Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 180163

Magpie:
<SNIP>
Then we have a scene where
completely different people are described joining the battle later.
If we were told that the Slytherins returned *then* we'd be filling
in. As it is we're not filling in, we're re-writing. Why would I put
them at the battle when the author made a point of telling me they
weren't at the battle?

Alla:

The crowd of people was not described in detail, therefore I do not 
believe author made a point of telling us they were not there. I 
believe she left it vague for us to fill in.

Alla:
> And of course Phinelius' words as some people remarked make little
> or no sense if they did not. To me anyways.

Magpie:
They made perfect sense to me the first time--as they must since
Slytherin students are not written as returning to fight in the book.
Slytherin played an important part in the destruction of Voldemort
without any return of the Slytherin students. Snape alone made a huge
contribution.

Alla:

And they never made much sense to me. I remember your explanation 
but it did seem convoluted to me. How would he know about Regulus 
and Snape? 


Alla:
> I would call her to task if she was writing a book called the story
> of Slytherins and left this moment that unclear.

Magpie:
I don't think anybody's really calling her to task in that way,
though. They're just saying no, that's no what you wrote. The words
are on the page. <SNIP>

Alla:

Yes, the words are on page. The words about crowd of people leading 
by Slytherin head of the house. And as Carol said, there is not even 
an observation that not a single Slytherin was among them. I think 
it is filling in to assume that Slytherin head of the house brought 
some of his students back, I really do.

But would you mind explaining to me how is it different from making 
an assumption that Dumbledore killed people, please? I mean the 
words are on page which does not include Dumbledore killing anybody. 
I would say those are much more explicit than vague description of 
the crowd leading by Slytherin head of the house.

I do want to know when it is okay to make assumptions and when it is 
not. Somehow based on the fact that leading resistance may include 
killing your enemies is fine to assume that Dumbledore killed during 
his life time. And you know what? I accept this as filling in spaces 
even if I do not buy it at all. But I think this assumption based on 
so much more vague and another assumption based on RL. Maybe 
Dumbledore was the leader of the resistance who just managed not to 
kill anybody?

But here we have crowd of people with Slytherin LEADING it. Why is 
it so out of space to assume that some of his students to follow, I 
have no idea. Especially since we know that people were sitting not 
with their houses at the end, etc ( thank you Pippin).

I refuse to read the book without filling in based on what I believe 
is already there, especially when I believe that often enough author 
wants me to and deliberately leaves things ambiguous.

She decided to say it in the interview. I would have been fine if 
she did not as well, but I think it was a perfectly reasonable 
assumption to make. Which some readers made BEFORE she ever said it.

It was not me by the way. I never bought that Slytherins joined 
Voldemort, but I did not think they came back either. But as 
possibility? Sure I thought why not.

I think that part of the beauty is how she forces us to assume and 
then breaks our assumptions to pieces or just leaves them there 
hanging.

JMO,

Alla.