Suspension of disbelief - Being dependent

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 182501

> >>Carol:
> <snip>
> It seems that the DEs were formidable only when they had a         
> leader... <snip> 

Betsy Hp:
For me, the DEs seemed more formidable until I actually *met* them.  
That's the whole problem.  I look at Voldemort, I look at the DEs, 
and I can't imagine them getting anywhere with anything, let alone 
taking over a nation.

> >>Carol:
> I'm not sure what you mean about what happened with Regulus spelling
> hid doom.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
In trying to figure out "how the WW works", I had the working idea 
that old families meant something.  That they had power and influence 
(it's the only thing Draco had going for him, for example).  But if 
that were the case, than Voldemort killing off the last of an old 
family like the Blacks (and we're given the impression that the 
Blacks were of the oldest and most powerful) would cause him to lose 
some power.  But it didn't make a blip.

I suppose there's some sort of way to force a logic on the situation 
(make up unnamed families, determine Sirius didn't know what he was 
talking about regarding his brother or his family's status, etc) but 
I can't be bothered.  So, for me, Voldemort's earlier victories are 
pasted on.  He arrived a blatant destroyer and for some odd reason 
the WW caved.

> >>Carol:
> <snip>
> And I really don't see why you think that finding Voldie and       
> bringing him down is so easy.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Because throughout history men with vast more intelligence, cunning, 
and charisma have been brought down.  JKR didn't show me any reason 
for Voldemort succeeding.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>
> > But I also agree with both Alla and Carol that part of that
> > nakedness is that he's an idiot without much in the way of special
> > powers. <snip>

> >>Carol responds:
> Either my post was unclear or you're mistaking my meaning. I did not
> say that Voldie was an idiot with no special powers. What I said,   
> or, at least, what I meant is not that Voldie doesn't have special 
> powers but that we see disappointingly little of those special     
> powers in DH.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Yeah, Alla pointed out that we never see him be clever (my 
interpertaion: he's an idiot), and you pointed out that we don't see 
him *use* any of his special powers (my interpertation: he's got no 
special powers).  If JKR wanted us to see Voldemort as having special 
powers, she should have *shown* him having special powers when we 
finally see him in action.  DH was Voldemort's swan song, and he's 
totally lame.

> >>Carol responds:
> But we don't see any fellow mob bosses because no one can match
> Voldemort's Dark magic.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
So what?  They just crawled under rocks?  Well, no.  Because if they 
existed JKR needed to *show* them.  Whether it was them going up 
against Voldemort and failing because their Dark didn't match his, or 
shown them crawling under rocks because of same.  

We don't see any fellow mob bosses because JKR didn't invent any.

> >>Carol responds:
> But where did you get the idea that these people were mob bosses?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
That was me trying to place logic on the illogical.  Though I think 
Arthur or Molly Weasley (or both?) dropped suggestions about backdoor 
deals and a corrupt Ministry.  Which would require someone doing the 
deals and the corrupting.  But it never really went anywhere.

> >>Pippin:
> The mass breakout from Azkaban and subsequent coverup mentioned in 
> DH could not have happened unless Pius Thicknesse was just the tip 
> of the iceberg. There had to have been massive subversion in the    
> Ministry spreading in secret all the time since Voldemort returned.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Well, so you say.  But there's nothing in DH to show it.  That's what 
I mean about JKR asking her readers to do all of her work for her.  
She just kind of handwaves the WW falling completely at Voldemort's 
feet and the Order wringing their hands by the sidelines (crying on 
Harry to save them) and any reader who wants to have the story makes 
sense has to fanwank a background we don't actually get.

Some folks are cool with doing that.  Others are cool with not 
worrying about it.  For me, I don't like it. <g>

> >>Pippin:
> It is demonstrated in canon that most people, even skilled Aurors, 
> can fall prey to Imperius. Gryffindors are as susceptible as anyone 
> else.
> <snip>
> It's only "handwaving" if you don't believe that mob psychology can 
> do what the Imperius does: make people do terrible things without   
> being able to stop themselves.

Betsy Hp:
Yes, Imperius was a cool weapon.  And JKR could have done something 
with it.  Gosh, using it as a stand in for mob psychology would have 
been an interesting way to go.  Especially since Harry is the only 
person shown to naturally resist the curse.  But she didn't.  (Maybe 
it was too powerful and JKR couldn't figure out how to not have our 
favorite characters fall under its sway?)

> >>Pippin:
> Yep, that's what Snape is afraid of. He doesn't think anyone's     
> really been made responsible until they've been humiliated. Not, of 
> course, that he wants anyone to know what *he's* done. <g> But it   
> never works on Harry -- he felt much more responsible for what he'd 
> done to Draco *before* Snape tried to make him feel bad about it.

Betsy Hp:
Oh.  So Harry not thinking too much about the fact that he nearly 
killed a boy is *Snape's* fault?  Handy. <g>

> >>Pippin:
> I think JKR's position is that basic morality is innate. Unless a
> person is very damaged he will want to do things correctly (as he's
> been taught to perceive correctness), he will feel responsible for 
> the pain he perceives he has caused and he will want things to be   
> fair. If that basic moral circuitry is not in place, you're not     
> going to fix it by making people feel bad about themselves.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Yeah, I agree that this is JKR's position.  It's why being a 
Gryffindor is a free pass.  A Gryffindor is innately moral and need 
not worry about any pesky "life lessons".  And if you're not good 
enough for Gryffindor, feeling bad about various actions won't fix 
the fact that you're missing the proper moral circuitry.  It means 
Harry can slice a rival open or torture an enemy and not bother 
contemplating his actions.

But!  I don't like it. <bg>

> >>Pippin:
> *Enlightenment* -- understanding that in hurting anyone you hurt
> yourself, in robbing anyone you rob yourself-- that's something more
> than the basic moral understanding that most of us are born with (as
> canon sees it) -- that's a choice. And therefore it can't be forced 
> on anyone.

Betsy Hp:
Where does canon show us this?  When does Harry ever get 
enlightened?  When does he learn torturing another is torturing 
himself, for example?

> >>Pippin:
> Enlightenment, as we see, carries with it the danger of
> enlightenment bias, and like any other bias, it can be manipulated 
> to make people do terrible things. Canon suggests one should be    
> alert to this, but that it is still better to be enlightened and   
> biased against the unenlightened than the other way around. YMMV.

Betsy Hp:
Okay...  It does. <g>  Self-rightousness is self-rightousness as far 
as I'm concerned.  Though, again, I don't recall Harry getting 
enlightened.  He ended the books as self-involved as ever as far as I 
could tell.

Betsy Hp