Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 183558

Carol earlier:
> > 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 [machina] 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."

Carol responds:

Which does not change the fact that *modern critics* in general
consider the deus ex machina (not the literal device but the
figurative application of the term) to be a flaw in a modern work of
literature. And I read JKR's epigraph not as the invocation Aeschylus
intended but as an indication that "the children" (HRH) are her heroes
and avengers (even though they shed no blood in the process of
avenging the WW).

Pippin: 
> 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 responds:

That's an interesting reading though not the only possible way of
looking at it. I see some of the instances you mention (e.g.,
Wormtail's escape, which was brought about in part through Harry's
mercy) as the unintended consequences of our choices. Good intentions
result in evil and evil intentions result in good throughout the
series. But not all coincidences in the series and particularly in DH
necessarily illustrate a theme or motif. For example, Aberforth
apparently *just happened* to be looking into the mirror when Harry
needed help. Did Albus Dumbledore do something to that mirror, which
Aberforth just happened to buy from Mundungus, when Albus explained to
Aberforth how the mirror worked, as he must have done? Is it some
extension of "Help will always come at Hogwarts to those who ask for
it" (which seems to mean, "Help will usually come to Harry when he
asks for it and once to Neville when he doesn't ask")? Or is it all
just coincidence--nothing to do with courage, as far as I can see, and
everything to do with "sheer dumb luck," to quote McGonagall (I hear
Maggie Smith saying the words and can't remember whether they were
also in the book version of SS/PS).
> 
Carol earlier: 
> > Her failure to define Dark magic clearly and consistently is, IMO,
one such failure. 
> 
> 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. <snip>
> 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.

Carol responds:

I'm not talking, necessarily, about the WW having a consistent
definition of the term, though I would expect the experts to agree on
what it means, and surely the students should be taught in DADA what
they're fighting against. (Snape's metaphor for the Dark Arts as a
many-headed monster is poetic (does he secretly read Greek mythology?)
but not particularly helpful in actually defining the concept. But I
meant that *JKR* fails to provide the reader with a useful definition.
If the mind works by association (and I'm not disputing associational
psychology though I think association is only one mental process, and
no one has figured out exactly how the mind works or whether all minds
work in the same way) then perhaps Dark magic is the magic associated
with Salazar Slytherin and the members of his House or (how's this for
a circular definition?) Dark magic is the magic performed by Dark
Wizards? Not helpful, right? Even Voldemort occasionally performs a
spell that is not, in itself, Dark (such as creating the bubble that
encloses Nagini) and even Harry, our hero, sometimes performs spells
that we've been taught are the Darkest of the Dark except for AK
(which can also, as Snape shows, be used for the greater good.
(Sidenote: I'd like to know whether Molly Weasley and any other "good
guy" who killed a DE at the Battle of Hogwarts used AK. What's all the
duelling for if the only spells in the arsenal of the good guys and
the bad guys are Stupefy and AK? Where are all those wonderful Dark
spells that Bellatrix bragged about knowing in OoP? What were the good
guys using when they didn't Stun their opponents or Disarm them?)

I'm saying, and you probably disagree with me, that it's JKR's
responsibility to distinguish between Dark and Light magic. What is
it, exactly, that James Potter, that arrogant little bully, was so
opposed to? If only we could have seen those spells that Mulciber cast
or tried to cast that Lily objected to as Dark so we could distinguish
them from, say, using Scourgify (normally a household cleaning spell)
on an unarmed opponent so that he chokes on the soap bubbles or
Levicorpus, which can't be Dark because darling James uses it and is
thought funny by students in all Houses (except its inventor when it's
turned on him)?

Forgive me for desiring consistency in both definitions (even
definition by example would help as we have few curses that are
defined as Dark and most if not all of them are at some point used by
a good guy). What principle, what distinguishing characteristic,
defines a Dark spell (or potion)? Sure, using your idea of
association, I can come up with my own ideas--I'm pretty sure that the
potion and accompanying spells that Wormtail performs in the
churchyard in GoF are Dark and that Nagini is Dark, but my having to
arrive at my own definition, which no doubt differs from that of other
readers, remains, IMO, a flaw in the books. The author has the
responsibility, again IMO, to establish a clear and consistent
morality in the books, and in this instance, defining what is and is
not Dark magic is part of that morality. And to start out by having
the reader think that certain spells are ignoble (DD can perform them
but is, according to McGonagall, too noble to do so) and then having
the hero perform some of those same ignoble spells cannot be called
consistent and, at the least, causes confusion and disagreement among
readers.
> 
Pippin:
> 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." 

