Slytherins come back WAS: Re: My Most Annoying Character/Now Rowling's control

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 180574

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > I think it was Sydney who described Voldemort as more a force of 
> > nature or a monster than an actual antagonist for Harry.  He's   
> > not a character we were supposed to look at for any kind of depth 
> > or nuance (our peep into his childhood made that quite clear).

> >>Mike:
> I wasn't really interested in nuance from Voldemort, I just wanted 
> to be scared of him throughout.
> <snip>
> And then he ... nothing! For two books he wasn't scary at all.
> <snip>
> I needed Voldemort to *be* that "force of nature", as Sydney put   
> it, to justify the fear that he engendered in the WW. For me, LV   
> didn't live up to his billing or his build up.

Betsy Hp:
I completely agree.  Which is why his defeat in the end wasn't all 
that climatic for me.  I suspect (though of course, this is just a 
guess) that Voldemort became diminished because JKR tried to shoehorn 
him into the antagonist role.  Instead of spitting out so much 
information on Voldemort in ready-made, tv-dinner servings, I think 
it'd have been better to have him be this growing force in the 
background.  It's a pretty standard rule of thumb in horror-stories: 
don't give the audience a clear picture of your monster.  Let their 
imaginations do a lot of your work for you.

[This is a bit of an aside but: How cool would it have been if 
Dumbledore had been incapacitated in the *beginning* of HBP (worsen 
his injury or something) and Harry forced to figure out Voldemort's 
background on his own?  Especially if the Tom Riddle=Voldemort 
connection was played like it *wasn't* common knowledge?  The 
creepiness of getting a clearer and clearer picture of a beast you're 
really not all that eager to see...

Oh!  But don't *kill* Dumbledore, just have him be really, really 
sick and maybe needing to be tucked away in his tower for protection 
or something.  That way Draco could still have *his* task (It's an 
injured old man, boy.  Surely you can finish him off while I keep 
dear old mummy company?) and then both Harry and Draco would mirror 
each other's growing desperation...]

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snipperino>
> > So Voldemort didn't need to be all that interesting, but the way 
> > to defeat him should have been.
> > <snip>
 
> >>Mike:
> Voldemort's intelligence and magical abilities needed to be more 
> interesting than they were shown to be, imo. I needed to know that 
> the Horcruxes weren't the only reason why he was still alive. His 
> ability to fly without a broom wasn't enough. 

Betsy Hp:
God, the flying thing was *so* lame...  But I do agree, and I think 
we're saying the same thing.  I meant "interesting" as in nuanced or 
multi-layered, which I don't think Voldemort needed to be (madness 
would be enough: power-hungry or bent on destroying all muggleborns 
or the WW or something).  But yes, Voldemort's *abilities*, his power 
and stratigic skill needed to be horrifyingly formidable.  (Clever 
enough to get Dumbledore locked in his tower, right?  Like I suggest 
above? <rbg>  I mean, that'd have been cool to have a villain that 
*Dumbledore* seemed unable to out-think.  Especially when this mere 
boy is our last hope of victory.)

And again, we wouldn't need to get a clear look at Voldemort's 
powers.  Just have people disappearing, families slaughtering each 
other for no apparent reason, news like that trickling into Hogwarts 
so Harry really feels a ticking clock (Voldemort needs to be stopped 
*now*) and also, really, really scared.

> >>Mike: 
> Then those "life's lessons" would have been important for Harry to 
> learn. Then Harry would have to come up with a unique way of 
> defeating Voldemort.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Exactly!  Because it wouldn't be magical skill (that would be the low 
point where Harry realizes he's not going to out-magic this guy) and 
not even overly clever stratagies (Dumbledore barely able to hold his 
own), instead it'd be doing something that hadn't been done for 
*generations*: Unite the houses of Hogwarts.  And yes, that 
*includes* Slytherin.  Oh!  And then we might have gotten an 
interesting look at the Founders, too.  Why the rift, etc?  Have each 
member of a different house have a piece of the puzzle that if only 
the houses had *talked* to each other before this wouldn't have 
happened, but they are now, and Harry can take what he's learned and 
defeat the monster in an angle no one thought to explore because of 
past traditions and entrenchments.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > I'm thrilled with the amount of agreement we have going on,      
> > Mike!  
> > Also, I'm curious: what did you want to see with Slytherin?  
> > Obviously, I was hoping for a redemptive arc, but what were you 
> > looking for?  A bigger show down?  (Honestly, I think I'd have 
> > preferred that to the whimper Slytherin ended with.)

> >>Mike:
> It wasn't so much *with* Slytherin, for me, as it was with Snape   
> and even moreso with Draco.
> <snip>
> I just thought there should have been more interaction between     
> Snape and Harry than Harry collecting Snape's thoughts while 
> he's in his death throes. Snape was too delicious of a character   
> for his big reveal to be post mortem.
> But Draco was the biggest disappointment. What happened to that kid 
> that was lowering his wand on the Astronomy tower?
> <snip>
> As for Slytherin as a whole, all I really wanted was for them to 
> realize that this stupid pure-blood mania got them where they were, 
> caught in the Voldemort web of deceit.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I agree! <rbg>  Seriously, for me, Draco and Snape were the "face" of 
Slytherin.  That they didn't get redeemed in the end, that Harry 
never really saw them as people (that name thing doesn't work for me, 
too little, too late, too lame), and that *they* never got a chance 
to change was the biggest failure of the books, IMO.

But yes, have Harry get some ideas about Snape and his mother 
*before* the guy is dead and Harry's so over him it doesn't even 
cause a blip.  Once Dumbledore was dead, push him off the damn stage 
and put Snape in the spot-light.  He's the more interesting character 
anyway.

And get Draco off the darn Tower.  Good Lord, but that was a scene 
that went absolutely no where.  As negated as the big scene where 
Lucius *doesn't* buy Draco the hand of glory.  Force Harry and Draco 
to work together for a similar goal (defeat Voldemort), and let them 
have their different reasons, and let Draco realize that it's not 
just Voldemort's methods that are questionable.  

I'd have loved a scene where either Nott or Blaise are all Death 
Eater crazy and want to butcher Hermione (ooh, and maybe some 
muggleborn firsties to up the emotion quotia) or something and 
Draco's all, "*Kill* them!?!  I just wanted to keep them out of the 
damn club, you freaks."  And then, you know, moment of realization 
that this is where it all leads.  (Plus, Draco would fall all *over* 
tv, you know he would.  "How could a people that make such wonderful 
things, be bad?")

And then Draco would get his prefect of Slytherin on and deliver a 
stirring speech or something (though maybe the "you freaks" thing 
would be it) and several Slytherins would join with him and 
ultimately Harry (who'd get his own speech, but directed to all four 
houses) and Voldemort would go down.  ::sigh::  Alas, we got the 
Elder Wand.

> >>Mike, who doesn't have the same regrets for the series that Betsy 
> has and still doesn't think the message was evil, but is seeing    
> more and more her side of the story. Who says the story's over and 
> there's nothing left to discuss? ;)

Betsy Hp:
Evil was my original and emotional reaction.  I do think they 
encourage bigotry, but through ignorance rather than purpose, and I 
also think a certain amount of moral... laziness I suppose, is on 
display.  I feel like JKR raised some interesting dilemmas and than 
failed to examine them.  Which was too bad.

Betsy Hp (everytime I think I'm through discussing, something pulls 
me back in. *g*)