CHAPDISC: DH31, The Battle of Hogwarts

[potioncat]

No: HPFGUIDX 184610

 
> CHAPTER DISCUSSIONS: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows,
> Chapter 31, The Battle of Hogwarts


 Thanks Chris for the summary and questions.
> 
> 1.    Is it believable that there are no good Slytherins? Wouldn't
> one or two of them remain to fight? Are they all
> totally unredeemable? Or is it just herd mentality i.e. one leaves
„« they all leave?

Potioncat:
That depends on whether you stick to canon, or include JKR's 
interviews. Personally, I think she lumped all the baddies into one 
house out of expediency and never gave it another thought.  Either 
that or she really, really dislikes ambitious people.

Sticking with canon, I don't think it was herd mentality. But there 
are several reasons why all the Slytherins would leave. Most were pro-
DE. Most had family members in LV's camp---whether they were pleased 
about it is another matter. Some may not have been pro-LV, but not 
exactly ready to join an army who had wands pointed at them.

According to an interview, some of these Slytherins will come back 
with Slughorn---I wouldn't. Everyone who stayed would think the 
returning Slytherins were fighting for LV.

But I would like to respond to your summary. You wrote:
"numerous  Ravenclaws, even more Hufflepuffs and half of the 
Gryffindors remain
„« seated,  determined to help fight."

I bring this up because the wording in canon is a little different 
and I can clearly remember my gut reaction to it.  JKR wrote, "The 
Slytherin table was completely deserted, but a number of older 
Ravenclaws remained seated ¡Keven more Hufflepuffs stayed behind, and 
half of Gryffindor remained in their seats¡K"

It seems JKR is indicating the Slytherins chose to leave. Deserted is 
very telling. I read 'a number' as 'a few' Ravenclaws. I inferred 
that JKR was saying something very important about Slytherins and 
Ravenclaws. Maybe she wasn't. But from a character standpoint, it 
seems clear JKR values courage and loyalty and dismisses wit and 
ambition.



> 2.    I would have thought that rumours of the ghosts
> pasts would definitely have been well known by all students. Bearing
> in mind that Harry and co. learn plenty about Nick, wouldn't someone
> from Ravenclaw have figured out about the Grey Lady and passed that
„« information on?

Potioncat:
But Helga kept the story a secret. The only person she told was the 
Baron and he died. Now, you would think someone would have wondered 
that the Bloody Baron and the Grey Lady appeared at about the same 
time, but either one of them may have wandered around before settling 
at Hogwarts. It could well be that by the time they came to Hogwarts, 
no one there recognized them.
> 


 
> 4.    How could Dumbledore not have found out that Helena stole
> the diadem?
> When you consider how difficult it was for him to get hold of the
> ring and help
> Harry obtain the fake locket, would he really not have found out
> information
„« that resided in his own school? Doesn't seem very likely to me.

Potioncat:
But he doesn't have reason to--and he doesn't consider that Tom might 
have sought the diadem. I think we often hold on to our SS/PS view of 
an all knowing wise DD. He knows a lot, a very lot, but not 
everything.



> 
> 6.    Isn't it a bit reckless to rush through the castle with a
> bunch of
> mandrakes? Surely the commotion in the castle would aggravate them?
> Aren't they
„« at risk of killing innocent students/teachers?

Potioncat:
You¡¦re right. The ones carrying the mandrakes were protected, but if 
they would have to be very careful where they unpotted the plants.  > 


> 
> 9.    Do we think Tonks appearance at the castle makes her a
> good wife or a
„« bad mother?

Potioncat:
I like Zara's answer. I'll add that today's military has many brave 
women. I've known officers who were pregnant when their units were 
called up. These women made it very clear they wanted to join their 
company in the war zone as soon as their maternity leave was up. (New 
mothers weren't allowed to shorten the maternity leave.)


> 
> 10.   What is going through Malfoy's head in the Room of
> Requirement? Is he
> only concerned about delivering Harry to the Dark Lord alive? Or 
does
> he want
> his family freed from Voldemort's influence and realises Harry may 
be
> his only
„« chance for freedom?

Potioncat:
I'm not sure why he stayed behind at all. Clearly the Malfoys have no 
loyalty to LV--but a strong sense of family. Whether by now Draco 
also wanted to sabotage LV is another question.



> 
> 11.    Why is Harry suddenly so reticent to use the Cruciatus
> curse? Crabbe
> is trying to kill his friends ¡V wouldn't this anger Harry more than
> his previous
„« attempts with this curse?

Potioncat:
As I read the summary I thought to myself, why doesn't the trio use 
AK? Come on this is war. Then JKR shows us Harry's "saving people" 
side and he rescues them.


> 

13. Why, why, why did she have to kill Fred???

Potioncat:
I'll sort of echo that wail, "Why why, why did she have to kill 
Severus???"

She had to kill off some important characters to create the sense of 
loss in war. Again, from interviews, she thought the deaths out very 
carefully and had her reasons for them. We readers may not agree with 
her choices.

Actually, she should have killed Ron and Ginny. Then Harry and 
Hermione could have ended up together and both groups of shippers 
would have been right. ;-)
> 

Here's a question from me.
Did anyone else have a reaction to seeing Thicknesse in the battle? 
We know he's under the Imperius, but no one else knows. Every time we 
saw Stan, he seemed to be under a spell--or maybe the blank look was 
his norm. But both Thicknesse and Crouch seemed to be well controlled 
in ways that weren't obvious to those who should have wondered. I 
felt bad for Thicknesse because while we don't really know his 
leanings, and if he had to be placed under Imperius, he must not have 
supported LV.