Carol responds:

I'm not so sure. Harry, the hero, feels no revulsion during or after
casting the Crucio, and McGonagall calls it "gallant" (and no, I don't
for a moment accept the alternate definitions you proposed earlier for
that adjective, which is associated in the minds of young readers
familiar with that old-fashioned word as entirely good (think little
James's idea of chivalry). Nor do I recall any reaction whatever from
the bystanders when Harry made his remark about Bellatrix's comment,
as if he now understands something a teacher has told him ("I see now
what Professor Snape meant when he said that you had to pay attention
to the directions on the board"). A lot of readers felt revulsion (and
anger) when Harry cast that Crucio, lowering himself to Amycus's level
when neither he nor anyone else was in danger simply for the
satisfaction of punishing Amycus. The problem, for me, is that *Harry*
didn't feel it, and neither did anyone else in the scene that we know
of. (Note, too, the tingling sense of power and control that fills
Harry as he casts the Imperius Curse. I, as an adult reader, see how
that sense of power could become addictive to someone like Mulciber,
the Imperius specialist, or to the Crouches, but Harry fails to note
its significance. As for child readers, it probably went right by them.)

Pippin: 
> 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. <snip>

Carol:

But what is *Harry* doing casting a sadist's signature spell and not
even regretting it? And unless a child is familiar with words such as
"excruciating" or "crucify," do you really think that the term itself
(as opposed to its effects, which have been frequently described)
would prevent them from "developing positive associations" with it?
Remember Ginny referring to Sectumsempra, which Snape himself calls
Dark magic and which could have caused Draco to bleed to death,
"something good"? And Harry, knowing that it's Dark magic, tries to
use it on Snape (whom he admittedly considers a murderer, but how is
he better than Snape if he resorts to Snape's own Dark magic in an
attempt to make Snape bleed to death--a fate he escapes by easily
deflecting Harry's spell only to suffer the same fate at the fangs of
Nagini). 

As far as I can see, Harry never does come to any conclusion about
what Dark magic is and why his father had such an aversion to it and
whether he should share that aversion.

Pippin:
>  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.

Carol responds:
Yes and no. Obviously, the detective story elements of the plot, with
the carefully planted red herrings, and the whole Snape arc, depend on
the reader's making false assumptions (or at least having doubts as to
where Snape's loyalties lit). But that's not the same as being
inconsistent, saying one thing in one book and another thing in
another. (See the ongoing discussionof the Fidelius Charm, for
example.) Or take wands. Yes, she's trying to build on what Ollivander
told Harry in SS/PS, that the wand chooses the Wizard (it was, of
course, Lily wand that chose her and not the other way around) and
that a Wizard will never have such good results with another Wizard's
wand, an idea that's partially borne out by Neville's experience with
his father's wand and Harry's with the Snatcher's wand and Hermione's
with Bellatrix's in DH but only partially elsewhere (Ron has no
particular difficulties with Charlie's wand until it gets broken). In
DH we get the new information about wand loyalty, but we're also told
by Ollivander that any wizard can use any wand if he's any wizard at
all. (All three wands that Harry snatches from Draco send out Stunning
Spells together even though only Draco's has been "won" from him, but
the Snatcher's wand won't work for him at all.) My impression is that
she hasn't thought it out. it's not our minds playing tricks on us;
it's JKR not being completely consistent and not rereading her earlier
books.

I reiterate that the author of a series has an obligation to reread
the previous books and attempt to avoid any inconsistencies. Wand
properties are crucial and should be written in her notes, along with
the passages in the books that refer to them. The effects of a spell,
such as Impedimenta, should not vary from book to book. (It's as if
she gave Ron blue eyes in one book and brown eyes in another, only on
a more complex level.)
> 
> 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

Carol:
Screamed in delight or screamed in horror? (Sorry; I don't have time
to look up the relevant post.)

Carol, who still wants to hear what others have to say about flaws in
plot structure, preferably supported by solid evidence and canon citations