Disarming spell/ Character's choices

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 185495

> Mapgie wrote some time ago:
> > > > 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. 
> 
> Carol responds:
> 
> I don't see a problem, frankly. 

Magpie:
Neither do I--that's why I said "I don't have a big problem with it." 
I'm just saying that as an answer to the dilemma of killing/not 
killing someone it sidesteps the question by having the person not 
kill, but the bad guy ends up dead anyway. As opposed to having the 
person kill the person dead and thus be a murderer, or having the 
person not kill the bad guy and thus the bad guy remains alive 
(unless they are killed by someone other than the hero). 

I don't mind that JKR wanted to have her cake and eat it too in that 
respect--she's hardly the only author to want it that way. They're 
all going to do it in a way that fits their own characters--as you 
noted here, JKR wanted to circle back to the original spell that 
started it all, the rebounding AK.

Lealess:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the storytellers didn't spend a lot of
story time on orcs or storm troopers the way JKR gave names and back
stories and fun scenes to Slytherin students. She made the Slytherins
compelling, perhaps inadvertently. And as others have said, JKR also
seemed, through the Sorting Hat, to advocate the reconciliation of
Slytherin with other houses. (I haven't read the Narnia books.)

Magpie:
I was just referring to the idea of "Slytherin House" doing something 
heroic and so the houses all joining again--I don't think it's 
automatically unheard of to not have that happen. How could it be, 
really? Since when you've got good side vs. bad side stories you 
generally have two choices: defeat or reconciliation. Of course 
authors have chosen each over the years.

In terms of how Slytherin House is presented absolutely, I think 
there are many things that are unique to HP. The uneasy (imo) final 
fates of the Slytherins we know I think definitely point to something 
not cliche. I think Slytherins relatively inferior nature is very 
specific to the series. There are several Slytherins who choose not 
to take the most evil choice, usually through love of someone else. 
They are given a very clear saving grace. Iow, they fit how the 
author has described them when challenged on why they don't just get 
rid of the house: they're not all bad. 

I would say that the purpose they serve in the story is consistent 
and also pretty unique. Most of the big bad guys do come from there, 
but they're not always bad guys. I guess I would describe them as 
just sort of...dreg-like (as in "the dregs"). There's always the hope 
of some potential good coming out of them, which justifies their 
continued existance. There's the dream that one day there'll be a 
conversion.

-m