Suspension of disbelief - Being dependent

[hickengruendler]

No: HPFGUIDX 182538

 
> Betsy Hp:
  
> 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.

Hickengruendler:

It added a lot to Harry's part in the story, because it made his 
whole quest much more difficult, since the Trio had to hide and since 
they couldn't be sure whom to trust (see Xenophilius Lovegood). From 
a more practical point of view, JKR made also sure, that the Trio 
couldn't go to Hogwarts to do research in the library or to ask 
Dumbledore's portrait, which is also directly connected to the fall 
of the Ministry.  
  
> 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.  

Hickengruendler:

That's not untrue. The twins (and a few other characters as well) 
often represent JKR's obviously pretty dark sense of humor. And there 
often is some double standard.  

But, to use the same example you did. How do these characters end? 
Dudley gets a redemption scene in the end, and (if you want to count 
JKR's interview) a family and a general Happy Ending. (As did Draco.) 
George looses an ear and Fred dies. It may be a heroe's death and a 
tragical scene, but still, at least Dudley's ending does not show any 
ill-will towards him by the author.
 
  
> 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. 

Hickengruendler:  
 
Luna? Cho? Professor Sprout? Professor Flitwick? All the D.A. members 
from the other houses? Cedric? Okay, some of them are minor 
characters, and Cedric did die, but I disagree, that they were 
portrayed, as if there were anything wrong with them, just because 
they weren't Gryffindors.

> 
> Betsy Hp:
 
> 
> 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.  

Hickengruendler:

Dumbledore said in HBP, that the reason Voldie made Nagini into a 
Horcrux, was, because he felt particularly close to her, closer than 
to any human being. So the close bonding between snakeface and Nagini 
was *before* she became his Horcrux. 

Hickengruendler