How Harry Potter Could Have Been Much Cooler [Archive] - Page 3

Traab

2011-12-06, 02:03 PM

Word of God I read, it wasn't Slytherin that ran off, just Slughorn to get what few Slytherin-associated reinforcements he could from elsewhere. Everyone on the Slytherin house at the time just sat in the Slytherin tower and awaited the outcome.

And sitting there doing nothing was the smart thing to do. They dont have the chance at a huge profit or anything, but it would play out like this.

Voldemort: "And WHY didnt you join in on the slaughter?"
"Milord, they had us under guard and took away the wands of most of the known supporters in slytherin, had we attempted to fight, we would have been quickly contained for no gain."

And if the good guys win, then,

"Hey, you expected us to fight against our parents and their friends? Are you crazy?"

With voldemort they might get punished a bit, but they, as pureblood children, will continue being on the winning side. If the good guys win, they wont do anything to the slytherin kids who didnt fight so they lose nothing by sitting on their butts, and they RISK little by sitting there. On the other hand, by actually fighting, or working to sabotage one side or the other, they open themselves to potential retribution by whatever side they DONT support. Safe bet is to sit down and wait. You can always spin your inaction later, but you have to be alive to do it.

DiscipleofBob

2011-12-06, 02:33 PM

And sitting there doing nothing was the smart thing to do. They dont have the chance at a huge profit or anything, but it would play out like this.

Voldemort: "And WHY didnt you join in on the slaughter?"
"Milord, they had us under guard and took away the wands of most of the known supporters in slytherin, had we attempted to fight, we would have been quickly contained for no gain."

At which point Voldemort slaughters the majority of the students for cowardice and weakness.

And if the good guys win, then,

"Hey, you expected us to fight against our parents and their friends? Are you crazy?"

When they're Death Eaters, yes. It's a miracle and a major act of mercy on the good guys part they don't send all of Slytherin to Azkaban for conspiring in the whole affair in the first place.

With voldemort they might get punished a bit (dead), but they, as pureblood children, will continue being on the winning side (except of course for the few half-blood and muggle-born Slytherin. There are very few of course, but they're still screwed). If the good guys win, they wont do anything to the slytherin kids who didnt fight so they lose nothing by sitting on their butts, and they RISK little by sitting there (...or they could get arrested and tried, or even just expelled). On the other hand, by actually fighting, or working to sabotage one side or the other, they open themselves to potential retribution by whatever side they DONT support. Safe bet is to sit down and wait. You can always spin your inaction later, but you have to be alive to do it.

Besides, whether or not it's practical has nothing to do with the narrative. If even just a fraction of the House picked up their wands and helped out, even in a subversive way, it would show that while, yes, Slytherin is full of a$$-holes, there is a reason to keep them around, and they're not all completely evil and useless. At least some of them are just sneaky and subversive, which could actually be useful in a lot of areas.

By making them all sit on the sidelines, Rowling is saying "Yup, all the stereotypes are true. Black colors, snakes, and everything. We're evil or at our very best we won't be of any use when we're needed. Might as well hand out curly moustaches and goatees as the new dress code for Slytherin students now, start us off early. Better keep a separate list of all the Slytherin students with fingerprints and stuff because we're pretty sure we're all criminals in some way, might as well stick a magical GPS on us or something too. Hey, if you're going to expel us anyway, could you let us know if the League of Doom is hiring?"

Zen Monkey

2011-12-06, 02:39 PM

At which point Voldemort slaughters the majority of the students for cowardice and weakness.

At the end of Goblet of Fire, when the death eaters are summoned to the cemetery, Voldemort explains his disappointment with most of them for various weaknesses and cowardice. He doesn't kill any of them, they just get a bad performance review for their jobs.

Traab

2011-12-06, 02:42 PM

At which point Voldemort slaughters the majority of the students for cowardice and weakness.

Except he wouldnt, because those are the children of his followers.

Tyndmyr

2011-12-06, 02:44 PM

Even then, tecnically it wasn't Harry's problem, yet he goes and offers

The sad, sad irony the evil guys use that shop to stock themselves up and invade Hogwarts.

Which reminds me of something that really bugs me over the series...

Magic items.

Hermione gets a freaking personal time machine in one of the books. We never see anyone else using such a powerfull artifact. Seriously, that thing as more uses that I can imagine, yet they only handle it to an honor student? Then they keep it in some fragile container that gets blown up later in the series ? Well, I guess it's a little better than Rowlings just forgeting about them. Still not enough. That's the kind of thing I would handle the bodyguards of important persons and special agents so they can fix big problems.

Then we have stuff like the Luckis Felixia potion that gives you insane perfect luck. Even if it's really hard to brew and can't be abused, I would expect the top wizard officers to have their personal bottles for a rainy day (like having to face the Lord of Darkness). This is, they brew a whole cauldron of it in book 6, Harry gets a tiny bottle, what hapened to the rest? It's never mentioned again!

Again, I direct you to HP and the Methods of Rationality. These are major plot points.

I agree about Slytherin, too. It's basically the troublemaker house. I can't see this being treated as a legit choice in any real school. A somewhat less mustache wearing treatment of them(ie, you can be ambitious but still be brave or good) would have been wonderful.

DiscipleofBob

2011-12-06, 02:44 PM

At the end of Goblet of Fire, when the death eaters are summoned to the cemetery, Voldemort explains his disappointment with most of them for various weaknesses and cowardice. He doesn't kill any of them, they just get a bad performance review for their jobs.

That's because they all did their jobs as expected, and their "cowardice" worked out well in Voldemort's favor because his minions weren't locked in Azkaban. Not to mention he's only just been resurrected and is already short on minion fodder.

How long do you think that's going to last once Voldemort's in control and doesn't have a shortage of minions?

Weezer

2011-12-06, 02:51 PM

Except he wouldnt, because those are the children of his followers.

The rest of his points hold true, if by their very nature people who are in Slytherin are evil why tolerate them at all? Why train them in magic that will almost certainly be used for eveil? The only Slytherin in the whole book who wasn't evil was Slughorn. If you monitored every simgle Slytherin as an adult, and didn't hesistate to quickly detain them if they act suspicious, you would find the ranks of Death Eaters dwindling to nothing.

Zen Monkey

2011-12-06, 02:53 PM

I agree about Slytherin, too. It's basically the troublemaker house. I can't see this being treated as a legit choice in any real school. A somewhat less mustache wearing treatment of them(ie, you can be ambitious but still be brave or good) would have been wonderful.

The Legend of the Five Rings novels handled this well. The Scorpion Clan, (the thieves, spies, and assassins faction) were generally a tolerated pain most of the time. But when the real villains took over, these underhanded types used their various dishonorable skills to fake servitude to the bad guys and pulled off a key victory for the good guys in the end. At least a part of Slytherin should have done something like this. They could have been the 'black ops' wizard group, doing some things other people wouldn't do but towards a good end.

hamishspence

2011-12-06, 03:04 PM

If you monitored every simgle Slytherin as an adult, and didn't hesistate to quickly detain them if they act suspicious, you would find the ranks of Death Eaters dwindling to nothing.

Notable non-Slytherin Death Eater- Peter Pettigrew AKA Wormtail

H Birchgrove

2011-12-06, 03:04 PM

I like to think of the Slytherins as being formerly the black OP's who later joined the fascists (like the real world Black and Tans and Freikorps), with a few exceptions like Severus Snape (who was far from being a "nice guy" anyway).

Weezer

2011-12-06, 03:08 PM

Notable non-Slytherin Death Eater- Peter Pettigrew AKA Wormtail

Meant to write 'dwindle to almost nothing', yes there are non-slytherin death eaters, but they are very rare.

hamishspence

2011-12-06, 03:11 PM

Forum Explorer

2011-12-06, 03:14 PM

To argue against just sitting and doing nothing:

Sure the risks are great but so are the rewards. If you side with Voldemort and win you are one of his favored servants and you'll likely get a lot of power. Stand up against Voldemort? That would be a big deal and people would notice. By fighting you make connections with the winners you will be more then willing to help you advance your own career. Excpeically since you've been proven that you can be trusted.

Tyndmyr

2011-12-06, 03:14 PM

DiscipleofBob

2011-12-06, 03:15 PM

Meant to write 'dwindle to almost nothing', yes there are non-slytherin death eaters, but they are very rare.

And by rare, we're talking one example from the entire house. Same with Slytherin. Sure, Snape and Slughorn turned out to be good guys in the end, but that's it. They are the exception to the rule, and that rule is the houses are completely stereotyped.

The point is not that all Dark Wizards are Slytherin, it's that pretty much all Slytherin is/will be Dark Wizards.

Weezer

2011-12-06, 03:25 PM

Was Karkaroff educated at Durmstrang before becoming its head?

And (going beyond Death Eaters to "dark wizards) mustn't forget the most famous of Durmstrang's students- the expulsee Grindlewald.

"Dark wizards" are quite possible even without the existance of Slytherin house.

Of course, no one is arguing that point. But if we observe the Slytherins we would be observing the vast majority of potential British dark wizards.

People who didn't go to Hogwarts don't really count because if they weren't sorted we can't know if they would end up in Slytherin (though I'm sure a strong argument could be made for Grindlewald being Slytherin material).

Karkaroff is another plot hole, if he isn't Hogwarts trained that means Voldemort's influence stretched all the way to Eastern Europe, making it absurd that there was no mention of international involvement in fighting Voldemort. If Karkaroff was Hogwarts trained that pretty much kills the magical Britain is largely isolated from the world. Making the head of Durmstrang a Death Eater was a big slip up (and entirely unneeded for the plot).

deuterio12

2011-12-06, 03:33 PM

Again, I direct you to HP and the Methods of Rationality. These are major plot points.

You mean the one where Harry is so annoying he makes a Dementor kill itself? Been there, wish I hadn't.

Tyndmyr

2011-12-06, 03:36 PM

hamishspence

2011-12-06, 03:52 PM

Karkaroff is another plot hole, if he isn't Hogwarts trained that means Voldemort's influence stretched all the way to Eastern Europe, making it absurd that there was no mention of international involvement in fighting Voldemort. If Karkaroff was Hogwarts trained that pretty much kills the magical Britain is largely isolated from the world. Making the head of Durmstrang a Death Eater was a big slip up (and entirely unneeded for the plot).

Easier option is to have him not rise to head of Durmstrang till after Voldemort's disappearance- since he was arrested and interrogated in the flashback scene. Maybe after being released, he decided to stay out of Britain for a while?

Traab

2011-12-06, 03:55 PM

The rest of his points hold true, if by their very nature people who are in Slytherin are evil why tolerate them at all? Why train them in magic that will almost certainly be used for eveil? The only Slytherin in the whole book who wasn't evil was Slughorn. If you monitored every simgle Slytherin as an adult, and didn't hesistate to quickly detain them if they act suspicious, you would find the ranks of Death Eaters dwindling to nothing.

The definition of slytherin isnt evil, its ambitious and cunning. And not all the members of that house are death eaters in training. We get to meet a handful of the members of that house and you decide to just tar them all with the same brush? As for why dont they watch all slytherins etc etc etc, maybe its because most of the ruling class of magical britain are former slytherins? Maybe they dont exactly feel like expelling their own children from school for daring to be placed in the same house they were in?

deuterio12

2011-12-06, 03:57 PM

Eh, it gets somewhat reigned in later in the series, as well as explained rather better. I feel the author realized he'd accidentally given HP way too much power.

But, not the best part, imo. The best part is the problem solving, and the fixing of all manner of interesting problems. Time Turners become pretty central to a great many things.

It would be the best part, if the author knew a tenth of what he claims to know. The simple fact that he keeps insisting that any non-human animals are completely irrational beings proves that he's just a good talker and has no grasp of any actual hard science. And then he keeps piling the errors. The way Rowlings treats the time turners is infinitely superior to the fic treatment, and that's really saying something.

TheArsenal

2011-12-06, 03:58 PM

Hey I have an idea?

Why not FORCE children into cliques where they have no chance of forming friendships outside of those cliques helping them understand each other?

Because this is essentialy sending kids to a "All bully" section. Guess what? They are coming out bullies.

DiscipleofBob

2011-12-06, 04:10 PM

The definition of slytherin isnt evil, its ambitious and cunning. And not all the members of that house are death eaters in training. We get to meet a handful of the members of that house and you decide to just tar them all with the same brush? As for why dont they watch all slytherins etc etc etc, maybe its because most of the ruling class of magical britain are former slytherins? Maybe they dont exactly feel like expelling their own children from school for daring to be placed in the same house they were in?

