Suspension of disbelief -Idiots of War

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 182455

Magpie:
In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "sistermagpie" 
> > Though of course, I think what Betsy is questioning is why this 
is 
> > all anybody thought they could manage. It's not unbelievable, 
for 
> > instance, that Harry and his friends slip out of the DE's grasp 
for 
> > months.
> 
> Pippin:
> It was what they thought they could manage without provoking 
massive
> retaliation against innocent people, IMO. Umbridge was at least
> concerned to find the guilty parties. But Voldemort wouldn't have
> cared -- he'd happily execute innocent people as a warning to the
> others. History shows this method of deterrence is quite effective 
if
> you have the stomach for it. 

Magpie:
There's no indication this idea is stopping anybody from doing 
anything. Nobody is afraid that the rain in the office is going to 
get anyone killed that we see. It's handled pretty much the way the 
pranks against Umbridge are. 

Pippin:
> Besides that, if you get 90% of your work done in a bombed-out 
office,
> you're a hero. But nobody's going to want to tell his superiors 
that
> wand confiscations are down 10% because of some stupid practical 
joke.
> You'd keep your head down, bury the bad news in bureaucratic
> obfuscation, and hope that the pranksters pick on somebody else 
next
> week. So now not only is work not getting done, the bosses don't 
know
> about it. Downside, neither does anyone else. But the idea is to
> hinder the enemy, not to do stuff just to make it look like your 
doing
> something, right?

Magpie:
So somebody pranked this one guy because they thought they could 
keep it off Voldemort's radar, but you can't really mess things up 
because Voldemort might notice and get mad. Keep your head down. We 
don't hear of any mass slaughter resulting from the Trio's grand 
standing at the MoM. Did they do something awful that got people 
killed there? It frankly doesn't seem like Voldemort is taking much 
interest in productivity the way you're describing here. Somebody 
pranked somebody they didn't like at the office in a way that didn't 
risk much or have all that much effect.

> > Magpie:
>  Harry had very  smooth sailing around all those kinds of 
potentially
> more humiliating and humbling conflicts and challenges. The book
> wasn't ever going  there, it turned out.
> 
> Pippin:
> Harry did have to humble himself to someone who hated him. He had 
to
> surrender to Voldemort, who abused his body and displayed it to
> Harry's grieving friends. 

Magpie:
Harry's not humbling himself, he's martyring himself. He's 
completely right and Voldemort is completely wrong. 

Pippin: 
> It's true we don't see Harry ever choosing to humble himself to
> someone *he* hated. But why should he? Why shouldn't canon say that
> you don't have to choose to humble yourself to someone you hate,
> because if you have the choice not to humble yourself, you have the
> choice not to hate also?

Magpie:
He doesn't have to. I was just describing what kind of development 
Betsy was imo talking about. Which isn't about Harry humbling 
himself before others but having experiences which are humbling. 

-m