Suspension of disbelief - Being dependent

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 182507

Betsy Hp:
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. <snip>

Carol responds:

No special powers except a horrible, invasive sort of Legilimency
(shown with gregorovitch); control of the horrible Nagini, whom he can
cause to take over a dead woman's body; Parseltongue (used as part of
his control of Nagini and, earlier, to control the Basilisk);
telekinesis (never shown, unfortunately); and the power of possession
(not shown in DH, admittedly); and the power of creating terrible
potions (the two body-creating potions in GoF, which he directed
Wormtail to create, and the potion that causes horrible suffering for
Dumbledore in HBP and leads to Regulus's death in DH; the Horcruxes,
which we see at work in CoS and DH. We also see him casting some
spectacularly evil spells in his duel with DD in OoP. And, of course,
he can create Inferi, as we saw in HBP. I don't think that Bathilda is
an Inferius; I think she's a corpse inhabited and controlled by
Horcrux!Nagini, a form of possession but using someone wh's already
dead. Bathilda's body shows signs of Dark magic; we just don't know
how she was killed, but it can't be AK, which leaves no mark.)

What we don't see *in DH* is Voldie casting any extraordinary spells
or using any extraordinary magic other than his invasive Legilimency
and flying without a broom (which Snape can also do) and encasing
Nagini in her bubble, even though he clearly *can* perform Dark magic.
(The magic that creates Bathilda!Nagini and locket!Tom and the Inferi
in the cave and the evil potion is all off-page and in the past, in
some cases, long past.) Mostly, he AKs people and loses control.
*That's* what's disappointing about DH!Voldie, IMO. He *does* have
extraordinary powers, as indicated in the preceding paragraph (and in
previous posts, which you've snipped). We just don't see much of them
in DH because he's sidetracked by the quest for the Elder Wand. (I
didn't list breaking into Dumbledore's grave, the last "great" action
of the yew wand, because I don't think it's all that spectacular; any
vandal could do it.)

So I disagree that Voldemort has no special powers. He's had
extraordinary powers since he was a boy. But I agree that we didn't
see much of them (except for the Legilimency and Bathilda!Nagini and
the locket Horcrux)--certainly nothing that would give Voldemort cause
to think that the Elder Wand wasn't working for him. Just what
"extraordinary magic" is he referring to that he performs with the
Elder Wand despite its supposedly not working for him, or working only
as well as the yew wand, which worked perfectly and was exactly suited
to him (except when it came to to fighting Harry)? If we'd seen him
trying to perform extraordinary magic with the Elder Wand and had seen
it not working, fine. But that wand created Nagini's bubble and killed
a lot of DEs after the cup Horcrux was stolen, so why does he think
it's not working for him? I see no reason whatever for him to kill
Snape except that JKR wants Snape to be killed by LV but not AK'd so
that he can have that memorable death scene and give Harry those
memories. 

> 
> 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. <snip>
>
Carol responds:

Cormac mcLaggen and Romilda Vane and *Peter Pettigrew* are "innately
moral"? The bullies James Potter and Sirius Black, whose action in
attacking and publicly humiliating Severus Snape Harry twice
disapproves of, are "innately moral"? (we're shown that Sirius is
wrong and his Slytherin brother Regulus is right when it comes to the
treatment and understanding of Kreacher.)

I agree that Harry was more concerned with his punishment (and Ginny
and missing Quidditch) than with nearly killing someone, but he does
eventually come around to *saving* Draco and both *forgiving* and
*publicly vindicating* Snape (unfortunately, too late for Snape to
hear it). And I agree that he was wrong to torture Amycus, despicable
as Amycus is, but that's before he forgoes vengeance and substitutes
self-sacrifice.

Carol, hoping that Betsy will notice my concessions and make one or
two of her own :-)