Wands and Wizards...Again

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 183669

> Pippin:
> I'm not sure I understand. Either way, the audience can recognize
> tragic flaws in the characters. Hamlet never actually blames himself
> for being indecisive, does he?
>
> But I'll accept that the main story line isn't about getting Harry
to
> see that he's flawed.

Magpie:
Yes, it has been confusing, which is surprising because I feel like
I'm just making a simple point which is that in order to make a point
in a story you make a point in the story. Clear premises are very
important, no matter how complex the narrative. Hamlet thee play is 
obviously making that a major theme that causes things to happen. He 
certainly knows that he's indecisive. He's dealing with that the 
entire play.

There is no parallel over-arching theme for Harry in going over to
the Dark Side. It's not a real threat in the story. On the contrary,
the opposite point is established more than once, so it can't just be 
thrown in at the same time. To try to make the analogy to SW, the 
Force being strong in Luke is established. There is no real strand in 
the story about a threat of Luke not having enough access to the 
Force, even though there are scenes where he's struggling to use it. 
His strength is part of what's at stake.

The idea that Harry could become like Voldemort is not ever presented
as a problem in the story. It's not presented in this scene as a
problem either. It's just Harry using a Crucio and moving on. Yes,
the fact that Harry uses a Crucio at all shows a development from the
11-year-old who couldn't have used it, and the 15-year-old who didn't
get how to do it right. "War is hell" seems to apply. But we can't 
just raise it to the level of the idea in SW or say it's the same 
thing in a story that hasn't laid out the same ideas. If this was 
laid out as a threat we wouldn't need Harry to tell us he'd realized 
he was becoming like Voldemort for us to get it. (There would have to 
be some moment of realization on his part, imo, because of the nature 
of the revelation. You don't realize you're becoming exactly what you 
despise without noticing you realized it, imo.) 

Pippin:
> OTOH, it doesn't seem to be about becoming a badass wizard either.

Magpie:
No, that's not the primary theme either. However Harry being a
powerful Wizard who's growing in his abilities is far more
established than Harry ever going over to the Dark Side is. Harry
having a moment where he strikes a blow against bad guys in the name
of justice is nothing new for Harry, it's always been part of what
his character does and it doesn't conflict with what he stands for. 
It supports the main theme. Throwing in that Harry is becoming 
corrupted is more of a problem. In fact, since we're talking about 
author intention it's relative that in interviews since the series 
ended JKR has moved us even further *away* from this idea, not closer 
to it.

Pippin:

> Harry is preoccupied with the question of who he can trust.
>
> And that's what our debate is about, isn't it? Are we, the readers,
> supposed to trust Harry to do the things that we know still need to
be
> done in the WW?

Magpie:
Actually, that seems like yet another new debate. We weren't talking
about whether Harry would do the things we think need to be done in
the WW. The story isn't about what Harry's going to do after the book
is over. If anyone is worried about that the author has pretty
clearly said that we should trust Harry to do all those things, which
gives us the limited information that the author intends for him to
be trustworthy in that regard. I certainly didn't doubt that I was
supposed to think Harry's experiences were supposed to have made him
an excellent steward for the WW. There might be some dissonance
between that and the way he really came across to me, but I wasn't
surprised when the author gave her opinion on it.

Where this does reflect what we were discussing is that I honestly
don't see anywhere we're supposed to doubt Harry will make it through
as a good guy. I don't think there is any place where the story
raises any such doubts. It explicitly raises the doubt that he won't
defeat Voldemort, that he won't be happy and that he won't survive,
not that he will be corrupted and made evil. I think the book makes
clear that he's not Snape or Dumbledore. (And imo all the times where 
it seems like the book is veering towards the idea that the good guys 
are becoming bad all lead nowhere, and that, coupled with things the 
author has said about it, leave me fairly confident that I just 
misinterpreted that whole idea and the author was never intentionally 
going that way.

Alla:
Take Hermione saving Xeno Lovegood. I just realized recently that I
think it is meant to tell us that Hermione may not be so sure that
traitor always needs to be marked and punished if there are
mitigating circumstances – re infamous Marietta. Hermione takes care
of saving Xeno who betrayed him because his daughter was taken, which
is sort of reversal of situation with Marietta, isn't it? Wasn't the
argument that she did it because her mother was involved? I mean, I
know that her mother was working for the ministry, so she was
involved, I just never bought it, and I thought that to show it
Marietta should have gone to her mother instead of Umbridge, but if
she was, well I find it interesting.

Magpie:
I think it was simply that Xeno was sympathetic and Marietta was not
based on many things that are different in their situations. In both
cases Hermione's imo supposed to be the voice of justice. She simply
judges differently in both cases because they are different. Xeno 
would have been punished by DEs while Marietta was being punished by
Hermione. Xeno's daughter is kidnapped by DEs. Marietta's mother just
works at the Ministry. I have no trouble believing that Hermione, like
JKR as per interviews, simply sees Xeno as deserving of mercy and
Marietta deserving of punishment and uses Hermione to voice her
judgment in both cases. They're not the same case twice. (Nor is our
third traitor, Peter.)


-m