Here's the problem: you're arguing the in-universe logic while we (or at least I) am arguing the narrative point. I would LOVE it if it were shown that not all Slytherins were death eaters in training. I think that if I could make one change to the entire book series it'd be showing off some Slytherins on the protagonist side. I think it's absurd that there weren't some Slytherins at the final battle of Hogwarts, or at the very least working behind the scenes like Snape or Percy.

But the fact is besides Slughorn and Snape and a few Word-of-God-mentioned-reinforcements-that-Slughorn-has-to-go-searching-for-in-the-final-battle-unnamed-Slytherin, every Slytherin is outright evil according to the book.

Traab

2011-12-06, 04:25 PM

Here's the problem: you're arguing the in-universe logic while we (or at least I) am arguing the narrative point. I would LOVE it if it were shown that not all Slytherins were death eaters in training. I think that if I could make one change to the entire book series it'd be showing off some Slytherins on the protagonist side. I think it's absurd that there weren't some Slytherins at the final battle of Hogwarts, or at the very least working behind the scenes like Snape or Percy.

But the fact is besides Slughorn and Snape and a few Word-of-God-mentioned-reinforcements-that-Slughorn-has-to-go-searching-for-in-the-final-battle-unnamed-Slytherin, every Slytherin is outright evil according to the book.

And that makes no freaking sense. Because your argument is that for the last 1000 years, hogwarts has been willfully and knowingly training terrorists just for grins and giggles. Perhaps this latest couple generations tends to be dark heavy, but it cant possibly have been that way for very long, because there is no way in hell that I would believe slytherin has always been, or has always been intended to be, a den of evil. Why would three decent men and women get together with a dark lord and say, "You know whats a good idea? Lets all start a school together! Ill teach them to be brave, you can teach them to be smart, she can teach them to be loyal, and sal over there can teach them to torture kittens and burn nuns."

hamishspence

2011-12-06, 04:29 PM

Indeed. Given that, according to the Hat, until the problems started, Salazar and Godric were about as good friends as any two people could be, I think there might have been a bit more to Salazar than that.

deuterio12

2011-12-06, 04:30 PM

"You know whats a good idea? Lets all start a school together! Ill teach them to be brave, you can teach them to be smart, she can teach them to be loyal, and sal over there can teach them to torture kittens and burn nuns."

I believe it was something more along the lines of "Let's pool our resources to create this super-warded school so that it lasts over a thousand years. In return, each of us gets a pick of the students and teaches them the way they seem fit."

And heck, considering they started in the middle ages, who knows, being cruel and ruthless could've perfectly been seen as virtues back then.

DiscipleofBob

2011-12-06, 04:38 PM

And that makes no freaking sense. Because your argument is that for the last 1000 years, hogwarts has been willfully and knowingly training terrorists just for grins and giggles. Perhaps this latest couple generations tends to be dark heavy, but it cant possibly have been that way for very long, because there is no way in hell that I would believe slytherin has always been, or has always been intended to be, a den of evil. Why would three decent men and women get together with a dark lord and say, "You know whats a good idea? Lets all start a school together! Ill teach them to be brave, you can teach them to be smart, she can teach them to be loyal, and sal over there can teach them to torture kittens and burn nuns."

Yes, it doesn't make any sense! That's the point! As far as we know, Slytherin has been, is, and always will be a den of evil, right from Slytherin's founder who didn't want to allow anyone but purebloods in the school. It breaks my suspension of disbelief too! And yet... there it is in the book. :smallmad:

hamishspence

2011-12-06, 04:45 PM

Where is "they're all evil" stated?

Hagrid (erroneously) states "There hasn't been a dark wizard who wasn't in Slytherin" but that's not the same as "All Slytherins are Dark Wizards".

Considering Hogwarts was founded right in the middle of the period of greatest Muggle backlashes against magic-users, it doesn't seem quite so unreasonable.

warty goblin

2011-12-06, 05:25 PM

Where is "they're all evil" stated?

Hagrid (erroneously) states "There hasn't been a dark wizard who wasn't in Slytherin" but that's not the same as "All Slytherins are Dark Wizards".

I think this is a case where the conditional probabilities matter, which is to say that although not all Slytherins are dark wizards, and not all dark wizards are Slytherins, the two are very far from being independent.

Mewtarthio

2011-12-06, 05:28 PM

Nerd-o-rama

2011-12-06, 05:42 PM

I think the Slytherin = evil argument can be generalized into "Rowling has a problem with what she shows and what she tells disagreeing", personally.

She states (via word of god and through in-character proxies with no reason to lie in this instance like Dumbledore) that not all Slytherins are evil little bastards. However, she does not show this.

Personally, I was hoping for a few Slytherins (the ones whose parents weren't members of Voldie's inner circle anyway) at the end to stand up and say "we might be Slytherins, but this is our school you're attacking." Naturally, they'd be saying this from behind the Death Eaters and after firing off a volley or three of hexes, but the point is the same.

DiscipleofBob

2011-12-06, 06:02 PM

hamishspence

2011-12-06, 06:03 PM

Personally, I was hoping for a few Slytherins (the ones whose parents weren't members of Voldie's inner circle anyway) at the end to stand up and say "we might be Slytherins, but this is our school you're attacking." Naturally, they'd be saying this from behind the Death Eaters and after firing off a volley or three of hexes, but the point is the same.

I would liked there to have been a few Slytherins when they arrived in the Room of Requirement- maybe examples of cross-house friendships, masters of sneaky schemes and tricksy traps.

Weezer

2011-12-06, 06:27 PM

I think the Slytherin = evil argument can be generalized into "Rowling has a problem with what she shows and what she tells disagreeing", personally.

That is a key flaw in her writing style, she fails miserably at what she shows matching with what she is telling us, I think it stems from the fact that she was originally writing for children. Children novels (especially not incredibly well written ones, not saying hers were badly written) tend to fall a bit more on the tell not show spectrum.

Xondoure

2011-12-06, 07:06 PM

Again, I direct you to HP and the Methods of Rationality. These are major plot points.

I agree about Slytherin, too. It's basically the troublemaker house. I can't see this being treated as a legit choice in any real school. A somewhat less mustache wearing treatment of them(ie, you can be ambitious but still be brave or good) would have been wonderful.

Because for the most part the kids in Slytherin come from wealthy respected wizarding families, or have a tremendous amount of ambition which leads to them becoming very influential members of their community. Remember that the sorting hat considered Harry an excellent fit for the house's values.

By contrast Gryffindor is made up of a bunch of students who are defined not by their intelligence, their diligence, or their ambition but by how bold they are. The kids who get caught out of bed after hours and cause trouble constantly. Most of whom could care less about schoolwork. In short, the majority of the time its the Gryffindor students who are the troublemakers, not the other way around. They do well regardless because they are a pretty friendly and charismatic bunch who will stand up for each other fiercely (and thus do very well in team related activities such as quidditch) and therefore earn points in less traditional ways.

Traab

2011-12-06, 07:25 PM

Here's the thing: You're arguing that Slytherins don't necessarily have to be evil. I agree with that. However, in the story itself, all Slytherins are evil with the sole exception of Slughorn. Locking up the entire House during the final battle is presented as an unambiguously good thing. If they aren't all evil, then Rowling does an excellent job of hiding the good ones.

Because they KNOW that at least some of the members of the house are outright voldemort supporters and cant take the risk of sleepers, neutrals, and the jr death eaters hamstringing them from behind. I wont dispute that a great number of dark wizards are slytherins, the qualities of ambition and cunning are too easily twisted into an evil path, but the entire house is not evil.

Mewtarthio

2011-12-06, 10:20 PM

Because they KNOW that at least some of the members of the house are outright voldemort supporters and cant take the risk of sleepers, neutrals, and the jr death eaters hamstringing them from behind.

See, that's not what I'm arguing against. Now, I didn't get the impression from the book or the movie that the "lock 'em all up" scene was supposed to be ruthlessly practical or sudden paranoia or anything at all less than a heroic stand against the despised bullies... but that's just an interpretation. There's no real point in speculating about what it's really supposed to mean.

but the entire house is not evil.

This is what I'm arguing against. We've got Slughorn, the frankly bland Token Good Slytherin, and that's it. Every other Slytherin in the series with any sort of role in the story is evil. Even Snape is more of an antihero.

Traab

2011-12-06, 10:56 PM

See, that's not what I'm arguing against. Now, I didn't get the impression from the book or the movie that the "lock 'em all up" scene was supposed to be ruthlessly practical or sudden paranoia or anything at all less than a heroic stand against the despised bullies... but that's just an interpretation. There's no real point in speculating about what it's really supposed to mean.

This is what I'm arguing against. We've got Slughorn, the frankly bland Token Good Slytherin, and that's it. Every other Slytherin in the series with any sort of role in the story is evil. Even Snape is more of an antihero.

I know that all the slytherin students we meet are considered evil. But the thing is, we only get introduced to a relative handful, and barring flint, I think we only get to meet the students in malfoys year. Thats not a very large proportion of the house overall. And hell, even the ones we DO meet are more brainless sycophants than outright evil people. Crabbe and Goyle are brain dead thugs. They support who they are told to support. Pansy is the brainless tagalong, there to hang off of malfoys arm and join in on the schoolyard taunting. Even malfoy is only as "evil" as your regular inept bully up until 6th year when he moves onto open murder attempts under extreme duress from voldemort.

Xondoure

2011-12-06, 10:58 PM

See, that's not what I'm arguing against. Now, I didn't get the impression from the book or the movie that the "lock 'em all up" scene was supposed to be ruthlessly practical or sudden paranoia or anything at all less than a heroic stand against the despised bullies... but that's just an interpretation. There's no real point in speculating about what it's really supposed to mean.

This is what I'm arguing against. We've got Slughorn, the frankly bland Token Good Slytherin, and that's it. Every other Slytherin in the series with any sort of role in the story is evil. Even Snape is more of an antihero.

Snape, Slughorn, and RAB are all firmly on the good team.
Malfoy, Malfoy's mother, and many other slytherin's (too tired to go name hunting) are all arguably just people caught in a bad situation once they are faced with the actual consequences of their beliefs and subsequently make the switch (as Snape did. He is just ahead of the times in that regard.)

Weezer

2011-12-06, 11:20 PM

Snape, Slughorn, and RAB are all firmly on the good team.
Malfoy, Malfoy's mother, and many other slytherin's (too tired to go name hunting) are all arguably just people caught in a bad situation once they are faced with the actual consequences of their beliefs and subsequently make the switch (as Snape did. He is just ahead of the times in that regard.)

Yeah, I'm going to almost completely disagree with your first statement. Snape is evil, through and through. He was a Death Eater in every respect, from befriending many of the most heinous Death Eaters to willingly joining Voldemort to running straight to Voldemort the instant he overhears the Prophecy. The only reason he did *anything* good at all in the books was because he happened to end up being responsible for Lilly's death and Dumbledore used that in a very manipulative fashion to secure his loyalty. If Voldemort had chosen to go after Neiville and his parents were the ones that died, Snape would have continued his purely evil pursuits. Guilt over one action does not make someone good.

Slughorn is pretty much the embodiment of old boys club, you rub my back I'll rub yours style corruption. I wouldn't call that particularly good, sure it's not the ethnic cleansing level of evil that most Death Eaters are at but still that kind of corruption is definitely seen as something bad which should avoided in modern society, especially politics.

RAB? Yeah he got cold feet and thus decided to steal the horcrux, but he was still evil enough to get far enough in the Death Eaters to discover that Voldemort is dependent on horcruxes. If you think he was able to get that far without torturing and killing a number of innocent muggles, mudbloods and/or wizards who stood up to Voldemort you're being naive.

Xondoure

2011-12-07, 01:20 AM

Yeah, I'm going to almost completely disagree with your first statement. Snape is evil, through and through. He was a Death Eater in every respect, from befriending many of the most heinous Death Eaters to willingly joining Voldemort to running straight to Voldemort the instant he overhears the Prophecy. The only reason he did *anything* good at all in the books was because he happened to end up being responsible for Lilly's death and Dumbledore used that in a very manipulative fashion to secure his loyalty. If Voldemort had chosen to go after Neiville and his parents were the ones that died, Snape would have continued his purely evil pursuits. Guilt over one action does not make someone good.

Slughorn is pretty much the embodiment of old boys club, you rub my back I'll rub yours style corruption. I wouldn't call that particularly good, sure it's not the ethnic cleansing level of evil that most Death Eaters are at but still that kind of corruption is definitely seen as something bad which should avoided in modern society, especially politics.

RAB? Yeah he got cold feet and thus decided to steal the horcrux, but he was still evil enough to get far enough in the Death Eaters to discover that Voldemort is dependent on horcruxes. If you think he was able to get that far without torturing and killing a number of innocent muggles, mudbloods and/or wizards who stood up to Voldemort you're being naive.

