Suspension of disbelief - Being dependent

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 182505

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > Well, yes.  But good writers think up a reason for good guy 1 
> > failing.  JKR doesn't, IMO.

> >>Mike:
> Here, I'm going to disagree with you ever so slightly. If Good Guy 
> 1 is DD, the reason DD couldn't stop him was acceptable imo. DD was 
> painted as the consumate "give em a second chance" guy.
> <snip>
> Combine that with DD's idiotic penchant for secrecy - which was 
> nontheless sold extremely well throughout the series - and you have 
> a reasonable excuse for why Good Guy 1 failed to stop Bad Guy A    
> early on, imo.

Betsy Hp:
I've been meaning to get to this point of yours, Mike, for days 
(*days*!) only I keep forgetting.  Because yes, I totally agree JKR 
did a good job showing why Dumbledore failed when it came to 
Voldemort.  

[Aside: My issue with Dumbledore as a character is this sense I have 
that several of his weaknesses seem to not be perceived as such by 
JKR.  And that she doesn't expect us, her readers, to see Dumbledore 
as so completely flawed.  Mainly because Harry doesn't move beyond 
him.  Again, a lack of growing up.]

But! Dumbledore is famously outside the system.  He rejects the 
Aurors, the Ministry, pretty much everyone who hasn't declared a 
personal loyalty to him (though he does keep his faithful as far out 
of the loop as he can).

My problem is where were the regulars?  Why did Crouch Sr. fail at 
stopping Voldemort?  Why didn't the Aurors at the very least figure 
out the Tom Riddle connection?  They're supposed to be the best of 
the WW's police force, and they'd have to be on the level of Keystone 
Cops to not pick up on at least *some* of Voldemort's weaknesses.

I suspect we're supposed to decide that everyone kind of flailed at 
Voldemort's appearance (pretty much at the *moment* of his 
appearance) and fell desperately at Dumbledore's feet.  And 
Dumbledore, being mad, decided to wait for a designated hero.

But this does mean we need to look at the WW as an idiot world.  
Which I don't like.


> >>Mike:
> <snip>
> But Arthur Weasley, to me, is the embodiment of the whole WW       
> problem with fighting a tyrant like Voldemort. Back in GoF, Arthur 
> oozed fear of anything Voldemort in explaining the way it was in    
> VW1. And Arthur, though typical of your average wizard, wasn't a    
> resistance fighter nor a soldier. He fell asleep on guard duty and 
> it almost cost him his life. That's the kind of mentality that      
> permeates the WW, with a few exceptions like Moody and Kingsley.    
> They aren't equipped with the mentality to fight the good fight,   
> nor the soldiering acumen to know what's important.
> Why aren't they equipped? Because they are intellectually lazy. 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Agreed.  But the fact that Moody and Kingsley *put* Arthur on guard 
duty, the fact that Arthur has top billing in the resistance, means 
that Moody and Kingsley aren't really all that.  (Hell, the "Three 
Amigos" did a better job preparing their civilian charges to stand up 
against a tyrant.  And they were *actors*! <bg>)

For Voldemort to get as far as he did means that *everyone* opposing 
him were pretty much on the level of Arthur.  As we see in DH, where 
pranking an office or two seems to be about the extent of 
the "resistance".

> >>Mike:
> I'm convinced that if Snape hadn't loved Lily, the evil side would 
> have won this war in VW1. Snape was one of the few intellectuals    
> that could have swayed the balance of power into Voldemort's camp. 
> Then again, a living James, Sirius and Lily all putting in an      
> earnest effort, may have countered Snape's serious mind. They at    
> least seemed to have the fortitude to stand up to Voldemort.

Betsy Hp:
I disagree there.  James and Lily lost all my respect by failing to 
arm themselves.  Sirius...  it's hard to tell with him because we 
meet him when he's a broken wreck of a man.  One assumes he was a 
tiny bit better back in the day, but we never see that day.  He at 
least showed a wise lack of trust in Dumbledore (always a plus in my 
book) but not when we knew him.

And Snape...  God, the horror of his story.  He was a dog in the end, 
not a man, unfortunately.  The Snape in my head would have been 
excellent, but JKR's Snape?  ::sigh::  There was no "there" there in 
the end.  The facade of intellect, but no staying power.  (JKR killed 
Snape in just about every way she could for me.  Alas.)

Betsy Hp (so eager to be off the road it's stopped being funny)