving it weight in the first place.

> >>Neri:
> 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:
I totally agree.  The "Dumbledore explains it all" bits were never 
my favorite scenes.  I was generally glad to receive the 
information, but would have preferred a different delivery system.

[Bit of an aside, but I wonder if the intense interest in Snape, 
negative or positive, is partially based on the fact that there are 
very few "Dumbledore explains it all" moments in his story.  Instead 
Harry usually learns new things about Snape through, 
well, "shattering plot turns" I suppose.  Just a thought.]

> >>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.

Betsy Hp:
Gah!  Why'd you have to go *there* Neri!  I will only say that the 
mistakes Yoda made as seen by the viewers were not necessarily seen 
as mistakes by Lucas (unfortunately).  Which isn't the case, I 
think, with JKR and Dumbledore.

> >>Neri: 
> 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. 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I disagree.  But I also think my view is not widely accepted.  I 
could just be writing my own version of Dumbledore in my head, so 
take this for what it's worth <g>.  The stereotypic Wise Old Man 
should have all the information.  I mean seriously, just about *all* 
the information.  Especially compared to the other characters in the 
story.

Dumbledore knows some things Harry doesn't.  But honestly, it's not 
that much.  Not for a Wise Old Man, anyway.  Some of that stuff is 
just things *Harry* doesn't know but is generally common knowledge:  
i.e. Harry is a wizard, James and Snape didn't get along at school.  
And he knows some things that aren't common knowledge, but known to 
the people traveling in his circle: i.e. Tom Riddle is Voldemort, 
Snape is a spy and a former Death Eater.  

But his actual "only I know" information is remarkably small, IMO.  
He knows the prophecy; he knows why Snape changed sides; and by HBP 
he knows about the horcruxes.  That ain't much by Wise Old Man 
standards.  Gandalf would be dismayed. (And Gandalf is, I believe, 
the Wise Old Man against whom all other Wise Old Men are judged.)

He didn't realize Quirrell was the threat to the Stone, at first. 
And I seriously doubt he knew about the "Voldemort in a turban" 
trick Quirrell had going.  And under his watch, Harry very nearly 
died.  

He didn't know *how* the Chamber was being opened, especially since 
he *knew* Voldemort wasn't on location (wrong!).  He couldn't keep 
himself from being kicked out of the school.  And Harry very nearly 
died.

He didn't know about the Marauders' secret passages, the map, 
Lupin's secrets, or that Sirius was not actually guilty.  And he 
wasn't able to clear Sirius when he *did* find out the truth.

A really big one was missing that a friend of his wasn't actually 
his friend but a Death Eater in disguise.  And when Harry finally 
faced Voldemort in the flesh, Dumbledore was waiting helplessly 
miles and miles away.

And of course there was the serious mis-calculation about how to 
best help Harry in OotP.  That book was a series of mistakes from 
beginning to end.  About the only good thing that happened was the 
Voldemort reveal, but the price was pretty darn high, I think.

HBP was fairly good to Dumbledore.  He finally figured out the 
horcrux mystery to his satisfaction (I enjoyed learning how he 
figured them out; that the idea didn't occur to him until Harry gave 
him the diary, and that he had to hunt down further information; the 
knowledge not springing full-grown from his brow), and I think he 
was actually helpful to Harry.  (And I'm going with DDM!Snape, which 
gives Dumbledore more credit than other theories, I think.)

In general the Wise Old Man is something more than human.  He's 
someone almost god-like, or at least someone from a higher plain.  
Dumbledore is wonderfully human, IMO.  He doesn't get personal 
rivalries, so he failed Snape and the Marauders, and he failed Harry 
and Snape.  I think he also fell down on the school unity issue, and 
he certainly failed Tom Riddle.  I don't see these as unforgivable 
failures because he's made very human mistakes.  Which is, I think, 
a subversion of the Wise Old Man. 

Of course there's still the "Dumbledore explains it all" moments. 
<g>  So I'm not saying there aren't any beats of the Wise Old Man to 
his character.

> >>Neri:
> <snip>
> 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).

Betsy Hp:
You seem to be using "The Lord of the Rings" as an example of a bad 
fantasy tale, which is a mistake, I think.  Especially since Tolkien 
pretty much invented the genre.  So the idea that any story that 
contains a plot coupon is somehow bad (which is what I think you're 
saying?) is similarly mistaken.  Like McGuffins they can be a vital 
short-cut to a well told tale, *if used properly*.  I believe 
Tolkien uses his "plot coupon" well.  Imagine the series if the bad 
guy (cannot remember his name, sorry!) had to be taken down by the 
usual years and years of warfare, etc.  One small hobbit wouldn't 
make a bit of difference, and it'd be an entirely different tale.  
The ring wasn't a *crutch* for Tolkien's story, it was the *core* of 
his story.

> >>Neri:
> 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. 

Betsy Hp:
"The Lord of the Rings" wasn't a video game, it didn't read like a 
video game, and throwing the ring into the volcano was not an easy 
way out for the hero of the story.  Not only didn't Frodo get 
anything from the ring, it destroyed him.  Again,  using this 
particular series as an example of "plot-coupons equals badly 
written story" is a mistake, I think.  Because if JKR uses the 
horcruxes half as well as Tolkien used the ring, her story will be 
well-told, IMO.

> >>Neri:
> 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. 

Betsy Hp:
Rectify what?  How have the horcruxes ruined the story right now?  I 
know you *worry* that suddenly JKR will write a video game or a 
cheap, trite, fantasy tale (with Ginny in judiciously ripped gowns, 
I suppose? <g>) but she hasn't fallen into those sort of traps yet, 
has she?

Quite frankly the very fact that there is more than one horcrux fits 
neatly into Voldemort's fear of death.  "If one talisman is good, 
more talismen are better."  It's not like JKR pulled this out of 
nowhere in book 6.  I think Jen R. has already pointed out that JKR 
*is* following a theme with these plot coupons, and that's what 
makes a difference between a well told story and a poorly told one.

So, yeah, not really saying JKR is subverting plot coupons with the 
horcruxes.  But I'm not sure she needs to.  When they work, they 
work.  And I'm quite confident that JKR will make them work.  She's 
already handled them well, IMO.

Betsy Hp