I take it you don't believe in redemption?

Sotharsyl

2011-12-07, 03:45 AM

Ah it isn't a true HP thread till we have a long winded discussion about Slitherin morality or the lack there off :smallcool: .

What annoys me the most about Slitherin hasn't been actually did by the snakes themselves.
Let me explain it's the epilogue young Albus Severus, whom I will now refer to as Al, is quite afraid of his sorting or to be more exact that he will get sent to Slitherin.

So even 12 year olds know about the houses reputation, well if you can't be famous be infamous.

Harry tries to reassure him telling him that the hat will take his choice into consideration, that's fine , and then he mentions that the bravest man he knew was a Slitherin.

Honestly Harry's advice is the worst insult I've read to Slitherin, "You can go to Slitherin just be sure to have lots of [quality which is the hallmark of Griffyndor] and you will still be a god man." because he's being totally honest and Rowling expects every one to take it as golden wisdom.

Let me apply this style of fathership to another situation:

Son : "Dad I think I might be bisexual."
Father : "That's ok, son you can be bi I'll still love you,just remember to only date,sleep and marry women"

Why even have the three other houses Rowling has assured us that courage is the only virtue worth having and the Gryyfs have that in spades,they don't need those other guys.Throw out those lazy,nerdy,evil hanger ons out of the school!

Now ranting aside, wizard society I assume still has equivalents to most muggle jobs and there are some jobs which a Slitherin will fill much better then someone from the other houses and for which the traits which slitherins are supposed to develop are excellent.

For example the department of foreign relations, you need some more sneaky than a Hufflepuff, a Gryyf will do something brave and stupid and you will be at war in a week, a Claw might work but he might get caught up in a academic issue and forget his duties.

Also spies every nation needs them, and Slitherins make the best RL spies I give you James Bond would be a Griff but the rest all of them would be silver and green.

I think one of the reasons, the wars against Voldemort went so badly was that before they started Voldy had already corrupted the recruitment pool for Intelligence and Counter-Intelligence.

But at least the epilogue gave us Word of God on the morality issue it's ok to be a Slitherin,if for all intents and purposes you are a Griffindor but with a silver and green paintjob.

TheArsenal

2011-12-07, 05:13 AM

To strip Slitheryn down:

Its a house for racists, by racists. Thats messed up.

VanBuren

2011-12-07, 05:36 AM

Weezer

2011-12-07, 05:47 AM

I take it you don't believe in redemption?

I do believe in redemption, and I should be more fair to RAB, he did (probably, we don't know all that much about his exact circumstances) undergo some true redemption just don't think it was shown to happen for either Snape or Slughorn.

TheArsenal

2011-12-07, 05:53 AM

Because it's apparently bad to think courage is a virtue.

Because he devalued the virtues of Slytherin and only encouraged his own values.

But ugh. Harry potter isn't worth its adult fanbase. Seriously there is a section called SLYTHERIN! Why not call them "The Jerkains!" or Bullymcjockjerkelracistocios.

VanBuren

2011-12-07, 06:05 AM

Because he devalued the virtues of Slytherin and only encouraged his own values.

But ugh. Harry potter isn't worth its adult fanbase. Seriously there is a section called SLYTHERIN! Why not call them "The Jerkains!" or Bullymcjockjerkelracistocios.

Or he pointed out that there's more to a person than the house they're sorted into.

TheArsenal

2011-12-07, 06:20 AM

Or he pointed out that there's more to a person than the house they're sorted into.

I doubt it.

Ugh. I hate harry potter. I realy do.

Aotrs Commander

2011-12-07, 06:59 AM

I doubt it.

Ugh. I hate harry potter. I realy do.

If that were true, Herminone wouldn't have been sorted into Griffindor, she'd have been in Ravenclaw. Her most defining characteristic is intelligence, after all.

There are a smattering of examples like that (and enough jerks in Griffindor, e.g. Romilda Vane, Sirius, James Potter) to prove that the houses can't quite completely be defined by their steriotypical examples.

There are, however, probably not quite enough for my personal tastes. Though to be fair, we really only see Griffindor to any real extent, and the worst side of Slytherin (because even as stupid as Wizards are, even they aren't quite stupid enough to let it alone if it was truly an irredeemably evil influence.)

A postulation, if you will: it might be argued that the last two generations of Slytherins were heavily influenced by Voldemort (through the Death Eater parents on both generations) and that the Sorting Hat might have been savvy enough to foresee potential conflicts and sort those who might under more reasonable conditions be sorted into Slytherin into one of the other houses, to keep them from being lynched (pretty much literally), and this turn making Slytherin even more internecine and thus a self-reinforcing problem without any mitigatation from different thinking. Tommy himself was a Slytherin, and it streches my sense of plasubility that, being raised as a muggle, he would have been able to pass himself off completely as a pure blood - after all, his identity as Tom Riddle was a secret for a reason. So it stands to reason that in the past, Slytherin couldn't have been so completely elitist: likewise, I can't see the Sorting Hat sorting any would-be muggle-born Slytherins into the house (certainly around Harry's age group) given the potetnial danger..

It's just a thought, though, pure speculation.

We don't really see what Hufflepuff or Ravenclaw are like up close (the former especially), though we can infer from Luna that there are a good number of jerks in Ravenclaw too...

Arakune

2011-12-07, 08:10 AM

Because it's apparently bad to think courage is a virtue.

Or he pointed out that there's more to a person than the house they're sorted into.

"It's all right you're gay son, at least you're not jewish or frensh".

That's pretty much what he is saying to his son. It's all right to go to the Dem of Evil if you are a Griffindor at heart.

If that were true, Herminone wouldn't have been sorted into Griffindor, she'd have been in Ravenclaw. Her most defining characteristic is intelligence, after all.

No. Her most defining characterist is to force people, by almost any means if necessary, to see her world view. The Hat almost put her there, but she pretty much bullied the Hat into putting her on Griffindor because that's where she wanted to go.

Mewtarthio

2011-12-07, 10:16 AM

And let's not forget how, when the Hat wants to put Harry in Slytherin, it goes into full-on Dark Lord of the Sith mode. "Join Slytherin! You desire power, and they shall help you on your path to greatness!"

Then, in Book 2, when Harry tells Dumbledore that he only got into Gryffindor because he asked not to be in Slytherine, what's Dumbledore's response? Is it, "Well, the hat does take your choice into account, but being a candidate for Slytherin isn't that bad. It just means you're ambitious. That's not a bad thing at all. Many fine, moral people who've changed the world for the better were Slytherin."? No, it's, "Ah, but you asked. A True Slytherin would never have willinghly given up the dark power of House Slytherin just because they knew it was a horrible place of evil and despair. True Slytherins do anything for power, including the abominable act of joining House Slytherin."

Nerd-o-rama

2011-12-07, 10:57 AM

No. Her most defining characterist is to force people, by almost any means if necessary, to see her world view. The Hat almost put her there, but she pretty much bullied the Hat into putting her on Griffindor because that's where she wanted to go.

And thus proved she was suited to being a Gryffindor. They're the Charisma house.

Not going to touch the real-world comparisons, but I think Epilogue Harry's point was that House doesn't matter to morality, and connecting it back to the book's theme that you can be a hero because you choose to act like one, not just because destiny or some hat says so. That, at least, was consistently developed, unlike Slytherin's good points.

And Dumbledore's a git sometimes.

Tiki Snakes

2011-12-07, 11:01 AM

Nerd-o-rama

2011-12-07, 11:07 AM

I find it quite amusing that the supposed house of Ambition not only basically did nothing and acheived nothing for the majority of the series, on an individual level rarely managing more than dull-witted knuckle-dragging spite, but also in the final reckoning took the safe, cautious, unambitious option and sat on their hands.

Because heaven forbid they do anything as risky as seek to benefit from the situation! :smallwink:

Most of them seem to have been of the opinion that Voldemort was going to win, at least as of the seventh book. Why no one else decided that it might be worth it to gamble on the long odds (Harry, Neville, and the DA, if not the administration) and reap the rewards is beyond me.

Heck, I can see a mature, risk-taking Slytherin walking in to join the DA/resistance in the last book and blithely admit he doesn't expect them to win, but if they do, he knows he can parlay the hero-worship into getting anything he wants, and he's willing to risk his life for that. And also he liked the school better before torture became part of the curriculum.

Arakune

2011-12-07, 11:14 AM

And thus proved she was suited to being a Gryffindor. They're the Charisma house.

That's pretty much it. She didn't choose as much she always belonged there in a sense. People saying she should be on Ravenclaw forget that little bit of information.

Not going to touch the real-world comparisons, but I think Epilogue Harry's point was that House doesn't matter to morality, and connecting it back to the book's theme that you can be a hero because you choose to act like one, not just because destiny or some hat says so. That, at least, was consistently developed, unlike Slytherin's good points.

And Dumbledore's a git sometimes.

Except Destiny and some hat did said so. For all this talk about choices and the hell, Harry did go along with his destiny and fulfiled it. You say choose, bu in the end Harry did exactly what was expected of him to do as the destined one and vanguished Voldemort, time and time again, most of the time with increasingly ridiculous Deus Ex Machinas.

Heck, I can see a mature, risk-taking Slytherin walking in to join the DA/resistance in the last book and blithely admit he doesn't expect them to win, but if they do, he knows he can parlay the hero-worship into getting anything he wants, and he's willing to risk his life for that. And also he liked the school better before torture became part of the curriculum.

Are you blind? Slytherins (or people in Rowling books in general) doing something sensible?

Are you really reading the same book as us?

Tiki Snakes

2011-12-07, 11:15 AM

Most of them seem to have been of the opinion that Voldemort was going to win, at least as of the seventh book. Why no one else decided that it might be worth it to gamble on the long odds (Harry, Neville, and the DA, if not the administration) and reap the rewards is beyond me.

Heck, I can see a mature, risk-taking Slytherin walking in to join the DA/resistance in the last book and blithely admit he doesn't expect them to win, but if they do, he knows he can parlay the hero-worship into getting anything he wants, and he's willing to risk his life for that. And also he liked the school better before torture became part of the curriculum.

My point is, the ambitious thing to do is to take risk and pick a side. Either side. Even attempting to pick both sides would fit. The only openly unambitious strategy is picking neither side and hoping whichever wins leaves you alone.

Nerd-o-rama

2011-12-07, 11:22 AM

Except Destiny and some hat did said so. For all this talk about choices and the hell, Harry did go along with his destiny and fulfiled it. You say choose, bu in the end Harry did exactly what was expected of him to do as the destined one and vanguished Voldemort, time and time again, most of the time with increasingly ridiculous Deus Ex Machinas.

What I took out of the book was that Harry could have run away at any time (at least in book 7) or whined and bitched and complained (which he stopped doing in book 7, thank Christ), but ultimately, he disregarded this and chose to go where destiny and insane Thanatos Gambits led him because it was the right thing to do.

My very favorite fantasy series, The Belgariad, had something to say on this matter. I can't come up with a direct quote, but it went something like this:

The Chosen One: "Why me?"
The Voice of Prophecy: "Tell you what. Imagine I wasn't here bossing you around. Would you want to make someone else go save the world, or would you go do it yourself?"
The Chosen One: "Okay fine."

Lamech

2011-12-07, 11:27 AM

Nerd-o-rama

2011-12-07, 11:30 AM

Tiki Snakes

2011-12-07, 11:35 AM

Yes, but then it would be an entirely different book.

Possibly an interesting one, though.

Young Harry in a nest of Vipers, clawing his way towards Dark power against the unthinking opposition of the meddlesome Gryffindor and the scheming of his fellow Slytherin. Learning that the man who killed his parents is clawing his way back to life to threaten his world once more he marshals his cunning and his small group of allies to protect a world that hates and fears him.
But will his actions split house Slytherin in two?
And if he succeeds, will magical britain merely be exchanging one Dark Lord for another?

Arakune

2011-12-07, 11:37 AM

Wait, you guys realize that harry would have been assigned to Slytherian, if he had met someone that was like "Gyrffidors are jerks, and foolhardy morons that have a tendency to die doing stupid stuff early. You never want to be a Gryffindor. Slytherians on the other hand go on to do great stuff. That is the place to be." He would have been all "not Gryffindor" and been a Slytherian right?

Except the chances for that to happen hypothetically is exactly zero.

First we have Hagrid, with his hardwired prejudice against Slytherins and pro-Griffindor attitude, then there was the fact both his parents were Griffindors and died protecting Harry, so the whole "don't die like a dog and learn when to run" won't buy with him since it would be the same as spitting in the idealized image of his perfect parents (increased due to how terrible were his home life).

