Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 183556

Carol:
> Of course, we can and (IMO) should discuss such matters as the
> development of plotlines and whether, in our view, they succeeded or
> failed, just as we have every right to criticize outright errors
> (Flints, math errors, inconsistencies) as well as the
improbabilities, coincidences, and dei ex machinae (or whatever the
plural is!) that abound in DH.
> 
> I would be very interested, in fact, in a discussion of real or
> perceived structural flaws.

Pippin:
IIRC, the ancients didn't perceive the deus ex machina as a flaw. They
considered it reassuring to know that fate favored the righteous and
that mortals had the protection of divine powers. While there are no
divine characters in the story, they are invoked at the beginning of DH:

"We sing to you, dark gods beneath the earth./Now hear, you blissful
powers underground-answer the call, send help./Bless the children,
give them triumph now."

There were many times in the saga when unlikely coincidence came into
play  and there are some sequences of events which seemed reasonable
at the time but more unlikely in retrospect. How strange  that
Diary!Riddle chose to summon the one power in the castle that could
destroy him, and that Harry unwittingly transferred that power to
Gryffindor's Sword! 

But the bad guys got their share of dumb luck: Pettigrew's escape and
Fudge's refusal to believe Voldemort's return come to mind.

Of course the Trio keep making stupid mistakes in DH -- we have to see
that they are favored for their courage and loyalty, not books and
cleverness.  

Carol: 
> On another note, I don't rank small errors in math (which we all
know that JKR is incapable of performing, even to the extent of
determining the age of a given character at a given time) on the same
level as inconsistencies, such as the handling of Unforgiveable Curses
in GoF as contrasted with their handling in DH. An author has an
obligation to check her fictional facts and get them right and to
maintain a consistent attitude toward what she presents as evil,
whether it's the WW's treatment of House Elves or Harry's sudden right
to use Unforgiveable Curses. Her failure to define Dark magic clearly
and consistently is, IMO, one such failure. Another is the
inconsistent depiction of wand properties and wand loyalties. 

Pippin:

 You seem to be treating Dark Magic as if it had to  have some
defining characteristics in order to be a valid category. That's
probably what Aristotle would have said. But  psychologists say
Aristotle was wrong: that's not the way the mind categorizes information. 

Take rock music as an example: The Beatles are a rock group and The
White Album is a rock album.  But  Revolution No 9 is probably not
what most of us think a rock song sounds like. Still,  it doesn't
invalidate the categorization of the Beatles or the album. People
don't listen to  No 9 and get  confused about how rock is supposed to
sound, even if they know nothing at all about music theory. And they
don't develop trouble imagining or recognizing The Beatles sound. 

The mind categorizes by association, not logic. The wizards, who
aren't known for their logic in any case, do not have to have a
technical or logically consistent definition of dark magic in order to
use the category.

IMO, what needs to be consistent in the portrayal of evil is not the
logic of classifying evil acts but the mental revulsion associated
with them. Readers may cheer at the crucio, reading it as a blow
against evil. But AFAIK, no one cheered when Harry said "I see
what Bellatrix meant. You have to really mean it." 

The crucio is put in its place as evil when we're reminded that it's
Bellatrix's signature spell. Not to mention that it would be hard for
any British schoolchild to develop positive associations with
something called "the cruciatus curse" in any case. 

Similarly, the evil of slavery is vaguely defined as a concept, but
made clear by association: the characters, without exception, are
happiest when they can choose for themselves, even if what they want
is bad for them (or us.) 

(Side note, for this Independence Day: If none of the Founders
were really okay with slavery, would that mean  that they never, ever
wondered if a slave would bring them a snack? )

Another facet of the psychology of categories is 'extension' --
unconsciously we extend the category by forming mental models that
fill in missing information.

Back in Book One, Ollivander said  that the wand chooses the wizard,
and let us know that wizards may have more than one wand. He
remembered Lily choosing her first one. He never said that once a wand
chooses you, it's yours for life. But many readers took that as given,
based perhaps on similar motifs in folklore and fiction.

 I don't think surprising us by allowing us to make false
assumptions and then contradicting them is a flaw, in the sense that
the author has some obligation not to do that. In a story where much
depends on the meaning and use of categories, especially stereotypes,
it makes sense that the author would like to show us how our minds
play tricks on us.

Pippin
who screamed out loud on learning that the term "Flint" has made it
into the annals of history

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/8359