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

[Neri]

No: HPFGUIDX 147945

> Jen D:
> From what I can gather you two are debating, the Horcruxes seem very 
> contrived to Neri, and possibly detract from the overall story 
> because they are simply plot coupons, things to be cashed in for 
> plot movement. I can understand what you mean but I see the 
> potential at the very least, for horcruxes to be imbued with meaning 
> on several levels. Horcruxes tell us something about LV. Remember DD 
> telling Harry in one of their meetings that LV had "magpie-like 
> tendancies?" And that he chooses objects for their deep 
> significance? 

Neri:
As I wrote upthread, this doesn't convince me because plot coupons
frequently come with some excuses for their existence (typically
supplied by the Wise Old Man stock character in some kind of a "plot
dump") and as long as these explanations are rather arbitrary (this or
that quirk of the mad arch-villain) it doesn't really give the plot
coupons that much meaning.  

> bboyminn:
> 
> Just a few random thoughts stimulated by Jen D. I'm sort of mentally
> merging McGuffins, Plot Coupons, and Horcruxes into a generalization
> here. In a sense, for a good writer, the Plot Coupons never really are
> important, but the journey to get them is. In a sense, the Plot
> Coupons are the McGuffins that starts the Plot Ball rolling. 
> 
> The usual tale start something like this. You can keep your life
> and/or your freedom and/or marry my daughter if you will perform seven
> tasks; find the Golden Fleece, bring back that sacred chalice, bring
> me Gladstones Staff, bring to me the Amulet of Samarkand, bring to me
> the Secrets of Shambhala, bring me blah-blah-blah.... Yet when the
> Hero accomplishes the task, what does he do? He hands the object over
> to the King and that is that. The device itself is not significant but
> the journey to retrieve it is, and the lesson learned and friends made
> along the way are very important. 
> 
> Perhaps in Harry's story, the Horcruxes themselves really are not that
> important. Yes, they have some significants to the story, but perhaps
> what Harry learns about himself and about Voldemort, and about who his
> allies are and who he can truly trust, are all very important. 
> 
> Yes, the Horcruxes themselves may be boring predictable Plot Coupons,
> but they may also be the stimulus that sends us on a a wonderous
> journey of discovery. And really... isn't that journey far more
> important and interesting that the object that causes the journey? Are
> we really more interested in Hercules handing over the Fleece to the
> King, or are we more interested in Hercules harrowing fight against
> the giant three-headed cyclops on his way to get the Fleece? 
> 

Neri:
This is of course a possibility, but at least in regard to JKR's
story, the problem with such an approach would be that it tends to
detract from the thematic importance of the plot coupons themselves.
For example, the moral of the Argonauts story might very well be that
the Golden Fleece itself was never worth all the horrible crimes that
were needed to win it, even if it made for a good story. In the Iliad,
Helen (which is used somewhat as a plot coupon) is one of the less
interesting characters, in part because the reader quickly recognizes
that she was hardly worth all those good people dying for her, even if
it did gave us one of the greatest stories in the history of
literature. The perceptive reader is usually quick to recognize, even
if only subconsciously, that certain parts of the story are arbitrary,
and he/she tends to ascribe less importance to these parts even when
the story in general is a wonderful story. I don't think JKR wants us
to feel that the Horcruxes were never really worth it, so I believe
she'll choose the opposite approach, which is to give the plot coupons
(or at least one of them) deeper thematic meaning, and this implies
(almost by definition) *less* arbitrariness. 

> bboyminn:
> Plot Coupons are standard writing fare. What distinguishes Hackney
> Plot Coupons from brilliant Plot Coupons is whether they send us on a
> mindly interesting but mostly predictable journey, or whether they
> send us on a wonderous adventure. 
> 

Neri:
IMO what distinguishes hackney plot coupons (or any other kind hackney
plot devices) is their arbitrariness. I agree with you (and Lowe
mentioned it too) that it is almost impossible to write a story,
especially one with a complex and interesting plot, without *some*
arbitrariness, but the arbitrary parts are those that perceived by the
reader as mere structure or genre conventions (one of Lowe's good
examples were Faster Than Light spaceships in interstellar SF
stories). Therefore a good author would try to make sure that the
really important parts of the plot won't be arbitrary.