Then we have the (un)fortunate meeting with Draco at the robes shop, Harry and the Weasleys meeting (what the hell they were doing there in the first place?) and the second Malfoy meeting.

At least Hagrid and the Weasleys were probably enginereed by the Gandalf look-alike, and to put insult to the injury he didn't even need to instruct them into anything, just considering their base personalities and Harry home life would be more than enough to make sure he would stay the hell away from the House of Evil.

The Chosen One: "Why me?"
The Voice of Prophecy: "Tell you what. Imagine I wasn't here bossing you around. Would you want to make someone else go save the world, or would you go do it yourself?"
The Chosen One: "Okay fine."

Which isn't a choise at all. Is there any possibility for Harry to even say "screw this, I'm out of here" considering the whole series?

Specially after the talk with dumbledore after the department of mysteries fiasco, it was pretty much set in stone that the prophecy will come to pass.

Nerd-o-rama

2011-12-07, 11:51 AM

Aotrs Commander

2011-12-07, 12:03 PM

Which isn't a choise at all. Is there any possibility for Harry to even say "screw this, I'm out of here" considering the whole series?

Specially after the talk with dumbledore after the department of mysteries fiasco, it was pretty much set in stone that the prophecy will come to pass.

The phrase "I have no choice" is a big fat lie. There is always a choice. The fact that one option is significantly worse than another does not mean that it isn't a choice, it still is. A poor choice, but a choice nontheless. If I choose between ruling the universe with an iron fist and pouring custard into my eye sockets, the no-brainer decision to go with the former is still a choice, the same as the response to "do this evil thing or I'll kill you" is still a choice.

And, you know what, life doesn't always give you fair choices (the grimmest example I can think of is one I saw during Comic Relief in March, which was having to choose which critically ill babies die because you don't have enough medical equipment for all of them; something that left a memorable mark on even me.)

But anyway, one of the themes of the HP series - rightly or wrongly - was that choices are important. (Personally, I agree with that sentiment.)

The fact that Voldemorte tried so very hard to break the prophecy means that it was still regarded as not being set in stone. (Prophecy is, after all, not quite the same as predestination.) So, Harry could have said, "Sod this, I'm not playing anymore," or "you know what, if I'm gonna die, screw all of you, I'll frag up as much as I possibly can and do as much damage to everyone around me, regardless of who's side they're on before I go." He choose not to, because that the sort of person he was, and regardless how easy or hard a decision it was to make that choice, it was still a choice.

Arakune

2011-12-07, 12:07 PM

Harry had about 700 pages worth of opportunity to just GTFO off of Britain and didn't, so there's that. I think Hermione even suggests it at some point. Then there's the choice at the end between his own death and that of everyone he knows and cares about - an obvious choice, but still a choice, and that's what makes him a hero (and obvious Messianic archetype).

By that point, trying to dissuade Harry from the quest was an exercise in futility, considering he was the kid that also let himself die without hesitation at the end of book 7, and by some strange reason keep trying to find trouble through all seven books, from when he was just an eleven year old and going accepting a duel and wanting to see what a three headed dog was guarding and to feeling responsible to do something the adults didn't wanted to involve themselves.

Harry wasn't a Hero, he was a Martyr that was incapable to simply consider certain choices, because for them they don't exist. You can try to convince the moron that you can run, but he will keep saying 'he wants to go' when in reality he simply doesn't acknowledge that as an actual, valid and reasonable option.

Edit: Remember that the best way to manipulate people is to make them do something while giving them the illusion that it was their choice all along. By doing that they will go to great lenghts to justify themselves on their motivations.

The fact that Voldemorte tried so very hard to break the prophecy means that it was still regarded as not being set in stone. (Prophecy is, after all, not quite the same as predestination.) So, Harry could have said, "Sod this, I'm not playing anymore," or "you know what, if I'm gonna die, screw all of you, I'll frag up as much as I possibly can and do as much damage to everyone around me, regardless of who's side they're on before I go." He choose not to, because that the sort of person he was, and regardless how easy or hard a decision it was to make that choice, it was still a choice.

Which wasn't as much a choice if he never even considered the other options as even existing. Even if you appeal to his nature, in the end it will go back to him simply going as canon anyway. He was conditioned to go there, and found out that every time he wanted to run someone dragged him back to the spotlights

"I want to get out of the Dursley's house" -> "Sorry Harry, you can't, go back to the Dursleys".

"Let's see the Professors to help" -> "Sorry Harry, I will sit on my ass while the mass/mysterious murderer keeps going".

"I really want to get out of the Durley's house, specially now that I turned my 'aunt' into a baloon" -> "Sorry Harry, you can't, go back to the Dursleys again".

"I don't want to participate in this stupid competition!" -> "Sorry Harry, magical contract and all that, go risk your life for no reason".

"I don't want to practice Occlumency with him! Can't you see it isn't working? That we hate each other? That he is one stop behind turning me into a vegetable?" -> "Sorry Harry, go back to learning occlumency with the man that hates you for motives out of your control (and some your own fault to be fair)"

"I really need to face him? I really need to kill him myself?" -> "Well, not really, choices and all you can simply commit suicide like any other human being that will always consider that while going against all it's most basical survival insticts. But if you don't pretty much he wins and everyone you loves will either die or suffer a fate worse than death. Yes, even that family that simply treated you like an actual human being like any other child but you think they special, even more so the girl you saved and on the first year and now goes to great lengths to help you in everything possible within her reach. No pressure though, take your time in choosing."

Nerd-o-rama

2011-12-07, 12:17 PM

Harry wasn't a Hero, he was a Martyr that was incapable to simply consider certain choices, because for them they don't exist. You can try to convince the moron that you can run, but he will keep saying 'he wants to go' when in reality he simply doesn't acknowledge that as an actual, valid and reasonable option.

And how is this different from the definition of a hero?

Edit: Remember that the best way to manipulate people is to make them do something while giving them the illusion that it was their choice all along. By doing that they will go to great lenghts to justify themselves on their motivations.

I am well aware of this, and it was more or less Dumbledore's entire plan. Harry was aware of it by the end, though, and went with the plan despite consciously knowing for certain he was manipulated into it. That's heroism by choice.

Sotharsyl

2011-12-07, 12:19 PM

Because it's apparently bad to think courage is a virtue.

Or since Al thinks that he might get put in Slitherin,since he had a wizard upbringing he must have absorbed more info about the houses,he must think that he has some Slitherin traits,Harry could have said something like:
"That's fine son Slitherin always land on their feet." or something.

You know encourage him to play to his strengths not this bravery is the end all be all of gifts/traits thing.

Because lets admit it Snape had courage but if he didn't have the Slitherin knack for deception he would have been dead the second he got back from accepting Dumbledore's "offer".

Weezer

2011-12-07, 12:22 PM

The phrase "I have no choice" is a big fat lie. There is always a choice. The fact that one option is significantly worse than another does not mean that it isn't a choice, it still is. A poor choice, but a choice nontheless. If I choose between ruling the universe with an iron fist and pouring custard into my eye sockets, the no-brainer decision to go with the former is still a choice, the same as the response to "do this evil thing or I'll kill you" is still a choice.

And, you know what, life doesn't always give you fair choices (the grimmest example I can think of is one I saw during Comic Relief in March, which was having to choose which critically ill babies die because you don't have enough medical equipment for all of them; something that left a memorable mark on even me.)

But anyway, one of the themes of the HP series - rightly or wrongly - was that choices are important. (Personally, I agree with that sentiment.)

The fact that Voldemorte tried so very hard to break the prophecy means that it was still regarded as not being set in stone. (Prophecy is, after all, not quite the same as predestination.) So, Harry could have said, "Sod this, I'm not playing anymore," or "you know what, if I'm gonna die, screw all of you, I'll frag up as much as I possibly can and do as much damage to everyone around me, regardless of who's side they're on before I go." He choose not to, because that the sort of person he was, and regardless how easy or hard a decision it was to make that choice, it was still a choice.

Sure, what you are saying is perfectly true, he had the choice to bugger off to Hawaii and spend the rest of his life sipping Pina Colada's while Voldemort crushed Britain under an iron heel, but I think for a choice to be meaningful you need to have multiple valid options. There needs to be a legitimate chance that the hero (or whoever) will make the "bad" choice for the "good" choice to be meaningful. Just like Harry's sacrifice in the Forbidden Forest isn't a powerful one because he loses nothing, his choice isn't meaningful because he didn't have multiple valid options.

Nerd-o-rama

2011-12-07, 12:30 PM

This just in: Harry Potter has black and white morality.

Just because a choice is clear cut between "good" and "evil" and we know how the hero will answer based on his established characterization doesn't make it any less of a choice.

A Hero not losing something from the choice when he thought he was going to doesn't make it less important, either. Remember, this is Harry Potter: he never figures out plot twists like that until after they've happened and Dumbledore patiently explains everything to him in detail. (Like I said. Charisma house, not Intelligence or Wisdom house.)

Arakune

2011-12-07, 12:30 PM

And how is this different from the definition of a hero?

Heroes does great things, and are acknowledge by people. The latter being a very portion of being a hero, even more than the first.

I am well aware of this, and it was more or less Dumbledore's entire plan. Harry was aware of it by the end, though, and went with the plan despite consciously knowing for certain he was manipulated into it. That's heroism by choice.

He went with it because he was led to believe there was no other choice. If you tell a people that there are two choises, one of which he will never consider taking even on his wildest dreams, then there isn't a choise at all, specially because a third choise (run/let the authorites deal with it) isn't a real choice in the end since it have the exact same effect as one of the previous (voldemort wins).

Nerd-o-rama

2011-12-07, 12:35 PM

I just think a hero (in the modern literary sense of a moral protagonist) is someone who sees the following two choices and picks the first one:

"I die/suffer hardship and everyone else gets a chance to live/be happy"
"I get a chance to live/be happy and someone else dies/suffers hardship"

One thing I can't really argue with Harry Potter doing well (for young adult fiction) is presenting this moral theme. I guess other people can, though.

Aotrs Commander

2011-12-07, 12:37 PM

Sure, what you are saying is perfectly true, he had the choice to bugger off to Hawaii and spend the rest of his life sipping Pina Colada's while Voldemort crushed Britain under an iron heel, but I think for a choice to be meaningful you need to have multiple valid options. There needs to be a legitimate chance that the hero (or whoever) will make the "bad" choice for the "good" choice to be meaningful. Just like Harry's sacrifice in the Forbidden Forest isn't a powerful one because he loses nothing, his choice isn't meaningful because he didn't have multiple valid options.

By that logic, what hero can ever have a meaningful choice? Because that basic choice is "stop the bad guy or don't and let them win". And it's made by each and every protagonist worthy of the name.

(And knowing a prophesy makes no bearing on it, in as much as it makes no more difference than someone who doesn't fear to die sacrificing themselves because they have faith in something.)

And I strongly disagree that the choice to stand up to the bad guys is EVER meaningless, regardless of how easy or hard it is to do, whether you're standing up to DickDastardly, Voldemort, Sauron or the Chaos Gods.

Weezer

2011-12-07, 12:46 PM

By that logic, what hero can ever have a meaningful choice? Because that basic choice is "stop the bad guy or don't and let them win". And it's made by each and every protagonist worthy of the name.

(And knowing a prophesy makes no bearing on it, in as much as it makes no more difference than someone who doesn't fear to die sacrificing themselves because they have faith in something.)

And I strongly disagree that the choice to stand up to the bad guys is EVER meaningless, regardless of how easy or hard it is to do, whether you're standing up to DickDastardly, Voldemort, Sauron or the Chaod Gods.

Honestly that is exactly why I find building a story around the theme of choice a weak one. Rarely do I find the options that heroes are presented with as giving rise to meaningful choices, and those times are almost never black/white morality worlds but rather shades of grey moralities (a good example of this is the Gap Cycle by Stephen Donaldson, which is one of the best explorations of freedom and choice in a sci-fi/fantasy book I've ever come across). I think sacrifice, true sacrifice, is a far better theme.

For example in Lord of the Rings, there was never really any doubt that Frodo/Sam would follow through with the plan to destroy the Ring, but what made that act meaningful was not that they chose to do it but that there were some pretty severe and concrete personal consequences for doing so. Frodo and Sam were subjected to horrific conditions in their trek to Mount Doom and even after Frodo gets back home he is so scarred and changed by his experience that he cannot stay at home, and is driven from his world by his experience. That is true and meaningful sacrifice, unlike anything Potter did.

Arakune

2011-12-07, 12:49 PM

By that logic, what hero can ever have a meaningful choice? Because that basic choice is "stop the bad guy or don't and let them win". And it's made by each and every protagonist worthy of the name.

