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

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 185603

> 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?

Magpie:
Well, I get what the argument is. I actually don't get how anybody 
could read that group of students as being described as the returning 
Slytherins since it describes different people. I just get how people 
are adding them into the scene. It's more that nobody can prove that 
they're not there rather than anything in the text saying they are 
there. 

 
Alla:
> 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?

Magpie:
If she said Door A was open, and then later the narrator said the 
wind blew and shut Door B I would say that Door A was still open-- 
Especially if Door A had been characterized as notoriously stuck in 
an open position throughout the story, with many scenes focusing on 
that, including a recent dramatic one. ;-) That qualifier is 
important. It's not just two equal doors.

Alla:
> 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.

Magpie:
I wouldn't say anything about her intent one way or the other. That I 
would never be able to say. My instinct was to think she was 
misremembering her intent. But all I can judge is what she actually 
wrote.

Alla:
> 
> 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?

Magpie:
It can be only of importance to the author, of course--but if she 
didn't write it than it doesn't exist for me. Harry's return from the 
lake doesn't need to be explained. It's like his going to the 
bathroom. And we see him at the school later--thus, he has returned 
from the lake. The Slytherins' return has none of that routine, and 
they're never mentioned again. I've no reason to think they could or 
would come back unless the narrator tells me they did. The narrator 
who has found the Slytherins important enough to track as a group 
many times before.

Alla: 
> 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.

Magpie:
It's a pretty weak maybe since they don't come back. After all, it's 
not like Minerva accuses them all of being DEs and sends them to LV. 
She just gets them out of the school before the battle starts. She 
does that with some students she considers innocent too. It's a 
precaution to not have any of them there and according to the words 
on the page the battle was won without their help.

Alla: 
> 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?

Magpie:
I don't think she says anything about Slytherin as a group when it's 
the group she doesn't mention. Slughorn didn't get kicked out. 
Minerva already trusted him and he is described specifically as 
returning.

Alla: 
> 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?

Magpie:
It doesn't have to be of equal interest to her. But if it's not in 
the book then it doesn't exist for me as a reader. Of course, I 
believe that in the interview she referred to it as one of 
her "favorite moments"--the Slytherins returning, which would either 
indicate that she did think their return was important. Or maybe she 
was misremembering this favorite scene.

-m