Suspension of disbelief - Being dependent

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 182516

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>
> > 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... <snip> 

> >>Lynda:
> Well, there was the MOM being taken over by the DE's and Voldemort. 
> But maybe that doesn't count.

Betsy Hp:
It's doesn't count as the "how" for me because I see it more as 
the "what".  The MoM fell to Voldemort and the DE's, yes.  But I see 
no reason for it to have fallen so easily.  (Far more easily, IMO, 
than any similiar RL event JKR may have meant to evoke.)

> >>Lynda:
> <snip>
> I don't quite get your point about Rowling asking me as a reader to 
> do her work for her:  Wait!  Yes I do!!  Ficitonal books IMO are   
> supposed to spark my imagination and let me think, not spoon feed   
> me someone else's concepts until I'm in a stupor.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I agree that good works of fiction should not spoon feed.  But JKR 
failed at sparking my imagination by straining it too far.  Of course 
it's all a personal judgement call, but the MoM fell with (IMO) 
unbelievable ease.  For it to work in my head I have to *undo* what 
JKR has written and create a whole lot of background events that not 
only aren't alluded to, they actively work against what her actual 
characters are doing.  Which is my point.  JKR isn't sparking my 
imagination.  She's stomping all over it with her own *lack* of 
imagination.  (At least, in my opinion.)

Frankly, since she was so obviously uninterested in the process, I'm 
not sure why she bothered having Voldemort actually take over the 
WW.  It didn't add anything to Harry's part in the story, and it was 
Harry's part she was obviously more interested in.  At least, that's 
how it read to me.

> >>Pippin:
> > I think JKR's position is that basic morality is innate.
> > <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.

> >>zgirnius:
> I believe what Pippin means is that morality is innate to          
> *everyone*, except a damaged few, not merely to Gryffindors. (Only 
> Voldemort for sure, among those we get to know reasonably well).   
> And I agree this is Rowling's position.

Betsy Hp:
The reason I have a hard time seeing JKR's version of "innate 
morality" being for everyone in her universe is that a Gryffindor and 
a not-Gryffindor may take the same action, and that action is judged 
differently within the books.  

For example: Fred (or George) may beat up a younger boy for giving 
him cheek.  And it doesn't have a bearing on Fred's innate morality.  
We're not meant to judge Fred for it.  Dudley (a non-Gryffindor) does 
the same thing, and it's something we as readers are expected to 
judge Dudley's (lack of) morality by.  Harry may go outside the rules 
to achieve his goal (a good potions grade) and it doesn't say 
anything about his moral standing.  If Draco goes outside the rules 
to achieve *his* goal (win a quiddich match), it says something 
negative about his moral standing.

I strongly suspect the reason for this is what you say here:

> >>zgirnius:
> <snip>
> This explains why Gryffindors are for the most part the heroes of
> this story, by the way. All the characters have innate morality, but
> this is a story of life-and-death struggle and danger...so the brave
> characters who can cope with life and death stuiff, come out looking
> best.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Bravery is the end all, be all of JKR's moral ladder of worth in this 
universe.  And Gryffindors (being the house of the brave) are 
naturally on top.  Sure some may screw up and betray their bravery (I 
think JKR would see Peter as an example here), but they are all at 
least starting out with the right attitude.  Anyone not-Gryffindor is 
missing that key component and so starting out life on the wrong 
foot.  And it takes a great deal of scrambling and most likely 
a "heroic death" to make up for that lack.   

But it is a lack and it means a not-Gryffindor will never stand equal 
with a Gryffindor.  I think the best that can be a hoped for is 
a "very nearly there".

> >>Carol:
> <snip>
> *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. 

Betsy Hp:
Just to be clear, I've read what I've snipped.  You aren't being 
ignored. <g>  But I disagree that you're providing examples of 
special powers on Voldemort's part.  He's vicious and blunt and will 
use the magic all wizards have to the fullest extent of his ability, 
no matter what they may do to his victims.  But there's not something 
so uniquely different about his powers that it explains why the WW 
had no choice but to cave to his appearance and await a "special 
hero" to save them.

For example: Any wizard willing to create a horcrux and put their 
piece of soul into an animal will control that animal as well as 
Voldemort controlled his snake.  So his control of Nagini isn't what 
I'd term a special power.  Heck, even parsel tongue became more 
mundane when Ron was able to use it to get into Slytherin's lair.

To tell you the truth, I'm not sure I'd say "special powers" were 
ever really alluded to throughout the series.  I got the sense it was 
more Voldemort's charm, charisma and cunning (ha! how wrong was I?) 
and his willingness to be as vicious as he needed to be that got him 
ahead.  As of DH, I think only his viciousness remained as a real 
part of his nature.  Which I found actually lessened him as a 
villain.  He was reduced to a thug, more willing to be a thug than 
all the thugs surrounding him.  Which, yes, thugs can be scary but it 
doesn't take all that much to take them down.  And they rarely (if 
ever? I can't think of any) achieve world domination.

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

Betsy Hp:
The problem is, I'm explaining (or trying to, anyway <g>) what didn't 
work for me.  So it's not the sort of discussion that I think lends 
itself to concessions.  (At least, not the "suspension of disbelief" 
part.  The "what is the working moral structure of this universe" 
discussion certainly lends itself to more give and take.)

Betsy Hp (happy to be home, *finally*!)