Because that's not much of a choice for a lot of stories, specialy those of the "You are the destined hero of X that will vanquish the evil Z". When the hero don't want anything with that he needs to "choose" between being chased off and killed by the bad buys (who apparently didn't got the memo that the protagonist told destiny to suck it) or go with the destiny and have an actual chance (on their eyes) to survive this mess. Even if they keep saying no, there is a good number of stories where the destiny is fullfilled anyway.

(And knowing a prophesy makes no bearing on it, in as much as it makes no more difference than someone who doesn't fear to die sacrificing themselves because they have faith in something.)

And yet those archetypes are more common to be from heroes that are indocriated/stubborn/whatever to never, ever even consider the other option as valid, let alone acknowledge it's existence.

And I strongly disagree that the choice to stand up to the bad guys is EVER meaningless, regardless of how easy or hard it is to do, whether you're standing up to DickDastardly, Voldemort, Sauron or the Chaos Gods.

The choice comes down to "If I'm the only one standing between certain death and the slightest slim of hope, do I assurelly die immediately or very probably die later?"

That's sucker bet. That's why those that actually do choose the other options are so shocking. You might intelectually know those kinds of choices exist and the protagonist can take it, but for him to actually considers and take it is extremelly memorable (and often come as "BAD ENDs or DEATH ENDs, try again")

Traab

2011-12-07, 01:00 PM

Harry and the Weasleys meeting (what the hell they were doing there in the first place?)

Thats also another, if not plot hole, than sign of something fairly underhanded. The first meeting with the weasleys. Why the HELL does molly have to wonder out loud where the platform is? She went there for 7 years as a student, her eldest and second eldest have been brought there and graduated for a total of at least 8 more years of constant trips, not too mention this year with the twins and ron. There is no way in hell she got confused and had to wonder about the platform for even a second, and just as little reason tot alk about "muggles" as she "just happened" to be walking within ear shot of harry. Biggest. Setup. Ever. Hell, thats how half the evil weasley stories get started, by harry realizing just how obvious that was. Then later on with ron and his, "Can I sit here? Everywhere else is full." BULL! There is no way the train was so crowded that only harrys compartment had spaces left in it.

Nerd-o-rama

2011-12-07, 01:01 PM

For example in Lord of the Rings, there was never really any doubt that Frodo/Sam would follow through with the plan to destroy the Ring

I...

But...

He didn't. They didn't. That was kind of a big deal - not even Frodo managed to hold onto enough selflessness to throw the Ring away intentionally (Sam might have, but he wasn't the one making the choice). He got to the end and said NOPE, I LIKE POWER SORRY ENTIRE WORLD. The Ring was just that powerful.

And then, of course, it's destroyed by accident and Frodo and Sam are saved by Deus ex Machina. But that's okay because Deus ex Machina is entirely appropriate for a mythic story like LotR. And you knew this already, presumably, since you talk about the epilogue despite having apparently missed the climax (not hard, the whole scene is like 3/4 of a page).

I mean, I agree with everything else you said in principle, I just don't expect terribly complex morality from Young Adult fantasy novels, but...what?

Arakune

2011-12-07, 01:03 PM

Thats also another, if not plot hole, than sign of something fairly underhanded. The first meeting with the weasleys. Why the HELL does molly have to wonder out loud where the platform is? She went there for 7 years as a student, her eldest and second eldest have been brought there and graduated for a total of at least 8 more years of constant trips, not too mention this year with the twins and ron. There is no way in hell she got confused and had to wonder about the platform for even a second, and just as little reason tot alk about "muggles" as she "just happened" to be walking within ear shot of harry. Biggest. Setup. Ever. Hell, thats how half the evil weasley stories get started, by harry realizing just how obvious that was. Then later on with ron and his, "Can I sit here? Everywhere else is full." BULL! There is no way the train was so crowded that only harrys compartment had spaces left in it.

The best part of all this mess? The Weasleys don't even need malice for that to work. Just a call from Dumbledore to help a 'poor, clueless child brought up by his muggle relatives' and a general description, add the twins and ron personality with Harry home life and BAM, instant BFF.

I...

But...

He didn't. They didn't. That was kind of a big deal - not even Frodo managed to hold onto enough selflessness to throw the Ring away intentionally (Sam might have, but he wasn't the one making the choice). He got to the end and said NOPE, I LIKE POWER SORRY ENTIRE WORLD. The Ring was just that powerful.

Yes, the Ring. The holder of the power of one of the strongest being in the universe that can mindrape any creature that uses it and is weak enough.

The simple fact they are carrying it for so long is more than enough proof of their selfless.

Everyone that keep saying whoever didn't throw the ring away was weak didn't even touched the damn thing.

I don't believe choice at this point is so important when facing the ultimate plot device of ultimate mindraping powers.

And then, of course, it's destroyed by accident and Frodo and Sam are saved by Deus ex Machina. But that's okay because Deus ex Machina is entirely appropriate for a mythic story like LotR. And you knew this already, presumably, since you talk about the epilogue despite having apparently missed the climax (not hard, the whole scene is like 3/4 of a page).

I mean, I agree with everything else you said in principle, I just don't expect terribly complex morality from Young Adult fantasy novels, but...what?

That scene had more to do with a mix of choice and werid causality, and everyone was surprised at the outcome, since the biggest issue was Frodo sparing Gollum in the end. Killing him would be the wisest thing and Sam was right when he told that creature would betray them.

Lord Seth

2011-12-07, 01:27 PM

Then, in Book 2, when Harry tells Dumbledore that he only got into Gryffindor because he asked not to be in Slytherine, what's Dumbledore's response? Is it, "Well, the hat does take your choice into account, but being a candidate for Slytherin isn't that bad. It just means you're ambitious. That's not a bad thing at all. Many fine, moral people who've changed the world for the better were Slytherin."? No, it's, "Ah, but you asked. A True Slytherin would never have willinghly given up the dark power of House Slytherin just because they knew it was a horrible place of evil and despair. True Slytherins do anything for power, including the abominable act of joining House Slytherin."That's not really what Dumbledore says. I'd have to look back at it to be sure, but I believe it more amounted to "well, you weren't put in Slytherin because you chose not to be. And that's what makes you different than Tom Riddle, who chose to be in it." It doesn't come out and say it, but it strongly carries the implication that to choose Slytherin is evil. Which, while certainly having its own problems, really isn't what you were claiming it was.

Aotrs Commander

2011-12-07, 01:30 PM

You might intelectually know those kinds of choices exist and the protagonist can take it, but for him to actually considers and take it is extremelly memorable (and often come as "BAD ENDs or DEATH ENDs, try again")

Vanishingly few of which I find make even remotely entertaining reading/watching.

Honestly that is exactly why I find building a story around the theme of choice a weak one. Rarely do I find the options that heroes are presented with as giving rise to meaningful choices, and those times are almost never black/white morality worlds but rather shades of grey moralities (a good example of this is the Gap Cycle by Stephen Donaldson, which is one of the best explorations of freedom and choice in a sci-fi/fantasy book I've ever come across). I think sacrifice, true sacrifice, is a far better theme.

For example in Lord of the Rings, there was never really any doubt that Frodo/Sam would follow through with the plan to destroy the Ring, but what made that act meaningful was not that they chose to do it but that there were some pretty severe and concrete personal consequences for doing so. Frodo and Sam were subjected to horrific conditions in their trek to Mount Doom and even after Frodo gets back home he is so scarred and changed by his experience that he cannot stay at home, and is driven from his world by his experience. That is true and meaningful sacrifice, unlike anything Potter did.

On a personal level, I scoff at the rather-to-often brought up literary (etc) notion that a victory without cost/sacrifice is meaningless (and that by extension anything that is done easily is worthless), perhaps because I look at it from a more military-sort-of mindset. In which,in the final analysis, a victory with no cost you and all to the enemy, is as complete and total as you can get and is by far the most desired result. Hard work and sacrifice for the sake of hard work and sacrifice is not some moral high ground, it's just a mind-bendingly stupid lack of practicality.

For that matter, casualties and sacrifice, for the sake of drama alone (which HP is as guilty of as many) means you just aren't doing it right, either as an author or a character.

LotR at least, minimised the casualties to an acceptable level. I could easily see, though, that if it had been written now and not then, half the Fellowship would have been bumped off during the final battles for no good reason other than the current media fetish of utterly failing to increase tension by character death and an apparent inability to want to let anyone other than a Main Character recieve any kind of happy ending, if even they are allowed one.

Also, again on a personal note, I find shades-of-grey morality tedious at the best of times, perhaps because I myself don't and never have seen the world in shades of grey, and I also don't have any problems with the occasional complete curb-stomping, provided it's not done to excess and is entertainingly explodey with plenty of time for the bad guy to gawp in paralysed horror at the impending defeat he's about to have brutally inflicted on him (or vise-versa on the good guys if it's Evil Protagonists.)

Traab

2011-12-07, 01:34 PM

The best part of all this mess? The Weasleys don't even need malice for that to work. Just a call from Dumbledore to help a 'poor, clueless child brought up by his muggle relatives' and a general description, add the twins and ron personality with Harry home life and BAM, instant BFF.

But if THAT was the case, then there would be no need for subterfuge. "Hey Harry, my name is Molly Weasley, here is the rest of my family. The Headmaster found out last second that hagrid forgot to tell you how to get onto the right platform and asked me to help. Follow us." Boom, same outcome, no trickery, just suggest that he and ron share a compartment, and you have the outcome you wanted. Instead it comes across as sinister even if that WASNT the intent. Lies and deceit used to manipulate harry into befriending a light family right off the bat, coincidentally one that is absolutely devoted to following dumbledoore.

Xondoure

2011-12-07, 01:42 PM

That's not really what Dumbledore says. I'd have to look back at it to be sure, but I believe it more amounted to "well, you weren't put in Slytherin because you chose not to be. And that's what makes you different than Tom Riddle, who chose to be in it." It doesn't come out and say it, but it strongly carries the implication that to choose Slytherin is evil. Which, while certainly having its own problems, really isn't what you were claiming it was.

And dumbledore is claiming this because he knows as Harry grows older he's going to be seeing more and more similarities between himself and Voldemort and making Harry see the distinctions so he is able to follow through with what Dumbledore has planned is extremely important. Not because he thinks all Slytherin's are evil. His closest confident at this point in time is Snape.

What is more Snape being evil in the beginning has more to do with being overshadowed by James and misplacing his anger on Lilly and therefore losing his closest friend and the only one keeping him from wallowing in self hatred than it has with him being a part of Slytherin house (which I assume he chose in an attempt to get his parent's attention, not that he wasn't well suited to the house.)

And I'll mention again that during peaceful time periods Slytherin is not the house of dark wizards but the house of the preppy, overachieving students who are shown as a shining example of the wizarding community and its values. Much like everyone who is defined by how hard they work is in Hufflepuff. And everyone who is just that damn smart is in Ravenclaw. Leaving Gryffindor with the delinquents and rebels who may not be the brightest or most diligent or even really ambitious, but at least they have heart.

What I'm saying is that while Slytherin may be tied to some darker reputations it makes up for that by being the group in hogwarts and after graduation the world at large most likely to be in power, and suck up to authority when they're not. Why do you think Filch had a bias towards Slytherin? Hint: They don't have kids like the Weasley twins.

Weezer

2011-12-07, 01:45 PM

I...

But...

He didn't. They didn't. That was kind of a big deal - not even Frodo managed to hold onto enough selflessness to throw the Ring away intentionally (Sam might have, but he wasn't the one making the choice). He got to the end and said NOPE, I LIKE POWER SORRY ENTIRE WORLD. The Ring was just that powerful.

And then, of course, it's destroyed by accident and Frodo and Sam are saved by Deus ex Machina. But that's okay because Deus ex Machina is entirely appropriate for a mythic story like LotR. And you knew this already, presumably, since you talk about the epilogue despite having apparently missed the climax (not hard, the whole scene is like 3/4 of a page).

I mean, I agree with everything else you said in principle, I just don't expect terribly complex morality from Young Adult fantasy novels, but...what?

I don't count the rings corruption as a choice. It's pretty much the opposite of what Frodo would ever willingly choose, that's what made it corruption. He effectively had no choices left once the Ring gained complete control over him, the Ring's whole shtick is that it doesn't leave you a choice in the end you will bend to its (and Sauron's) will. The choices I was talking about are all the choices that lead up to the confrontation within Mount Doom.

On a personal level, I scoff at the rather-to-often brought up literary (etc) notion that a victory without cost/sacrifice is meaningless (and that by extension anything that is done easily is worthless), perhaps because I look at it from a more military-sort-of mindset. In which,in the final analysis, a victory with no cost you and all to the enemy, is as complete and total as you can get and is by far the most desired result. Hard work and sacrifice for the sake of hard work and sacrifice is not some moral high ground, it's just a mind-bendingly stupid lack of practicality.

