Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 183562

> Montavilla47:

> If JKR had written this book about musicians rather than wizards,
> and I was expected to side with the rockers and reject the ways of 
> the pop singers, I would expect her to lay out the differences 
> between rock and pop.  And, if Harry suddenly singing pop 
> songs, I'd expect his rocker friends to either question his taste or
> go, "Hey, that sounds groovy.  Maybe we ought to rethink our
> differences!"
> 
> Otherwise I might just finish the book wondering if there really
> is a difference between rock and pop and why everyone made
> such a fuss about it in the first place.
> 
> Because I remember them doing that.

Magpie:
Well, yeah. There are these random lines about hating characters 
because they're drawn to the Dark Arts when Dark Arts don't really 
seem to be a problem at all. And it doesn't seem like it's supposed 
to be hypocritical at all. And it's not like "Dark Arts" isn't 
obviously supposed to refer to something bad. it's not asking so much 
to expect that the author has a clear idea of what she means when she 
says it.

And I think she does, based on stuff she says. It's just not a really 
technical idea, imo. She refers to hexes and curses as being dark 
magic, but obviously often finds it admirable when some characters 
use it. I think when she has a character not like the Dark Arts it's 
supposed to refer to some vague thing that goes along with the bad 
qualities that character has.

I also don't think that Harry's reference to Bellatrix's lesson 
wasn't cheer-worthy. It's the action hero quip that caps off putting 
the bad guy in its place. Did it remind me that this was Bellatrix's 
spell and so in some way not a good thing for Harry to use? Not at 
all. I thought the line was just more coolness on Harry's part. 

 
> Pippin:
> > 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? )
> 
> Montavilla47:
> I expect they would simply ask for one.  Or a servant (since they
> had those, too).  Ah, the good old days.

Magpie:
I don't even understand the connection. Whether anybody ever wondered 
about a slave bringing them a sandwich, they weren't characters in a 
book that uses that as part of its happy ending last line that shows 
that all the troubles are over.

Of course, some of the signers of the Declaration were okay with 
slavery, or okay with it enough. If you own a slave, you're probably 
somewhat okay with it. Like Harry. 

> 
> Pippin:
> > 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.
> 
> Montvilla47:
> This isn't my issue, but I don't think people are upset because 
wands
> can change allegiance.  I think what upsets people is how 
complicated
> and convoluted the whole Elder Wand story was.
> 
> That and Dumbledore setting Snape to get killed by Voldemort for 
> a wand he doesn't control.*
> 
> *That would be my issue.

Magpie:
My problem's got nothing to do with thinking your wand could never be 
taken from you or used by anyone else. We see people using other's 
wands--but yes, previously it did seem to be established that your 
wand chose you and that was it. I think there was still openings for 
new information about a wand being taken--I just wouldn't have 
assumed it to be happening all the time.

For me it's the obvious value that comes out on top. We start out 
with a quasi-romantic relationship of a wand choosing a wizard due to 
things they have in common, a common desire to learn etc. Then that's 
wiped out by the outclause that if you overpower a person and take 
their wand you own it more. Power wins because that's what was 
apparently needed for Harry to win on a technicality (Draco disarmed 
Dumbledore first, and Harry already happened to yank his wand out of 
his hand earlier). That's not just a little thing that can be thrown 
in without affecting the earlier version. It had to go and now it's 
gone. You only have that first relationship with your wand if 
nobody's every grabbed it from you. Then it will transfer its loyalty 
to the more powerful wizard. 

-m