ESE! JKR? Is it war?

[Ken Hutchinson]

No: HPFGUIDX 154849

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Patricia Hurley <patriciah711 at ...> wrote:
>
> Patricia: 
>   As for using military equipment and not civilian weaponry, you
> should consider any soldier who fought using only a gun or sword as
> non-military and therefore not part of a war. This would also apply
> to Native Americans who foolishly fought to save their land with bows
> and arrows and tomahawks (civilian hunting equipment) in what they
> thought (but were wrong) was a war. 

Ken:
Military equipment often diffuses into civilian uses. Other than personal
protection I am not aware of any civilian use of a sword. Guns have 
application as hunting weapons. But even so military weapons often
differ from the civilian weapons or tools that are derived from them. 
You would not carry a sword heavy enough to cleave a shield or a 
helmet for personal protection during a night on the town. The 
Winchester you buy to hunt deer won't have a bayonet attachment
socket. I've held a native American stone tomahawk that my father
found in a streambed while duck hunting. The cutting edge on this 
tool was far, far too blunt to fell a tree. Its only possible use was 
cracking human skulls in a battle. Real war always breeds specialized
tools. The only thing I see in the WW that qualifies is the time turner.
The MoM keeps a tight reign on them, well other than that time they
gave one to a school girl. And then the one time when they could 
have been used to great effect against a known enemy the MoM 
fails to use them at all. These guys aren't exactly Robert E. Lee.
 
> Patricia:
> But perhaps you have missed that the body count is indeed
> very limited and not a single one of the Order or the DA has killed
> anyone. It's only the opposing side that is doing the killing. 

No, I did not miss this point at all. It is the key to my contention
that this is a police action not a war. In a war both sides do 
the same thing to each other to the extent that their relative
resources allow. Policemen try to capture their opponents and
bring them to justice. One side is acting like gangsters, coup 
plotters, or terrorists, take your pick. The other side is acting 
like policemen.

I take your point from the dictionary definition (not quoted). I
don't know what the dictionary editors had in mind by a party
to a war. I don't consider the long lasting conflict between 
police and organized crime to be a war. Armed conflicts between
nations and states are obviously wars but I think you have to 
be selective about calling armed conflicts between parties 
a war and to my mind this isn't one. If the defense starts
killing indiscriminately then it could at least be argued that
it is a war. If one side continues to act like police I don't buy 
it.


>  Patricia:
>   And saying this book isn't about death seriously cheapens some of
> the points JKR has struggled to present. 

Ken:
Well, I think it is JKR who will be cheapening her point (if it is death)
by killing off too many people. Lord of the Rings is not a story about
death yet precisely because there are so few among the main 
characters the deaths in that story are very powerful. This makes 
the little page time that is spent reflecting on them more effective
than it would have been if many deaths were packed into the same
considerable amount of action.

As I see it JKR is going to have to cover a lot of ground in a big hurry
to conclude this story in a single book that is no larger than OoP. And
she says she is going to kill off *at least* two more main characters.
I hope you think Harry has reflected enough on the deaths that have
occurred to date to make JKR's point because he won't have any time
to consider them or the forthcoming deaths in this last book. Tolkien 
didn't even try to cover so many deaths in a work that is larger than
this last book will be. And we don't even know that Harry will be 
alive to reflect on anything.

I fear that the direction JKR is taking has made this story primarily 
a story about how Harry Potter saves the wizarding world whether 
that is the story she wanted to tell or not.  Harry may reflect
on death on those rare occasions when he has time to catch his 
breath. But if she really wants to consider death and its effects on
the survivors she should have disposed of LV and his gang in book
six. In order to give the characters adequate time to come to terms
with the deaths they have seen so far she would have to finish him 
off very early in book seven. Given what we've seen so far I bet he
isn't finished until late in the next to last chapter. The rest of the 
book will have to be one long car chase and the deaths that occur
in book seven will have to be given short shrift.

Ken