For that matter, casualties and sacrifice, for the sake of drama alone (which HP is as guilty of as many) means you just aren't doing it right, either as an author or a character.

LotR at least, minimised the casualties to an acceptable level. I could easily see, though, that if it had been written now and not then, half the Fellowship would have been bumped off during the final battles for no good reason other than the current media fetish of utterly failing to increase tension by character death and an apparent inability to want to let anyone other than a Main Character recieve any kind of happy ending, if even they are allowed one.

Also, again on a personal note, I find shades-of-grey morality tedious at the best of times, perhaps because I myself don't and never have seen the world in shades of grey, and I also don't have any problems with the occasional complete curb-stomping, provided it's not done to excess and is entertainingly explodey with plenty of time for the bad guy to gawp in paralysed horror at the impending defeat he's about to have brutally inflicted on him (or vise-versa on the good guys if it's Evil Protagonists.)

I agree with the vast majority of what you're saying, you don't need sacrifice for a story to be powerful and for a victory to have meaning and many modern stories focus too much on killing characters just so you will have some death for the survivors to go on about. However if you are going to make your story based around a messianic sacrifice (*cough* Harry Potter *cough*), make that sacrifice hurt.

I think your last point is simply a disparity in worldviews, I see the world as pretty much shades of grey (generally on the lighter side of grey, but still pretty much all grey), so I find shades of grey fictional worlds to be effective. That isn't to say that black/white stories can't be good (you don't get much more black/white than LotR and I love it), but trying to pull morality out of a black/white world seems naive to me. To explain why I see the world that way would get a little political, so I'll leave it at that. It's fascinating how our basic worldviews fundamentally shape how we see everything.

EDIT:

And I'll mention again that during peaceful time periods Slytherin is not the house of dark wizards but the house of the preppy, overachieving students who are shown as a shining example of the wizarding community and its values. Much like everyone who is defined by how hard they work is in Hufflepuff. And everyone who is just that damn smart is in Ravenclaw. Leaving Gryffindor with the delinquents and rebels who may not be the brightest or most diligent or even really ambitious, but at least they have heart.

I'm wondering where you get this definition of Slytherin? We never actually see this shown, I don't remember anything like this in the book. If I had I would be on your side of this argument.

Xondoure

2011-12-07, 02:08 PM

I'm wondering where you get this definition of Slytherin? We never actually see this shown, I don't remember anything like this in the book. If I had I would be on your side of this argument.

Until Harry had arrived they had won the house cup six consecutive years in a row. Many of the Slytherin families such as the Malfoy's are both very rich, succesful, and influential people both at Hogwarts and in the larger wizarding world. When they aren't following tyrannical dark lords on a genocidal rampage these people are pillars of wizarding society. And up until the twentieth century their views were probably in the majority, but as more muggle borns started entering the wizarding world and the traditions they had based their identity around began to unwind they felt isolated and threatened. At the same time a massively powerful and charismatic man appears promising them a restored place as the true rulers of the magical world if they follow under him. Naturally many and more join his cause and a civil war begins. But that man is defeated and the followers are forced to reconcile with the rest of the wizarding world in anyway they can. Only their children grow up hearing about how they could have had everything, and instead only have most of the things. So when Voldemort rises again you have a large number of Slytherins happy to turn on the rest of their classmates because the house system makes no attempt to unite different beliefs or ask you to understand others.

My point is that while ambition coupled with racist undertones does indeed lead to a very nasty festering pot of dark intentions the house is also the one that brings forth the success in its members which in turn leads to placing them in highly influential places all over the country. Sure there are exceptions and its not like you can't succeed if you aren't in that 25% of the population but I'd wager a large portion of the "Slug Club" were Slytherins because they are the house of people most likely to go out and do great things: terrible, yes, but great.

Nerd-o-rama

2011-12-07, 02:19 PM

I don't count the rings corruption as a choice. It's pretty much the opposite of what Frodo would ever willingly choose, that's what made it corruption. He effectively had no choices left once the Ring gained complete control over him, the Ring's whole shtick is that it doesn't leave you a choice in the end you will bend to its (and Sauron's) will. The choices I was talking about are all the choices that lead up to the confrontation within Mount Doom.

So characters being forced to make a particular choice at the climax by outside eldritch influence is good writing while characters being forced to make a particular choice at the climax by their own personality and established characterization is bad writing? Is that what you mean?

Manga Shoggoth

2011-12-07, 02:21 PM

The first meeting with the weasleys. Why the HELL does molly have to wonder out loud where the platform is?

I can't speak for the film, but in the book it is a rethorical question by a very harassed mother trying to field a large family in a crowded station.

Weezer

2011-12-07, 02:30 PM

So characters being forced to make a particular choice at the climax by outside eldritch influence is good writing while characters being forced to make a particular choice at the climax by their own personality and established characterization is bad writing? Is that what you mean?

No, I was saying that in neither of the stories does the choice matter. To quote myself: "what made that act meaningful was not that they chose to do it but that there were some pretty severe and concrete personal consequences for doing so." Also it was not the climax of the story that resulted in these consequences, but the whole path leading up to those consequences.

Tyndmyr

2011-12-07, 02:36 PM

By that logic, what hero can ever have a meaningful choice? Because that basic choice is "stop the bad guy or don't and let them win". And it's made by each and every protagonist worthy of the name.

(And knowing a prophesy makes no bearing on it, in as much as it makes no more difference than someone who doesn't fear to die sacrificing themselves because they have faith in something.)

And I strongly disagree that the choice to stand up to the bad guys is EVER meaningless, regardless of how easy or hard it is to do, whether you're standing up to DickDastardly, Voldemort, Sauron or the Chaos Gods.

Nah. The best choices are where there is no shining white good option that is obviously the right choice. See also, Dresden files, where the choices are frequently between a multitude of varying degrees of horribleness, and what exactly is the "good" option is fuzzy at best.

You can have meaningful choices in a story, but they do take rather a lot of setup.

Nerd-o-rama

2011-12-07, 02:40 PM

No, I was saying that in neither of the stories does the choice matter. To quote myself: "what made that act meaningful was not that they chose to do it but that there were some pretty severe and concrete personal consequences for doing so." Also it was not the climax of the story that resulted in these consequences, but the whole path leading up to those consequences.

Well, I think both the choices and the consequences mattered in both stories (the consequences much more so in LotR than HP, but I will take what actual drama I can get in a book for teenagers), so I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point rather that trying to persuade each other than obvious choices do or do not matter.

Nah. The best choices are where there is no shining white good option that is obviously the right choice. See also, Dresden files, where the choices are frequently between a multitude of varying degrees of horribleness, and what exactly is the "good" option is fuzzy at best.

You can have meaningful choices in a story, but they do take rather a lot of setup.

Don't forget A Song of Ice and Fire, where every choice is horrible and leads to suffering for everyone involved, no matter what! Meaningful!

Tyndmyr

2011-12-07, 02:45 PM

Don't forget A Song of Ice and Fire, where every choice is horrible and leads to suffering for everyone involved, no matter what! Meaningful!

Let's not take it too far. Ambiguity and subjectivity is fine...but if it gets too bad, you remove the value of the choice. If any decision leads to an equally crapsack ending, then the decision is still meaningless. It needs to be a complex, hard to make decision, not an impossible one.

What I'm saying is that while Slytherin may be tied to some darker reputations it makes up for that by being the group in hogwarts and after graduation the world at large most likely to be in power, and suck up to authority when they're not. Why do you think Filch had a bias towards Slytherin? Hint: They don't have kids like the Weasley twins.

Crabbe and Goyle are not exactly shining paragons of acheivement and order. I submit that they're probably no better than the Weasleys in this regard, being basically troublemaking thugs.

Nerd-o-rama

2011-12-07, 02:48 PM

Let's not take it too far. Ambiguity and subjectivity is fine...but if it gets too bad, you remove the value of the choice. If any decision leads to an equally crapsack ending, then the decision is still meaningless. It needs to be a complex, hard to make decision, not an impossible one.

Yeah, I know, I'm strawmanning. I'll stop. But seriously, ASoIaF is terrible.

Crabbe and Goyle are not exactly shining paragons of acheivement and order. I submit that they're probably no better than the Weasleys in this regard, being basically troublemaking thugs.

The difference is Crabbe and Goyle are authoritarian thugs who do what marginally smarter bullies tell them to (I assume this type of personality goes to Slytherin so the mastermind types have reliable lackeys and don't have to go bother Hufflepuff for minions). The Weasley twins are agents of chaos for chaos's sake.

Weezer

2011-12-07, 02:51 PM

Well, I think both the choices and the consequences mattered in both stories (the consequences much more so in LotR than HP, but I will take what actual drama I can get in a book for teenagers), so I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this point rather that trying to persuade each other than obvious choices do or do not matter.

Sounds fair, can't get too worked up over opinions after all.

Traab

2011-12-07, 03:07 PM

Until Harry had arrived they had won the house cup six consecutive years in a row. Many of the Slytherin families such as the Malfoy's are both very rich, succesful, and influential people both at Hogwarts and in the larger wizarding world. When they aren't following tyrannical dark lords on a genocidal rampage these people are pillars of wizarding society. And up until the twentieth century their views were probably in the majority, but as more muggle borns started entering the wizarding world and the traditions they had based their identity around began to unwind they felt isolated and threatened. At the same time a massively powerful and charismatic man appears promising them a restored place as the true rulers of the magical world if they follow under him. Naturally many and more join his cause and a civil war begins. But that man is defeated and the followers are forced to reconcile with the rest of the wizarding world in anyway they can. Only their children grow up hearing about how they could have had everything, and instead only have most of the things. So when Voldemort rises again you have a large number of Slytherins happy to turn on the rest of their classmates because the house system makes no attempt to unite different beliefs or ask you to understand others.

My point is that while ambition coupled with racist undertones does indeed lead to a very nasty festering pot of dark intentions the house is also the one that brings forth the success in its members which in turn leads to placing them in highly influential places all over the country. Sure there are exceptions and its not like you can't succeed if you aren't in that 25% of the population but I'd wager a large portion of the "Slug Club" were Slytherins because they are the house of people most likely to go out and do great things: terrible, yes, but great.

They won the house cup because snape is a favorites playing piece of garbage, it just becomes more blatant when he has the son of james potter to torment. Its well established that snape is known for taking points off the other houses for any reason he can think of and never takes points from his if he can help it. The only reason they DONT continue to win is deus ex dumbledoore, as he hands out hundreds of points every year at the feast so gryffindor wins because harry solved the latest deadly mystery that he was too stupid to figure out himself, or was testing harry over. Slytherin could be up 16000 points, and dumbledoore would find a way to give the win to gryffindor anyways. Clearly while snape is biased, dumbledoore is psychotically biased.

Xondoure

2011-12-07, 03:10 PM

They won the house cup because snape is a favorites playing piece of garbage, it just becomes more blatant when he has the son of james potter to torment. Its well established that snape is known for taking points off the other houses for any reason he can think of and never takes points from his if he can help it. The only reason they DONT continue to win is deus ex dumbledoore, as he hands out hundreds of points every year at the feast so gryffindor wins because harry solved the latest deadly mystery that he was too stupid to figure out himself, or was testing harry over. Slytherin could be up 16000 points, and dumbledoore would find a way to give the win to gryffindor anyways. Clearly while snape is biased, dumbledoore is psychotically biased.

Snape isn't the only teacher in the school. And if he was playing it up enough that that was the sole reason he would have been forced to tone it down with the points a long time ago.

Tyndmyr

2011-12-07, 03:12 PM

Snape isn't the only teacher in the school. And if he was playing it up enough that that was the sole reason he would have been forced to tone it down with the points a long time ago.

Judging from what we see in the books, it's apparently a major factor. And one would imagine that the obvious favoritism he routinely shows would have been something he'd have been forced to change, yes. I'm not entirely sure why it's not.

Nerd-o-rama

2011-12-07, 03:15 PM

Judging from what we see in the books, it's apparently a major factor. And one would imagine that the obvious favoritism he routinely shows would have been something he'd have been forced to change, yes. I'm not entirely sure why it's not.

All the other teachers are either too senile or too honorable to care. Plus they know it's a sham oligarchy anyway since Dumbledore has effective veto power.

Also it's been a while since I read the early books, but did anyone actually care about the House Cup after book 2 or so?

Aotrs Commander

2011-12-07, 03:15 PM

I agree with the vast majority of what you're saying, you don't need sacrifice for a story to be powerful and for a victory to have meaning and many modern stories focus too much on killing characters just so you will have some death for the survivors to go on about. However if you are going to make your story based around a messianic sacrifice (*cough* Harry Potter *cough*), make that sacrifice hurt.

