Ending WAS : Compassionate hero

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 176075


> Magpie:
> <BIG SNIP>
> In fiction it's more important that they be 
> > believable rather than realistic (lots of things in the story 
> aren't 
> > realistic). 
> 
> Alla:
> 
> For whom it is more important? For me both of these things are 
> important and actually if I see something in fiction that I can 
> characterize as realistic, I will often find them believable too 
> precisely because I can see analogy.

Magpie:
For fiction it's important. Obviously, as you say, these books aren't 
realistic. If we're looking for realism we'd close the books the 
first time an owl is able to carry a large broomstick. But if 
something makes sense only because something like this happened in 
real life, the author cheated, imo. (That is, assuming the author is 
supposed to be writing a contained story and not thinly veiled 
allegory.) It only works because we fill it in for ourselves and so 
oh, they're really [insert real world people]. And in this case 
nothing is being said about the real world incident that sheds light 
on it (as for instance, CS Lewis is basically exploring the ideas of 
Christianity via Narnia), we're just using it to fill in the 
fictional one. 

I mean, the Potterverse actually doesn't hold up completely as any 
one real world setting/time/place, it's a mishmosh as needed. The 
question is whether it works on its own terms, and I think it does 
(as long as we're not looking at the wrong things), but its own terms 
don't say much about being poised for more change to me, and it's not 
like I can check in with them in 20 more years and see where those 
signs went. As you already know, I just don't think the jokey 
conversation that the Trio has about the Malfoys suggests a bigger 
change that the one that happened in canon--the Malfoys are no longer 
threatening (and neither is Slytherin--it's not good, but Voldemort's 
gone).


Alla:
> Magic and all that, I still recognize teenagers angst for example 
in 
> the books – very real one IMO, so I do not see why it cannot be 
that 
> there are other realistic touches as well.

Magpie:
Sure there can be realistic touches. I don't believe this is a 
realistic touch. It's just the way JKR ended her story based on what 
she wanted for a happy ending and what she did in the story. I think 
all the things Harry found truly unacceptable about the WW are 
probably fixed. If Slytherin are supposed to be people I knew at 
school, I'm not seeing any parallels to my real life. 

Alla:
> I think that does happen slowly. I actually wanted something more 
> definite for house elves as well.

Magpie:
The House-Elves seemed definite to me: they're slaves but good 
masters treat them well.


Betsy Hp:
The scene where the Slytherin house flag was not flying in the RoR,
and the scene where the entirety of Slytherin house stood up and
walked out of the school when the battle was met. And most deeply,
most horribly, the scene where Dumbledore told Snape that maybe they
Sorted too early.

Magpie:
How was Harry supposed to do well there if it wasn't personality, 
after all? Though of course, I don't know how Harry was supposed to 
do well anyway, since his personality doesn't fit in with anybody we 
see in the house in all of canon. 

I was reading a fanfic today that I liked for showing the Slytherins 
after the epilogue as people who live with shame. Songs are still 
sung about the Great Battle of Hogwarts, of course, and how Slytherin 
left. I remain completely puzzled how Slytherin is supposed to be in 
a better position after that display (not to mention the whole year 
before that and the last minute saving of the Sorting Hat so that 
everybody didn't become Slytherin).

Carol:

Before responding to this post, I want to ask Betsy a question
regarding the Condoleezza Rice analogy upthread. Did you intend Dr.
Rice to represent what you expected for the Slytherins? It seems to me
that she's more analogous to a Muggleborn. And if Hermione is indeed
high up in the Ministry (admittedly, not mentioned in the epilogue but
stated in an interview), isn't she your Dr. Rice? (It was the
Muggle-borns, along with Muggles and house-elves and goblins, who were
oppressed during DH, not the Slytherins.) I'm not arguing here; I'm
just confused as to which oppressed group you intended Dr. Rice to
represent in your analogy.

Magpie:
Not speaking for Betsy, but reading her post I would say she doesn't 
expect CR to be an analogy for anybody in the Potterverse. She was 
just saying that certain things a person takes for granted in early 
life can change in years to come, so that possibilities change. I 
don't think she works as an analogy for anybody. She's not a 
Slytherin and she's not Hermione. (The WW changes pretty drastically 
the day Voldemort takes over the Ministry, it seems.)

-m