> > >>Neri:
> > 1) Wise Old Man identifies Hero and his destiny. 
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Only Dumbledore doesn't.  He tries to *keep* the hero from being 
> identified by hiding the Potters away.  It's Voldemort who picks out 
> the Hero who will destroy him.  Once Harry is forced into the hero 
> role by Voldemort, Dumbledore does do his best to keep him alive.  
> But I had the sense that Dumbledore wished that he'd been able to 
> subvert the whole "destiny" thing from the beginning.
> 

Neri:
Dumbledore was the one to whom the prophecy was made. For 16 years he
was the only person who knew its full content. He placed a protective
magic on baby Harry and gave him to his relatives as part of what he
called "my plan". This is a classic Wise Old Man cliché. It's very
similar to Ben Kenoby giving baby Luke to his relatives or Merlin
giving baby Arthur to Sir Ector to foster.

   
> > >>Neri:
> > 2) Wise Old Man coaches Hero and gives him some key background 
> > information needed for the quest.
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> The subversion comes from Dumbledore's great reluctance to do the 
> above.
> 

Neri:
I don't see the reluctance as very important. The Old Wise Man stock
character has a role given to him by the author, and whether he is
content or reluctant to do it is of little importance. I seem to
remember both Gandalf and Yoda reluctant to share certain secrets with
the hero.

> > >>Neri:
> > 3) Wise Old Man steps aside, willingly or not, in order to let     
> > Hero have his quest alone.
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Again, Dumbledore did this with great reluctance.<snip>

Neri:
Again, I don't see it as important since the author doesn't ask him.
I'm certain Dumbledore was reluctant to be kicked out of Hogwarts by
Lucius and Umbridge, and I'll even hazard a guess that (despite some
theories to the contrary) he was reluctant to die, but the author
fully admitted that she required him to do that so the Hero can stay
alone in the fight.   

  
> Betsy Hp:
> I still think this has the flavor of a future worry. That the last 
> book will end badly because of the horcruxes.  They were predicted 
> by other readers, though.  And they were forshadowed back in the 
> second book.  And the series hasn't been tired and old yet, at least 
> IMO.  The kind of traps Lowe mentioned haven't tripped JKR up yet.  
> I have confidence she won't choke in the final stretch.
> 

Neri:
I'm not saying the series is old and dry. I'm just saying that what is
needed now is some deep thematic value for at least one of the
Horcruxes, and I expressed my belief that JKR *will* do it, the same
way she did it with the prophecy and for very similar reasons.

> > >>Neri:
> > I'm not sure that a stereotypic Wise Old Man should know *all* the 
> > information. Merlin, Gandalf and Yoda surely didn't.
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Didn't they?  Especially compared to the other characters?  I'm 
> trying to recall a moment when Gandalf or Yoda were genuinely 
> stumped.  I mean stumped to the point that, for example, children 
> under their care were being threatened by a deadly and unknown foe 
> for an entire year.  Or stumped to the point of not knowing how to 
> destroy their enemy for many, many years.
> 

Neri:
Regarding Yoda, as I wrote before I avoided the last sequel, but I'm
told there was some business with "younglings" that were under his
care and something terrible happened to them. I can't say to what
degree it was his responsibility. 
 
Regarding Gandalf, I don't remember any children characters in LotR at
all, but would you accept as a replacement the two young hobbits under
his command?

***********************************
WARNING: LORD OF THE RINGS SPOILER FOLLOWS!
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
In "The Two Towers", Ch. 11, Gandalf fails to guard the Palantir in a
safe place, or alternatively warn the rest of his company about any
danger of looking into it. As a result the young hobbit Pippin takes a
look, wins a direct interview with the Dark Lord and nearly dies as a
result. Even worse, only due to sheer luck (Sauron wrongly assuming
that Pippin is Saruman's captive in Isengard) Pippin is not forced to
betray all the company's secrets, including Frodo going to Mordor with
the Ring.  
***********************************

Neri