I think your last point is simply a disparity in worldviews, I see the world as pretty much shades of grey (generally on the lighter side of grey, but still pretty much all grey), so I find shades of grey fictional worlds to be effective. That isn't to say that black/white stories can't be good (you don't get much more black/white than LotR and I love it), but trying to pull morality out of a black/white world seems naive to me. To explain why I see the world that way would get a little political, so I'll leave it at that. It's fascinating how our basic worldviews fundamentally shape how we see everything.

Fair enough!

Yeah, I know, I'm strawmanning. I'll stop. But seriously, ASoIaF is terrible.

Everything I hear about that series convinces me more and more I really don't want to read it...

(I'm having enough trouble wading through Tad Willams' Memory, Sorrow and Thorn, which is just this side of my limit...

I mean, I managed to wade through the Thomas Covanent stuff that once (never again!), but my tolerance for that sort of thing has evaporated in my old age and access to far better (for me) stuff...

Come back Biggles, all is forgiven! (Well, aside from the hilariously out-dated racism, which has just to be taken a bit-tongue-in-cheek from a modern perspective; you sort of have to laugh at it...))

Weezer

2011-12-07, 03:18 PM

All the other teachers are either too senile or too honorable to care. Plus they know it's a sham oligarchy anyway since Dumbledore has effective veto power.

Also it's been a while since I read the early books, but did anyone actually care about the House Cup after book 2 or so?

Nope, not really. Things like the looming rise of a Dark Lord kind of trump an annual award. Though I think it is still mentioned at the ends of some of the books, it's just no longer a major plot point.

jseah

2011-12-07, 03:30 PM

Nah. The best choices are where there is no shining white good option that is obviously the right choice. See also, Dresden files, where the choices are frequently between a multitude of varying degrees of horribleness, and what exactly is the "good" option is fuzzy at best.
There is also the choices where all of them appear to be good choices. Or at least not resulting in "everyone dies".
But you can only choose one...

And which one is *best* gets hashed out by everyone involved, all of whom seem to hold slightly different positions that cause them to band into two distinct groups and blame the other for not letting them have their "best" choice. And blame the other group for everything that goes wrong (and say the choice was bad after all) if they don't get their way.

Oh. Wait. That happens every election year.

Traab

2011-12-07, 03:31 PM

All the other teachers are either too senile or too honorable to care. Plus they know it's a sham oligarchy anyway since Dumbledore has effective veto power.

Also it's been a while since I read the early books, but did anyone actually care about the House Cup after book 2 or so?

Meh, "I trust severus" There, all issues are now solved forever. Doesnt matter that he is being reported for blatant bias, intentional targeting of specific students, mind raping underage boys. Its all ok because dumbledoore trusts him, and so wont hear anything bad about him. "Obviously you are exaggerating the problem, snape is a good boy now, he even said so!"

Weezer

2011-12-07, 03:33 PM

There is also the choices where all of them appear to be good choices. Or at least not resulting in "everyone dies".
But you can only choose one...

And which one is *best* gets hashed out by everyone involved, all of whom seem to hold slightly different positions that cause them to band into two distinct groups and blame the other for not letting them have their "best" choice. And blame the other group for everything that goes wrong (and say the choice was bad after all) if they don't get their way.

Oh. Wait. That happens every election year.

Yeah, those are in many ways the most fascinating kinds of choices to look at. The exact opposite of "all the choices suck", all of the choices are "meh, wont end the world but not all that great". Less morally grey and more beige.

Mewtarthio

2011-12-07, 03:33 PM

Weezer

2011-12-07, 03:35 PM

Like Dumbledore's going to fire his most crucial pawn.

It's kind of interesting how Dumbledore's hold on Snape is used by Snape to get a carte blanche to do whatever he wants in the school. Now that is true Slytherin cunning right there.

Nerd-o-rama

2011-12-07, 03:43 PM

It's kind of interesting how Dumbledore's hold on Snape is used by Snape to get a carte blanche to do whatever he wants in the school. Now that is true Slytherin cunning right there.

Also Slytherin petty spite and grudge-bearing.

Ah Snape, you might not be the knight in shining armor the fandom wanted, but you're the hero Slytherin deserves.

Traab

2011-12-07, 04:41 PM

Also Slytherin petty spite and grudge-bearing.

Ah Snape, you might not be the knight in shining armor the fandom wanted, but you're the hero Slytherin deserves.

I dont think petty spite is a slytherin trait, thats pretty much owned by snape. He is the textbook definition of petty and spiteful. "15 years ago, an 11 year old named james potter made fun of me! NOW ITS TIME TO HAVE MY REVENGE ON A DEAD MAN BY TORMENTING HIS SON WHO REMEMBERS NOTHING ABOUT HIM! MWAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh, and he is lilys boy, I must make sure he lives..... LONG ENOUGH TO TORMENT SOME MORE!!!!"

Nerd-o-rama

2011-12-07, 04:41 PM

I dont think petty spite is a slytherin trait, thats pretty much owned by snape. He is the textbook definition of petty and spiteful. "15 years ago, an 11 year old named james potter made fun of me! NOW ITS TIME TO HAVE MY REVENGE ON A DEAD MAN BY TORMENTING HIS SON WHO REMEMBERS NOTHING ABOUT HIM! MWAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh, and he is lilys boy, I must make sure he lives..... LONG ENOUGH TO TORMENT SOME MORE!!!!"

Well, he certainly perfected it.

DiscipleofBob

2011-12-07, 04:43 PM

Wasn't Snape supposed to act as much like a villain as possible so he could infiltrate V's ranks when he came back to power though? As per Dumbledore's orders?

Traab

2011-12-07, 05:05 PM

Wasn't Snape supposed to act as much like a villain as possible so he could infiltrate V's ranks when he came back to power though? As per Dumbledore's orders?

So dumbledoores great plan was to have snape torment students for decades, making their educational lives hell, on the off chance that voldemort would come back and use him taking points from gryffindor as evidence that he is still evil? Seriously, he has screwed over entire generations of students for some nebulous plan that might not have even taken place until well after harry was all grown up. Would it have been THAT hard for snape to say, "My lord, I have ingratiated myself deep into dumbledoores trust. He believes I have been redeemed simply because I dont torment the students. I am ready to do as you command." and bang, now snape doesnt get a free pass to make 75% of the school miserable.

The Glyphstone

2011-12-07, 05:37 PM

So dumbledoores great plan was to have snape torment students for decades, making their educational lives hell, on the off chance that voldemort would come back and use him taking points from gryffindor as evidence that he is still evil? Seriously, he has screwed over entire generations of students for some nebulous plan that might not have even taken place until well after harry was all grown up. Would it have been THAT hard for snape to say, "My lord, I have ingratiated myself deep into dumbledoores trust. He believes I have been redeemed simply because I dont torment the students. I am ready to do as you command." and bang, now snape doesnt get a free pass to make 75% of the school miserable.

Do we know that Snape was tormenting everyone before Harry showed up? It wouldn't be out of character for him to pick on the entire house of Gryffindor simply because Harry was a member.

Nerd-o-rama

2011-12-07, 05:41 PM

Wasn't Snape supposed to act as much like a villain as possible so he could infiltrate V's ranks when he came back to power though? As per Dumbledore's orders?

No, I'm pretty sure tormenting students was just the work of a man who was bullied in high school and never got over it.

Traab

2011-12-07, 06:04 PM

Do we know that Snape was tormenting everyone before Harry showed up? It wouldn't be out of character for him to pick on the entire house of Gryffindor simply because Harry was a member.

Im pretty sure early on in book 1 harry and ron get warned about snape being a total git who favors his house. I think hermione tried to give her authority worshiping muscles a stretch by saying that she is sure they must be exaggerating. I am sure it got boosted up a level or two when harry showed up, but it was mostly treated as same old, same old.

Arakune

2011-12-07, 07:34 PM

We also need to remember that Rowling had the habit of turning a certain character nastier for no other reason than "the readers like him/her" or "I don't like that character".

Jahkaivah

2011-12-07, 09:38 PM

Worth mentioning that Snape was partially based on somebody who taught Rowling chemistry. Though I suspect he was just a very strict teacher as opposed to being incredibly spiteful.

VanBuren

2011-12-07, 11:05 PM

Weezer

2011-12-07, 11:43 PM

The early books were also much different in tone from the later ones. Characters were far less fleshed out at that point. I would hazard a guess that Rowling didn't have the whole mythos in mind until at least the third book.

I'm pretty sure that she's stated in interviews that she had it planned out from the beginning, but who knows how detailed her plans were/what changes she made over time.

Terry576

2011-12-08, 12:42 AM

Off topic, but I read something that would have made Harry Potter much cooler.

At one point, JK Rowling considered killing Ron. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEbCIlMr2R0) Now, I picked the perfect point for her to do it.

Let's set the scene.

Cedric lived. He was unconscious or something so Harry went alone. Dumbledore would still be preoccupied with "Oh deary me, how did someone create a portkey via this trophy?" mode, so Moody drags Harry off, and stupefies him at some point, carrying him into the castle. Ron and Hermione go searching for Harry, Hermione takes the grounds, and Ron takes the castle. Ron sees Moody dragging Harry and confronts him about where Moody's taking Harry, he's been through so much already and

Moody cuts Ron off with an Avada Kedavra to the face.

Suddenly, the tone for the rest of the series is set. The Death Eaters aren't screwing around. They'll kill whoever gets in their way, as they did in the First War (Prewetts, Longbottoms, Bones...) and Moody just showcased it. He transfigures Ron into a bone or whatever and hides him away. Harry wakes up in a daze, (as he did in the books) and the scene plays out normally.

Until Harry and Hermione find out that Not-Moody killed Ron, and the viciousness begins. Both have shown that they can show no mercy, (Book 5, Harry's Crucio, Book 5, Hermione giving Umbridge to the centaurs,) and suddenly they have a reason to be merciless. Harry's visit with Dumbledore at the end of Book 5? It isn't about Sirius death anymore, oh no, it's about how Harry killed one or two Death Eaters in the Department of Mysteries. The war for Harry and Hermione isn't just about defeating Voldemort because he killed Harry's parents, it's personal. Book 6 would be far more grimdark (And probably involve more Luna, the Anti-Angst Machine,) because six was mostly Romantic Subplot in canon. It couldn't just be romantic subplot now because Ron is kinda well

dead.

Personally, I was surprised that the trio made it through a war that killed/permanently incapacitated like half of the Order of the Phoenix. One of them should have died, (Harry's fakedeath in DH doesn't count,) because it would have made sense.

Nerd-o-rama

2011-12-08, 12:58 AM

Every time someone says more people (or more narratively important people) should have died in any work, my reflexes lash out with a "no".

They're doing that now, but I at least have to admit Ron is kind of a meatshield. LOYALTY and all.

Anyway, the other thing you have to remember is that the stories are all told from biased third person perspective - the narrative voice is using "he", but we're still seeing things from Harry's perspective. This dovetails neatly with the idea that the books are aimed at steadily older audiences, since we're seeing things through the eyes of a steadily older and more mature viewpoint character whose opinions color the narrative. That's also why the story shares whatever biases Harry has at the time - descriptions of Snape or Draco are always as unflattering as they can possibly be (actual characterization aside), people who treat Harry nicely are always described as glowingly as they can be, Cho Chang's descriptions go from "holy crap" to "well she's pretty but..." as books pass, why important plot points are always ignored by the narrative until the end of the book, etc. This tends to result in some flanderization by design, is what I'm trying to say. Not that Harry's POV is an unreliable narrator, it's just one that tends to polarize things.

Avilan the Grey

2011-12-08, 01:47 AM

Don't forget A Song of Ice and Fire, where every choice is horrible and leads to suffering for everyone involved, no matter what! Meaningful!

See also: Dragon Age 2 (sorry, had to. Shutting up now).

Edit: Regarding the Harry Potter series... I really like the books. I mean REALLY. Of course part of it is that I am, I admit, very childish for a 39 year old man; my experiences with the books was: "Starting to read the first one to see if it's any good" and then realizing at 2AM that "oops I finished it all in one sitting.".

I don't think the series need to be "cooler"; nor do I see any blatant flaws in them (that screws up my enjoyment or suspension of disbelief, at least).

Sotharsyl

2011-12-08, 08:44 AM

I'm wondering where you get this definition of Slytherin? We never actually see this shown, I don't remember anything like this in the book. If I had I would be on your side of this argument.

Well Slughorn is the classic kingmaker or gray chancellor archetype so +1 to Slitherin.

The difference is Crabbe and Goyle are authoritarian thugs who do what marginally smarter bullies tell them to (I assume this type of personality goes to Slytherin so the mastermind types have reliable lackeys and don't have to go bother Hufflepuff for minions). The Weasley twins are agents of chaos for chaos's sake.

