Quick Questionnaire v1.1

[dungrollin]

No: HPFGUIDX 168637

> zgirnius:
> The instance I was most thinking of, actually, was Harry being 
helped by the shades of James and Lily, who come out of Voldemort's 
wand as a consequence of the Priori Incantatem effect in GoF. 
Personally, to me this felt like a bit more than an old video or 
voice recording or photo. They came, suggested a course of action, 
and took actions of their own which helped Harry to escape. There was 
also a component of poetic justice in the scene, as the shades 
helping Harry and hindering Voldemort were all those of Voldemort's 
victims (Frank Bryce, certainly not a loved one of Harry, was the 
first out).
> 
> <snip quote>
> Dungrollin: 
> > I dunno. I'm probably rationalising. I can't shake the feeling 
that she'd be undermining herself by allowing Harry to see Sirius 
again before he dies.
> 
> zgirnius:
> I just want to be perfectly clear here. I understand you are 
> expressing a personal preference, about how you would feel/react to 
a 
> particular plot twist and why, and I am not trying to change your 
> mind. I simply find this discussion interesting, which is why I am 
> keeping on. :)

Dungrollin:
Yeah, I appreciate that. It's quite interesting for me to try to work 
out why I don't like the idea, and I don't think my reasons are good 
enough for me to say that I don't believe it will happen. 

Zgirnius:
> That quote about the Mirror of Erised in PS/SS did not prevent her 
> from bringing Harry's parents back again, to help him, in GoF. 
While 
> Sirius's immediate killer was his cousin Bellatrix, surely he was a 
> victim of Voldemort too. 
 
Dungrollin:
As I said in my response to Hickengruendler (msg 168601) I think that 
she's made a distinction between the PI shades and the actual soul 
which has passed on. Dumbledore describes them as echos, and I do 
think that crossing the veil and encountering the bit of Sirius that 
would *not* be preserved in paintings/photos/ghosts etc would be 
different. I'm quite possibly making a false distinction here, or at 
least, overplaying one that JKR has only really hinted at. But see 
that post for a better explanation.

Zgirnius:
> I guess my view is that in real life, people hold assorted beliefs 
> about the afterlife and what happens to the departed after death. 
> But, intending no disrespect to anyone's religious views, these 
> beliefs are held as a matter of faith - the believers can't point 
to 
> obvious, well-known phenomena that suggest (for example) some 
> continuation of the consciousness after death.
 
Dungrollin:
Yep, I'm trying very hard to think in Potterverse terms and not bring 
my own prejudices into it.

Zgirnius:
> In the wizarding world we have ghosts, we have the rare phenomenon 
in GoF (which, however, Dumbledore was certainly familiar with), and 
we have the Veil (Luna seems to know exactly what the voices she 
hears are). The dead cannot come back, but it seems to me a bit more 
is known about their final disposition, and in particular, the views 
I personally hold on the matter (death is the end of our 
consciousness, nothing lives on except our children, the works we 
leave behind, and the memories the living have of us) are rather 
contradicted by facts I could observe, were I a witch.

Dungrollin:
I agree, both with your views on death in the Potterverse and in RL. 
But I've always had the impression that JKR was leaving what really 
comes after death as a mystery (the bit after "going on". When Harry 
asks NHN "What happens when you die, anyway?", Nick says that he 
can't answer. "I know nothing of the secrets of death, Harry, for I 
chose my feeble imitation of life instead. I believe learned wizards 
study the matter in the Department of Mysteries –" (OotP ch38 UK 
p759). Dumbledore famously regards death as "The next great 
adventure." 

I suspect that the WW may know a little about what happens 
immediately after you die, but I doubt that they know anything about 
what happens after the ghosts have been sorted from those who will go 
on to that next great adventure. But that's just my impression.

Zgirnius:
> The possibility that Harry might once again see his loved ones, 
> including Sirius, under some rare, special, and highly magical 
> circumstances, would not seem to me a late and novel addition to 
what 
> we have already seen. I would imagine that, were there to be such a 
> scene in DH, it would be short and poignant. For example, there 
might 
> be a time limit before Harry and/or Sirius would have to return to 
> their proper places. Or the reunion could only be for a specific 
> purpose, so they could not really take the time to enjoy one 
> another's presence instead of the task at hand, or some such. 
 
Yeah. Could be. Switching to a broader brush for a moment, what would 
be the actual point of making Harry and Sirius meet? Purely for plot-
related reasons, i.e. Harry needs a hand from someone on the other 
side? Or would it have to be specifically Sirius? Do they have 
unfinished business that needs taking care of? Or would we be looking 
for the emotional impact that the meeting would have on Harry? But if 
this is already the grand finale, and the reunion must be short and 
poignant, is there enough time for the emotional impact on Harry to 
make a difference to anything? 

I'm certain I'm not expressing myself well; it just - given that 
quote upthread - smells slightly of self-indulgence to me. I do 
appreciate that other readers might find it incredibly moving, and 
I'm not even sure that I wouldn't when it came to it.  

Zgirnius:
> I think the inclusion of ghosts, etc. in the story is a reflection 
of 
> Rowling's own beliefs (influenced by her Christianity, no doubt, 
> though I would not care to comment on their orthodoxy within any 
> particular sect, being myself no expert). I don't think she 
believes 
> in ghosts, just some form of an afterlife. However, by having these 
> more tangible proofs of an afterlife in her world, she can show 
what 
> she sees as the proper attitude towards death within a context in 
> which her assumptions about it are factual. 
>
In the end, Harry may 
> have seen some/all of his departed loved ones again, but (supposing 
> he is not, himself, dead) he will have to go back to his life with 
> some fond memories and the assurance (which in Real Life would be 
> faith-based) that at the proper time, when his moment comes, he 
will 
> be rejoining them.

Dungrollin:
I think you've put your finger on it here. We don't get such solid 
reassurances in real life, we have to make do without them, no matter 
how much we would want to believe we'll be reunited with our 
antecedents. A fictional reassurance from a novel is no good for the 
reader. If she really wants to make a point about death, about our 
reactions to death and ways of dealing with death (both our own, and 
those of friends and family) I think she has to keep some semblance 
of reality within the magical weave.

It may be that she believes she's already made the point that I'm 
going on about with the Mirror of Erised, and any potential journey 
to the underworld will be for making an entirely different point. 


Shaunette:
I realize this is a tiny part of the points made in Dungrollin's post,
just wondering why a ghost is not considered the soul itself? I was
under the impression that ghosts are the souls of those who are too
afraid to "let go" and cross over to the other side, as explained by
NHNick?

Dungrollin:

Yeah, I thought they ought to be the actual souls themselves until I 
read OotP. NHN says that "Wizards can leave an imprint of themselves 
upon the earth, to walk palely where their living selves once trod." 
(OotP, ch 38, UK p758). Snape also says "
 A ghost, as I trust that 
you are all aware by now, is the imprint of a departed soul left upon 
the earth 
" (HBP ch21 UK p431). The implication being that the 
imprint which is left behind is a pale copy of the real them. Nick 
also says "
 in fact, *I* am neither here nor there [
] I know 
nothing of the secrets of death, Harry, for I chose my feeble 
imitation of life instead." So a ghost's soul has not "gone on" to 
where all the others go, but neither is it still around in this 
world. At least, that's my interpretation. 

Dung
Not at all sure that she's making sense.