Molly's "revenge" Re: Requiescat in Pace: Unforgivables

[guzuguzu]

No: HPFGUIDX 174874

guzu: 
 
> > Yes, I realize this this is Rowling's point-- mother love 
conquers all (except when it doesn't-- See Tonks and the Albanian 
woman who Voldemort killed while she was shielding her children). It 
still doesn't excuse the scene for me-- there were ways Molly could 
have taken out Bellatrix that would have been more realistic and in 
character, and less (as someone else mentioned upthread) like an 
action movie scene. For me it's not the concept that's wrong, it's 
the execution (no pun intended!) of the scene.

Lisa:
 
> Oh, I disagree with this entirely.  
> 
> First of all, the Tonks analogy is sort of out of place here -- 
Tonks died joining her husband in battle, to assist him in ridding 
the world of evil, and she left her child in good hands.  Would "I" 
have done it?  Well, I guess if I was an auror and I thought I could 
be of help, perhaps; but personally, I'd've not gone.

I get your point. Perhaps I would have found the Molly-Bella duel 
more believable had Tonks (a trained auror) not been so completely 
useless for the past two books. I do not like the idea that Molly 
(someone with no warrior experience or training that we know of) 
succeeded where all the trained warriors failed. Mommy!Tonks killing 
Bella would have made more logical sense to me (though I know Rowling 
wanted Tonks dead so she could have lil' orphan Teddy -- I figured it 
out in the first chapter of DH). And technically, Tonks died while 
checking to see if Lupin was okay-- that's all she talked about. She 
never said one word about fighting or ridding the world of evil. 

Lisa: 
 
> But the "mother's love conquers all" thing?  I don't think Rowling 
> believes this nor do I think she implies such a thing when she has 
> Molly charge Bellatrix.  Molly's actions were fueled by loss and 
fury and desperation, as well as love for her children.  I think it's 
> totally in character for Molly -- or any mother -- to protect her 
> child.  

guzu: 

Well, it was in character for Molly, yes, I should have wrote that 
clearer. I don't think it's in character for hundreds of people, 
including Harry and Ginny, to stand around and watch this duel and do 
nothing to help. Why would they assume that Molly would win when 
Bella has been killing people left and right? 

Lisa: 

Much like adrenaline kicks in for us Muggles, allowing us to do 
things we'd never have thought possible, I would assume super-magic 
kicks in for witches and wizards, in such situations.  Entirely 
> believeable, for that particular character and for the situation in 
> general, to me.

guzu:

That is exactly what I meant by "mother love conquers all." Molly 
single-handedly succeeded where many trained aurors and experienced 
duelers had failed. Since there has never been one mention of Molly 
being particularly talented (unlike Ginny or Herminone, who we've 
heard are unusually strong) or even going on missions for the Order, 
the only good explanation for this is the "super-mother-magic" thing. 
If Molly had used intelligence or ingenuity (as per Hermione), 
instead of straight-out might to win, I might have bought it more 
easily.