Ungrateful Werewolf ( Was Re: Character Given A Reprieve)

[va32h]

No: HPFGUIDX 175653

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "frumenta" <p_yanna at ...> wrote:

And there is trust and there's mind-boggling stupidity. Now, unless
it's canon that when James' friends came over for a visit they'd
blast his door open I just don't see why James would sprint to the
hall wandless to see what the hell just happened. It sucks that the
ended up in this situation and it sucks that he died but I just
don't see WTF he was thinking.

<snip>

No, he probably didn't stand a chance. But his death could have been
a little less ridiculous, is all. And they definitely needed a
backup plan as to getting out of there besides the whole Secret
Keeper crap. Ever heard of portkeys? Apparition? Oh, well... JKR
needed her sacrifice and all but there are more holes in that plot
than swiss cheese.

va32h:

Right, JKR needed it to work that way, so let's blame her and not the 
poor character to whom she gave the shaft. 

This is the first we've heard that James had no wand - and it would 
seem to contradict what was implied in previous books - Voldemort 
wanting Harry to duel with him, like his father. 

My first thought was - oh well JKR is tired of being asked why James 
and Lily didn't Apparate or use a Portkey or otherwise escape, so she 
made a new rule (Apparition requires wands) and made James and Lily 
wandless in that scene. 

I think it's pretty lame myself, and just another piece of evidence 
that JKR really didn't give two figs about whether this book was any 
good or not. 

And I know I'll get accused of being an ungrateful nit-picker, so let 
me just add my usual disclaimer. 

Yes, the little things matter, because it is the sum of these little 
things that make the reader trust the author. Trust that whatever 
she's telling us is actually important, and not just another Flint. 

When the author chronically makes mistakes or creates plotholes, it 
becomes impossible to take anything she says seriously. Is this scene 
with James really trying to say anything about James or the notion of 
sacrfice? Or is it just a poorly-thought-out response to a 
longstanding fan question.

va32h