[HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: DH7 - Scrimgeour

[Katie Spilman]

No: HPFGUIDX 179090





 

To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com
From: montavilla47 at yahoo.com
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 19:24:15 +0000
Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: DH7 - Scrimgeour
















  


    
            --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "prep0strus" <prep0strus at ...> wrote:

>

> KJ:

> > 17.	Does anyone feel that the antagonism between Scrimgeour and Harry

> > is too contrived? Is it necessary to the plot?

> 

> Prep0strus:

> I realize that Scrimgeour

> is not nearly the character Draco is, but I'm curious whether anyone

> else had a response like mine, or whether people simply expected him

> to be and accepted him as this tertiary character with little impact

> or purpose of character.

> 


Katie S.I feel like Scrimgeour was introduced to make the fall of the ministry seem more prominent.  Here was a man who was clearly a capable, fierce fighter against dark wizards, probably the best person FOR the job at the time, and LV still killed him and infiltrated the ministry--something he failed to accomplish last time.  I think the build up on Scrimgeour was to show how things were WORSE this time than last time LV was in power.  The fact that he died without giving up Harry serves no other real purpose other than to show that it wasn't that he was weak, it was just that governments can do very little against "evil" (whatever that is).  
Had Fudge been killed and the ministry infiltrated we would have rolled our eyes, shrugged and said, "What did you expect?"  But when Scrimgeour was killed and the ministry fell I literally had chills.




Montavilla47:

I missed out on most of the pre-HBP excitement about Scrimgeour--

I didn't read the teaser description of him and so on.  But I also found

him a disappointment.  Perhaps the point was to show that Fudge

wasn't really the problem with the Ministry--that no matter who led

it, it was never going to be effective?



The way that the ministry was portrayed in HBP came off to me like a

satiric response to government response to 9/11 and terrorism in 

general.  That's probably American bias, because in the U.S., the 

government was very ineffective (although the local response to the 

emergency was admirable--at least the firefighters and police were. 

I'd rather not start a debate on the command center or details like

that.)



There was also a lot of fuss and silly information--like the big

idea of duct-taping your windows and the Homeland Security

Alerts color wheel.  So, the safety brochures and Scrimgeour wanting

Harry to pop in to the Ministry to boost morale seemed like a 

take off on silly government P.R. plans. (And how was Harry 

supposed to "pop" into the Minstry, anyway?  He was at school

most of the year.)



But, all the same, I felt like neither Dumbledore nor Harry was 

giving Scrimgeour any help at all--which was really petty of them.

Would it hurt to give some moral support to the Ministry, now 

that it *was* doing the right thing?  



The thing that really annoyed me was Harry demanding that

Stan Shunpike be released, when he had nothing to go on but

rumors.  Sure, Stan Shunpike *most likely* innocent of 

involvement with the Death Eaters--but Harry should have 

been demanding a review of the evidence, instead of 

demanding that a prisoner be released simply because he

said so.  Why should he *assume* that there was no reason

to arrest Stan Shunpike?



It's sort of the same assumption that James makes about

his friends, isn't it?  



Montavilla47




      

    
    
















_________________________________________________________________
Peek-a-boo FREE Tricks & Treats for You!
http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]