To kill or not to kill and resolutions of the storyline/ Slytherins (LONG )

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 185585

Alla:

OOOOO. You know what? I think you are right. Alla shakes her head.
You are basically just saying that regardless of how important the
Slytherins' return is to the story and to Harry, if their exit was
written clearly, there is no reason to not write their return clearly.

Magpie:
Hurray!:-)

There are plenty of things that are not mentioned in the story that
can still be said to have happened--the author can't mention
everything (bathing, going to the bathroom being the most obvious
examples). But having a character or a group leave the room, and then
later be there without being said to return is just a mistake. In
this case the Slytherins aren't just not written as returning,
theyr'e never mentioned as being there later either. So the idea that
it's ambiguous whether or not they were there is just confusing to
me. It just seems as simple as, "No, they left, remember? Here's the
scene where they left and there's no mention of them after that." If
there was a mention of them after that I would say JKR forgot to
write them returning but clearly they did, at least. Reasons why the
narrator didn't tell us this fact are still reasons it's admittedly
not written or told to us anywhere.


Alla:

Okay, I reflected upon it. Now could we please for the sake of 
argument accept the possibility of interpretation that those 
returning students could be Slytherins? Of course I am not asking you 
to agree with it, just to accept the possibility.

You did say somewhere upthread that you understand how those 
returning students could be Slytherins, right? Because if you are 
saying that you do not get how people could intepret it that way, I 
really do not see what else to discuss here, you know?

I just want to ponder on why the exit was written clearly and return 
was written ambigiously, or not written at all but was clear in 
author's mind, since of what I personally have no doubt.

Now, here is my thing and tell me if this analogy works for you. 
Would you say that exit and return (or NOT) of the Slytherins could 
be analogized to author saying "the door was open", but instead of 
saying "the door was closed", she would say something like - the wind 
got stronger and touched the door, and maybe it looked like another 
door in the house was closed. And then author will say in the 
interview that in her mind door was definitely closed.

Would that work for you?

Because if it does work for you, I was thinking that sure, if we 
consider door open and door closed as two parts of one event, then 
sure  I accept if nothing else the charge of bad writing, again if 
you accept JKR's intent as true.

And I can totally see how exit and return ( if it happened) of 
Slytherins should be heard as two parts of the same event, etc.

I was almost ready to see it as one event myself. But is it though?

And here where to me the importance of the event for the author comes 
in.

Why can't the exit of the Slytherins be the event that IS of interest 
to the author in her own right? And why can't their return be just 
something secondary that she knows happened, but that she could care 
less about in order to write about it clearly?

Does that make sense? When Harry in OOP cries for Sirius at the lake, 
did we really need for Harry to come back to the house in order to 
accept that he IS indeed coming back?

Why can't the exit of Slytherins for her be something that she cared 
to show not for the sake of Slytherins as group, but for example  the 
sake of Mcgonagall kicking them all out due to the actions of few? 
Maybe she wanted us to reflect upon THAT first and foremost? Mind 
you, I could care less about what Minerva did, I find it extremely 
justifiable and necessary after Pantsy's act, but I can see how she 
wanted to make a point that no, maybe what she did was not right at 
all.

She IS often showing how the actions of individuals change our 
perspective about the group, no?

So maybe with Minerva she wanted to emphacize something less than 
glorious about Gryffindor again and with clear ( we do not dispute 
that, right?) return of the Slugghorn she wanted to say something 
about Slytherin as a group?

I don't know, as I said, I totally get what you are saying, but I do 
not see how their exit and return (or non return) should necessarily 
be of equal interest to the author, even if she wanted to say that 
they did return?

JMO,

rambling Alla