Suspension of disbelief - Being dependent

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 182462

> >>Pippin:
> <snip>
> The burden of this thread, IIRC, was that the WW should have been   
> able to fight this war without Harry... <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Right.  Actually, my thinking is that Voldemort should have been 
beaten before Harry was born.  Or before he was even a twinkle, for 
that matter.  

What it comes down to, for me, is that when we finally see Voldemort 
in all his terrifying glory... he just ain't all that.  Looking at 
his antics during DH, looking at the people he surrounded himself 
with, looking at how he *treated* those he surrounded himself with, 
it makes no sense to me that Voldemort was able to terrorize the WW 
so completely.  

[Aaaaand, this is the place where everyone rushes to tell me there 
are plenty of times in history when some nincompoop with delusions of 
granduer managed to completely subjugate a people with the help of 
idiots and brutes.  Like Alla has pointed out before me, the usual 
suspects don't actually fit the bill.  On the whole they had their 
horrifying version of genius, they had intelligent helpers, and they 
faced down attempts to stop them before they got too far.  So, not at 
all like Voldemort.]  

I don't see what was so gosh darn unstoppable about the man that 
everyone in the WW hung around waiting for a Chosen One to be 
announced, birthed, marked and then tempered in the molton heat of 
life as an abused Muggle.

And then once we finally *do* get to Harry, I don't see what Harry 
did that no one else could do.  What was so *special* about this 
kid.  He was no brain trust, to say the least.  He was athletic, but 
not passionately so, and his particular athletic talent had nothing 
to do with his quest.  And, despite the hype (and the buildup), Harry 
wasn't particularly compassionate.  Heck, he wasn't really that good 
at teammbuilding (something I thought the horcrux hunt was setting 
him up to be).  

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>
> > This is part of the reason I don't see this series as a coming of 
> > age tale.  Harry remains Dumbledore's good little baby boy:      
> > obedient even unto death. And that's how he wins.
> > (Huh... A sign of Tom's evilness was his independence... I think
> > there's something there, actually. Perhaps JKR is saying we
> > *shouldn't* grow up?)


> >>Pippin:
> Put down your coffee, I sort of agree with you. JKR doesn't see    
> coming of age as achieving independence, IMO. You come of age in   
> canon when you cease to focus on independence and start to see that 
> we are all, like it or not, deeply dependent on one another. Harry 
> was not Dumbledore's man because he depended on Dumbledore. He was
> Dumbledore's man (and I think after King's Cross he would continue 
> to say so) because Dumbledore could depend on him.

Betsy Hp:
Okay, now you put down *your* coffe cup because...  Yeah, that 
actually makes a whole lot of sense. <bg>

But!  I don't like it. <rbg>  Which, obviously, I didn't like the 
overall message of the series as well as the way it was told, so that 
part probably isn't a surprise.

And actually, if JKR does feel people are better off being dependent 
on others rather than independent, than it makes sense that the WW 
felt they needed a designated hero to go out and rid them of their 
big bad.  Until someone was actually *assigned* the role, I suppose 
it would have been presumptuous for someone to just try on their own 
(or rally others to try with him or her).  So even Dumbledore had to 
pretty much sit on his hands, do his bit to maintain a minimal amount 
of status quo, until a voice came from on high to say "here is your 
hero."

I don't think this reflects human nature all that much.  But as 
author JKR can make the people of her world act as she chooses.

> >>Pippin:
> > You're saying it would be *harder* for Harry to give himself up to
> > someone who was right? Because otherwise I don't see why we should
> > care.

> >>Magpie:
> Yeah, I'm saying that martyring yourself heroically to save others
> similar to the way Jesus did would be far less humbling because it
> requires none of the reassessment of himself than the storyline     
> Betsy had talked about pre-DH and post-DH. 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Yes, I was talking about Harry having that horrible moment when you 
realize your preconceived notions are wrong.  Something that most 
everyone goes through at one point or another, and something pretty 
standard in coming of age tales.  Or really, any story where the 
protagonist changes.  In the Disney movie, "Beauty and the Beast" the 
motherly teapot sings of their love beginning when they both have 
a "learning you were wrong" moment.  I'd been hoping for Harry to 
have such a moment.  He didn't.

But I think that if JKR was writing a story that warned against being 
independent it makes sense that the boy chosen to be the hero was 
heroic from the get go.  After all, he's the guy chosen from the 
voice on high.  You don't want that guy to be wrong about anything 
since he's the only one able to save the day. 

Betsy Hp