Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)

[montavilla47]

No: HPFGUIDX 183415

> Lynda: 
>I never really did join the Snape/Lilly camp. I wasn't disappointed
> by its inclusion, just didn't see a lot of evidence for it throughout the
> books--I was, however early to realize that the horrible boy Petunia rants
> about was Snape, not James.

Montavilla47:
I figured out that Snape was the awful boy fairly early.  Around HBP, anyway, 
when I really put effort into figuring things out at all.  

As for Snape/Lily, it sort of looked like it was coming during HPB when
Slughorn talked about Lily being a potions genius.  There's no way
Snape wouldn't notice someone who was good at potions--so he had
to know her.  Yet, he never once mentioned her to Harry.  That was
suspicious to me.

But I didn't come around to the camp until I tried writing fic with them
as friends--and they quickly became more than that.

> Montavilla47:
>Every time Harry angsted about
> Dumbledore's two-week flirtation with evil in his teens, I felt like
> shouting...
> 
> Lynda:
> I was just glad to know that Dumbledore had a subplot! Angsty teenagers
> don't bother me. I expect teens to be angsty. And I've been disappointed by
> people's actions in the past and know how difficult forgiveness can be
> (believe me--I had to forgive a teacher of mine who caused grave harm to a
> large number of my classmates through his behavior--then I had to forgive
> myself for my attitude to him--the latter was more difficult: the first made
> me feel free).

Montavilla47:
Well, I'm aware that teens can be angsty, but that doesn't mean I want to 
listen to them angst.  And it's not like Dumbledore's actions of a hundred
years ago have anything to do with Harry.  I mean, the thing Harry ought 
to need to forgive Dumbledore for is for setting him up to commit suicide.

Why Harry would need to forgive Dumbledore for considering an opinion 
he obviously later rejected is beyond my patience to fathom.

> Lynda:
> Considering what it was the trio was doing, the intense planning was
> necessary. And I don't think we needed to be burdened with being overly
> detailed with it. It would only have made the book longer--more clunky for
> those who already consider it so. Yes, there were always big things that
> they neglected to think about, but having already experienced six years of
> the trio doing exactly that, that wasn't a surprise to me.

Montavilla47:
Well, the only time I can think of that they were *that* silly was in OotP, 
when they decide to hurry off  to rescue Sirius, when--as soon as 
Umbridge was out of the picture--they were free to use her fireplace 
to contact Arthur and Molly--or even floo directly to 12 Grimauld Place, 
if they were determined to go to the Ministry.

But in that case, Harry was in panic mode.  In DH, they take weeks to
plan and forget things--like stocking the tent with tins of food--that
any normal person would jot down first on the list of "Things to Do."

> Montavilla47:
> I had imagined a big battle at Hogwarts, which we got. The details were
> fun (I liked the charging desks), but the action was... disappointing.
> Whether or not it was deliberate, I got pretty annoyed at Harry for standing
> around like an idiot, watching everyone run around, instead of looking
> for the darn Horcrux.
> 
> Lynda:
> Here I go again. He did go after the Horcrux. He also watched the battle for
> a bit, which gave us a view of the fight, sense the book is from his
> viewpoint. He had a choice to make. Fight or look for the horcrux. His
> friends teachers and schoolmates were fighting and it would not have been
> easy for a kid like Harry not to stay and fight, but he did go after the
> horcrux.

Montavilla47:
Yes, he goes after the Horcrux, after McGonagall reminds him that all the
stuff he's watching is specifically being done so that he can--and that the
longer it takes him, the more likely it is that people are going to die.  And
if it's so hard for Harry to look for the Horcrux instead of fighting, then 
he ought to delegate the looking to someone else.

Which, I suppose, gets to my fundamental problem with Harry as a 
character (which is different from any problem with JKR as a writer): Harry
is the worst leader in the world.  

Everyone who opposes Voldemort is ready to give their all for Harry.
But Harry takes all that goodwill and energy and does practically nothing
with it.  He's incapable of delegating--the only way to do anything 
for him is to be like Hermione and just plow ahead and do things 
and then tell him what to do.

It's not like the hero has to be a great leader.  Plenty of heroes haven't
been.  But, if they aren't going to be a leader, then it would be less
annoying if people didn't insist on treating him as one.

> Montavilla47:
> I was disappointed that Draco Malfoy never seemed to get beyond that
> moment on the Tower when his wand drooped a tiny bit. He spent all of
> DH with his wand metaphorically drooping just a tiny bit (until he didn't
> have a wand at all).
> 
> Lynda:
> I never expected big changes from Malfoy. It would have been nice, but not
> expected.

Montavilla47:
But I'm not even talking about a big change.  I'm talking about getting off
the fence.  Otherwise, what's the point of setting him up with a choice to 
begin with?  

> Montavilla47:
> I was disappointed that Unforgiveable Curses became not just forgiveable,
> but "gallant." I was disappointed the Molly Weasley turned into Ripley.
> 
> Lynda:
> I always believed that the Unforgivable Curses were only Unforgivable if
> they were used for the purposes of Dark Magic. Expelliarmus, to my mind,
> used by a Dark wizard, to disarm a wizard who is trying to stop him becomes
> an Unforgivable Curse.  I would not consider Crucio, Imperio or other
> traditional UC spells to be gallant, however.

Montavilla47:
Do you really believe that?  That a disarming spell becomes Dark because 
it's used by a Dark Wizard?  So, the good or evil of something is determined
by *who* does it?  I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around that.

