Disarming spell/ Character's choices

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 185469


> 
> Mapgie:
> I don't have a big problem with it--I get why it works. I'm just 
> saying that as the solution to the problem of "how do we have the
bad  guy killed but still make a point about how our hero is morally 
> superior for showing mercy" it works because it lets you have it
both  ways. You make one choice but there's no real suspense that we
won't  get the consequence of the other. 
> 

Pippin:
As Bilbo Baggins once said, it's not a bad ending because it's been
used before. If the books had nothing to say about the blind nature of
destructiveness or the tendency of malice to turn on itself, then it
might feel tacked on just to spare Harry the dilemma of killing. But
it's been an issue back to when Dudley was beating up Harry but also
breaking his own toys. 

JKR certainly didn't take the easy way out with the Slytherins -- it
would have been a cliche to have them prove themselves by letting them
do something gallant and impressive to save Harry, but that hasn't
kept a lot of people from complaining bitterly that it didn't happen.
Not that the Slyths can't be heroic, but if they're gallant and
impressive, it's never for Harry's sake, and if they do something for
Harry, it's not gallant and impressive. 

We never get a stand up and cheer moment for the Slytherins. But
really, why should we? If we're grown up enough to appreciate their
virtues despite being overshadowed by Harry, then we ought to have
outgrown House partisanship, too. 

It's worth noting as well that anti-hero is a literary category. There
are no anti-heroes in real life, only heroes who indulge in boorish
behavior when they aren't out hero-ing. So when Harry names his son
after Snape, he's treating Snape as a hero even if Rowling, speaking
as an author, does not. 

Pippin