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

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 147983

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > The subversion comes from Dumbledore's great reluctance to do    
> > the above. [Fill Wise Old Man role -- see upthread]

> >>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.

Betsy Hp:
I want to clarify my position, for my own sake really, because I 
don't want to fall into the trap of moving too far to an 
unsupportable extreme argument.

Is Dumbledore a Wise Old Man?  Yes, of course he is.  As you point 
out, Neri, he has all the earmarks of one.  He knows more than the 
hero, he teaches the hero, and he supports the hero.  And he 
doesn't, cannot, fight the battle for the hero.

But is he a mere cliche, or does Dumbledore have some basic 
characterizations unique to himself?  I think he does.  For one, the 
Wise Old Man thing is new to him.  Previously, Dumbledore *was* the 
hero.  First he felled a Dark Lord (by himself, IIRC).  Second, he 
set up a sort of round table to take on the next Dark Lord.  And it 
was *Dumbledore* who ran things.  There wasn't another hero (like 
James for example) being advised by the Wise Old Man.

For another, Dumbledore makes a *lot* of mistakes.  His hero usually 
finds himself tripping into battle, unprepared and generally grossly 
outmatched and uninformed.  (Not like Yoda and Ben telling Luke he's 
not ready to face Vader, but they won't stop him.  Dumbledore, in a 
similiar position, would have either stopped Luke or gone to try and 
rescue his friends himself, IMO.) Often, Dumbledore himself has had 
to swoop in and save the day.  And not because Dumbledore is 
standing aside, assesing his hero's strengths and weaknesses.  
Usually it's because in one way or another, Dumbledore has made a 
mistake. 
 
The main reason for Dumbledore's mistakes, I think, is his lack of 
experience in the Wise Old Man role.  Because Dumbledore has never 
played the part of adviser to the hero before, he's feeling his way 
along as much as Harry is.  More probably, because the Wise Old Man 
relies quite heavily on calculated judgement while the hero depends 
a great deal on instinct.  Dumbledore, used to being the hero, is 
having to bring a whole new skill set into play.  Being a headmaster 
has given him some practice, I'm sure, and I think Dumbledore is 
quite a stratigic thinker.  But he's at his most powerful and most 
natural, IMO, when he's the center of the action, rather than 
standing at the side-lines.

Above all, I disagree that Dumbledore's reluctance to become the 
Wise Old Man is of no importance.  It provided almost all of the 
plot for OotP, but I think it's presence has been felt throughout 
the series.  I've seen many a reader express the same sigh of relief 
that Harry does when Dumbledore finally takes him under his wing and 
starts fully playing the part of the Wise Old Man.  It was a relief, 
I think, because Dumbledore fought against doing so for so long.  I 
believe he actually states that he didn't want to be seen singling 
Harry out.  But that's what the Wise Old Man is *supposed* to do 
with the hero.  That's one of his basic jobs.

Like the Prophecy is a prophecy, but is subverted by the 
introduction of choice, I think Dumbledore is a Wise Old Man, but 
the cliche is subverted by his not wanting the role.  (Actually, it 
sort of reverses the old "but I don't *want* to be a hero!" cliche.  
Harry has been ready and willing to face down Voldemort from age 
eleven.  It was Dumbledore who tried to hold him back.) 

> >>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.

Betsy Hp:
I guess the horcruxes don't bother me for two reasons:

1) They don't strike me as an arbitrary thing based on an odd quirk 
of Voldemort's.  They are his reason for being.  His entire life has 
been about cheating death.  Here is how he's attempting it.  And 
here is how Harry will stop him.  That seems fully thematic rather 
than any sort of forced plot pulling the theme out of shape.

2) Their number, and what they are suspected of being fits in 
perfectly with the "United Hogwarts" theme, IMO.  I strongly suspect 
Harry will need the support of all four houses to find and/or 
destroy the remaining horcruxes.  Zacharias Smith for Hufflepuff, 
Luna Lovegood for Ravenclaw, Draco Malfoy for Slytherin, and I'll 
guess Ginny Weasley for Gryffindor (making her a bit more than a 
prize for Harry, and giving her bad-blood with Smith some meaning).

I'm *much* more interested in seeing Hogwarts healed than the MoM 
cleansed of corruption or the WW and the Muggle world uniting.  The 
first is, I think, quite doable (and rather heavily foreshadowed).  
The second seems impossible to achieve in just one year and by a 
schoolboy, at that.  (Though if Hogwarts is healed I imagine some 
sort of good would spread through the WW.)

Betsy Hp