It seems to me that it's a workable system to classify the good or evilness
of an action by *intent,* so that if a wizard is using Expelliarmus to rob a 
bank, say, or disarm a wizard in order to kill or torture them, then it's an
evil act.  (Just as Scourgify is fine when used to clean the floor, but evil 
when it's used to torment or humiliate someone.)

But, it seems to me that you're saying that anytime Snape uses Expelliarmus
(on Lockhart, say), it's an evil act, whereas anytime that Dumbledore uses
the spell, it is, ipso facto, good.

 Lynda: 
> Neither did I think Molly
> Weasley turned into Ripley--Ripley is not the only person to have ever used
> that term before or since, or to have defended her offspring against
> something trying to kill them.

Montavilla47:
Nor is Charles Foster Kane the only person to say the word "Rosebud."  But
when you have another character saying that word on their deathbed, it 
inevitably reminds the audience of Citizen Kane.

>  Montavilla47:
> I was disappointed that Percy's main reconciliation seemed to be centered
> on the twins, when his break-up was with his father, since that was a
> reconciliation that could have ended any time in that last three books and
> been effective.
> 
> Lynda:
> Percy's falling out was with his entire family, not just his father, and the
> twins were the ones who most actively
> opposed him, even before he left the family cloister, so I thought it was
> appropriate that it was they he reconciled with first. Especially in light
> of the fact that one of them died in the battle.

Montavilla47:
I disagree.  By holding that moment back until the very end, that
subplot took on more weight than it should have.  Percy really had
nothing to apologize to his brothers for--the argument wasn't with
them but with his father.  They were only involved because they 
insisted on taking sides.  

> Montavilla47:
> I was disappointed the Grawp's contribution to the story
> turned out to be less than the trouble it took to bring him into it in the
> first place.
> 
> Lynda:
> What contribution? No. I haven't forgotten what he did, it was just so
> minimal as to be unremarkable.

Montavilla47:
Exactly.  His contribution was fight with the two giants that showed
up for Voldemort--and since those giants didn't really need to show
up in the first place, Grawp's contribution was quite unremarkable.

Yet, he was given a major set-up in OotP, and brought back in HBP
just so that we didn't forget him.

> Montavilla47:
> I was disappointed that Remus's efforts with the werewolves
> came to nothing.
> 
> Lynda: I was too. I was not expecting it too. Werewolves are nasty beasties
> for the most part, but it would have been nice to see a few more join in
> against the Dark Wizards.

Montavilla47:
Right.  Lupin was a major setup.  We had Dumbledore putting enormous
effort in getting him through school--against people who felt werewolves
shouldn't be educated.  We never see another werewolf in school, despite
learning the Fenrir was specifically creating child werewolves all along.

Then, we learn that Lupin is doing this dangerous, onorous liaison work
with the werewolves.  

Number of werewolves who showed up for the final battle:  Two.

A poor return for the setup.

Well, perhaps they were there and Harry just didn't notice.  Like
those Slytherins.

> Montavilla47:
> I was disappointed that the Power of Love didn't really
> apply to Harry at all--his main advantage turned out to be a technical
> one, based on his ability to grab and pull some else's wand out of their
> hand. That Power of Love actually applied to Snape--who was dead
> (Did it matter that Snape wasn't on Voldemort's side if he was dead?)
> 
> Lynda:
> Ah! Now here I disagree with you. The Power of Love that Harry had meant
> everything to the story. Without it He would never have survived and if
> Voldemort had been able to give up his anger and hatred ("try for a little
> remorse"). Of course it applied to Snape. It applied to every character in
> the story!

Montavilla47:
If you mean Harry wouldn't have survived the AK in the woods, then
you're wrong about that being due to the Power of Love.  That was due
to the Power of Blood.  It was Harry's blood in Voldemort's veins that
kept him alive.

If it was the original AK in Godric's Hollow, then it that was ultimately
due to Snape's love for Lily--and Lily's blood.  While it was love for 
Harry that caused Lily to stand in front of him, it wasn't her love that
saved him.  It was the choice she had, because of Snape's love for her,
that made the difference.  (As we see when the Bulgarian Mother is 
killed protecting her children.)

So, yes, it was the Power of Love at work there.  But it was a Power 
of Love only indirectly connected to Harry himself.

 
> Montavilla47:
> And yes, I was disappointed that the Sorting Hat's warning about unity
> only applied to three of the four Houses.
> 
> Lynda:
> I don't think that's the case. The Sorting Hat's warning applied to all four
> houses, it's just that every person had to make their own decision and only
> one Slytherin (Professor Slughorn), did. I was also happy that the senior
> Malfoys made a turn around and actually ended up helping Harry, if only
> indirectly.

Montavilla47:
They didn't really have a turnaround.  When Narcissa "helps" Harry, she's 
not doing it to help him.  She's simply lying so that she can get into the 
castle.  (Although how that helps, I couldn't tell you.)  But JKR is very careful 
to let us know that she's acting out of selfish love for her son.  

> Montavilla47:
> So, it wasn't really a big thing that disapointed me. It was a lot of little
> things--including the pacing of the book.
> And part of that disappointment came from JKR's own statement about
> having written the epilogue before starting the book, so that she'd
> know where she was going. I took that to mean that she did have a
> grand unified plan.
> 
> Lynda:
> Knowing the end of the story before writing the beginning, just means you
> know where you're headed. Not necessarily the nitpicky details.

Montavilla47:
Yes.  That's why it's a good idea to reread your books and look at the 
nitpicky details that are going to need to some resolution.