I want to see this :

Huffelpuff#1 :" So buddy graduation is almost upon us, where are you going to try and find work ?"

Huffelpuff#2 :" I managed to get my foot in on a entry level minion job with the hottest i.e on the rise Dark Lord, so it's been fun Ted but after we leave Hogwarts if you see me coming you better run for you life muddleblood scum."

Huffelpuff#2 and #3 : "...."

Huffelpuff#2 :"We'll still trail the pubs on the week-end buddy but seriously if you see me in black with that cool snake tatoo glowing green and a hot blonde in dark leather bossing me around, run for it."

Huffelpuff#1 :" Can't say that I will, I wouldn't like to make a bad impression on my new boss, why yes gentlemen you are looking at the newest cadet of the Order of the Lion,shiny red uniform and all."

Huffelpuff#3 :"I can just see it right now, you taking a AK in the chest for the Chosen One,giving him the motivation to defeat Ted and his boss you'll make the footnotes of the history books."

Huffelpuff#1 :" Ah shut up if you'll be lucky if you bird brain boss remembers you exist,oh who am I kidding of course he will al those test papers have to be scored by someone and articles ghost written by someone,and he is beyond that since he got tenure."

Tiki Snakes

2011-12-08, 12:21 PM

I really, really like the idea of Hufflepuff as Mook House. :smallbiggrin:

DiscipleofBob

2011-12-08, 12:39 PM

I really, really like the idea of Hufflepuff as Mook House. :smallbiggrin:

The Hogwarts Houses are supposed to make the atypical adventuring party:

Gryffindor = Warrior
Ravenclaw = Wizard (ironically enough)
Slytherin = Rogue
Hufflepuff = Hireling :smallamused:

ScionoftheVoid

2011-12-08, 12:58 PM

TheArsenal

2011-12-08, 01:05 PM

what the hell is a Hufflepuff?

Tyndmyr

2011-12-08, 01:09 PM

Traab

2011-12-08, 01:34 PM

Too honorable to care about cheating?

Er...what?

Yeah the too honorable thing I think was more aimed at, they dont do the same just because snape is cheating. Also, id imagine that he keeps it within certain limits. No, "10,000 points from gryffindor for sneezing in my classroom!" type lines, he just is MUCH harsher on the other three than he is towards himself, and thats enough to skew results.

Sotharsyl

2011-12-08, 01:39 PM

The Hogwarts Houses are supposed to make the atypical adventuring party:

Gryffindor = Warrior
Ravenclaw = Wizard (ironically enough)
Slytherin = Rogue
Hufflepuff = Hireling :smallamused:

First of Nodwick the Henchman (http://nodwick.humor.gamespy.com/gamespyarchive/index.php?date=2011-11-30) best Hufflepuff ever,Cedric Dygory eat your heart out.

Secondly does this mean Ravenclaw can do all the other hoses jobs better then them,with that delicious +2 Int,but they feel sorry for the poor bastards so they let them carry on.

Traab

2011-12-08, 01:48 PM

DiscipleofBob

2011-12-08, 01:58 PM

Too honorable to care about cheating?

Er...what?

It's not actually cheating though. It's favoritism, it's unfair, but he's a teacher, he's allowed to award or dock points as he wants.

The only reason Snape's as much of a ((expletive of choice)) as he is is because from the narrative's perspective, he's supposed to be that one teacher everyone had at some point in their education who was mean and unfair and gave us homework over the weekends etcetera.

Secondly does this mean Ravenclaw can do all the other hoses jobs better then them,with that delicious +2 Int,but they feel sorry for the poor bastards so they let them carry on.

They probably make the best wizards in the strictest sense of the term, but they don't have the courage/stubborness that puts Gryffindor on the front lines nor the political ability/general sneakiness of Slytherin.

Tyndmyr

2011-12-08, 02:01 PM

Yeah the too honorable thing I think was more aimed at, they dont do the same just because snape is cheating. Also, id imagine that he keeps it within certain limits. No, "10,000 points from gryffindor for sneezing in my classroom!" type lines, he just is MUCH harsher on the other three than he is towards himself, and thats enough to skew results.

Right. But blatant favoritism(and it certainly appears fairly blatant in the source materiel, and it's common knowledge) should, among honorable people, lead to an attempt to fix this.

Ignoring the problem and not engaging in it yourself is not particularly honorable.

Weezer

2011-12-08, 02:30 PM

They probably make the best wizards in the strictest sense of the term, but they don't have the courage/stubborness that puts Gryffindor on the front lines nor the political ability/general sneakiness of Slytherin.

Or they simply don't care and are too busy mucking about with Time Turners in whatever passes for laboratories in the wizarding world to be all dark lordy or to put themselves out there to fight Dark Wizards. However I'd be surprised if a bunch of Ravenclaws haven't gone down the Mad Scientist route and end up aquiring knowledge that Mortals Were Not Meant to Know.

Nerd-o-rama

2011-12-08, 02:44 PM

Lamech

2011-12-08, 02:45 PM

Or they simply don't care and are too busy mucking about with Time Turners in whatever passes for laboratories in the wizarding world to be all dark lordy or to put themselves out there to fight Dark Wizards. However I'd be surprised if a bunch of Ravenclaws haven't gone down the Mad Scientist route and end up aquiring knowledge that Mortals Were Not Meant to Know.
So I have had a theory for a while about why the wizards seem to ineffective. How they aren't constantly abusing time-turners in their labs and such. Effectiveness has a huge negative fitness for reproducing, and then evolution takes care of the rest.

You see wizards can produce intelligent automa, create more space inside of things, travel through time, drink a luck potion to auto-win, ect. Why can't they simply whenever something ends up going horribly wrong down a luck potion figure everything out, create an extra-dimensional paradise, take their friends and family and live happily ever after? The smart ones do. But they are out of earth's gene pool, so as far as earth is concerned they're dead. Now effectiveness is a gene that not only kills you, it kills your family and can kill you if you befriend effective people, or even pay to much attention to them. So after 2000 years, the effectiveness gene is essentially gone from the wizarding world, hell wizards have probably evolved an anti-effectiveness field.

On the plus side RPG's don't have powergamers to deal with.

Weezer

2011-12-08, 03:13 PM

So I have had a theory for a while about why the wizards seem to ineffective. How they aren't constantly abusing time-turners in their labs and such. Effectiveness has a huge negative fitness for reproducing, and then evolution takes care of the rest.

You see wizards can produce intelligent automa, create more space inside of things, travel through time, drink a luck potion to auto-win, ect. Why can't they simply whenever something ends up going horribly wrong down a luck potion figure everything out, create an extra-dimensional paradise, take their friends and family and live happily ever after? The smart ones do. But they are out of earth's gene pool, so as far as earth is concerned they're dead. Now effectiveness is a gene that not only kills you, it kills your family and can kill you if you befriend effective people, or even pay to much attention to them. So after 2000 years, the effectiveness gene is essentially gone from the wizarding world, hell wizards have probably evolved an anti-effectiveness field.

On the plus side RPG's don't have powergamers to deal with.

So basically all the effective wizards transcended our world and moved on to a paradise of their own creation? Sounds both plausable and interesting. Also explains the whole 'ancient magic is far more powerful and mysterious than modern' shtick that Rowling had (to be fair that's also pretty much a given for most fantasy worlds).

TheArsenal

2011-12-08, 03:28 PM

Thats actually a good theory.

Maybe it goes in waves? Eventualy they all get smarter and leave, but then only the dummies remain and start the process over again.

Sotharsyl

2011-12-08, 03:31 PM

I kinda want to read some OC fanfic with Hufflepuff protagonists and Ravenclaw villains now.

And the House Cup is a friendly intramural competition. No need for McGonagall or someone to go all Hero of Justice on Snape just because he's playing dirty without breaking any rules.

Here,here* ,more fanfics for the lesser known houses, although with the villains being Ravenclaw I hope we don't go the "honest blue collar worker defeats evil intellectual" route.

Now my memory might be slipping but I remember reading that in the first year at least MacGonagal got a real thrill out of getting the Quiditch and House Cup from Slitherin.

Slitherin who had had a multi year winning streak,it does pay to be a Slitherin in the non crisis times.

Although I can't blame Minerva being shown up by someone who was very recently your student must be tough.

And about the House Cup I know this doesn't excuse anything but I've seen a clip the part of the film where Dumbledore awards the points to Griffindor and changes the green flags to red and the first year Sliterin's faces,with a text under: "SPOILER ALERT: In year 7 none of these guys want to give their life to defend Harry Potter."

*or is it hear hear I'm not a native English speaker and I've never seen it written.

TheArsenal

2011-12-08, 03:41 PM

On a rewatch that was a very dickish move on Dumbledoors part.

Man harry barely does anything in all the movies.

Weezer

2011-12-08, 03:41 PM

Here,here* ,more fanfics for the lesser known houses, although with the villains being Ravenclaw I hope we don't go the "honest blue collar worker defeats evil intellectual" route.

Now my memory might be slipping but I remember reading that in the first year at least MacGonagal got a real thrill out of getting the Quiditch and House Cup from Slitherin.

Slitherin who had had a multi year winning streak,it does pay to be a Slitherin in the non crisis times.

Although I can't blame Minerva being shown up by someone who was very recently your student must be tough.

And about the House Cup I know this doesn't excuse anything but I've seen a clip the part of the film where Dumbledore awards the points to Griffindor and changes the green flags to red and the first year Sliterin's faces,with a text under: "SPOILER ALERT: In year 7 none of these guys want to give their life to defend Harry Potter."

*or is it hear hear I'm not a native English speaker and I've never seen it written.

It's hear, hear. You're calling people to 'hear' what has just been said. But yes, some Ravenclaw based fan-fics would be great. Though perhaps I'm biased, would certainly be a Ravenclaw myself.

EDIT:
@^ Well to be fair, Dubledore is kind of a **** to everyone at one point or another. I find it very hard to like him by the end of the series.

Mewtarthio

2011-12-08, 03:44 PM

They probably make the best wizards in the strictest sense of the term, but they don't have the courage/stubborness that puts Gryffindor on the front lines nor the political ability/general sneakiness of Slytherin.

Of course, when you think about it, a paragon of any particular House pretty much has to be a paragon of all the other Houses, too. The sort of Ravenclaw that becomes a legendary Ravenclaw that all other Ravenclaws look up to and say, "Now that is what a true Ravenclaw should be" could just as easily have been a Gryffindor and recieved all the same praises from House Gryffindor.

Let me explain: A true Gryffindor is a shining example of courage. However, courage without forethought is quixotic foolhardiness, and leads to an ignoble death. Likewise, courage alone isn't going to change the world (unless, of course, a bunch of dead guys inform you that, to defeat the Dark Lord, all you really need to do is die bravely); you need ambition to direct that courage and turn it into leadership.

Likewise, a true Ravenclaw is a legendary genius. But brilliance doesn't exist in a vacuum. You need to have the courage to take confidence in your ideas and the ambition to present them. Otherwise, you end up in the Cracked list of "Top 7 Wizards Who Would Have Changed The Course Of History If Anyone Had Paid Attention To Them" instead of in the history books.

Lastly, a true Slytherin is an ambitious leader with phenomenal power. Blind ambition, however, just makes you a bully on a power-trip; you need intelligence and cunning to truly gain respect. Similarly, it's all well and good to rant on your blog about how much you deserve, but that ambition's not going to bear actual fruit unless you have the boldness to seize the opportunity when it presents itself.

Venom3053000

2011-12-08, 03:47 PM

hmmm you might just be missing a house there

Mewtarthio

2011-12-08, 03:49 PM

hmmm you might just be missing a house there

I'm talking about the real Houses. :smalltongue:

Frozen_Feet

2011-12-08, 03:55 PM

The Hufflepuff house factors in due to the simple fact that no-one gets anywhere without hard work and a lot of invisible supporters no-one talks about - but likewise, hard work gets you nowhere if you don't have a vision to work towards, ambition to do so and courage to keep going even after setbacks. :smallwink:

TheArsenal

2011-12-08, 03:57 PM

I love when mentioning slytherin or the Black Mana color in MTG its always:

"Umm...Uhhh.They have...Ambition...Uhhh...yes."

Just flat out say "They have evil douchebaggery on thier side!"

The Extinguisher

2011-12-08, 04:01 PM

Weezer

2011-12-08, 04:28 PM

Man, everyone always forgets Hufflepuff :smallfrown:

Also, in the topic of Slytherins who were not evil: Barty Crouch (senior). Sure, he was a jerk, but he was one of the "good guys" (and undoubtably Slytherin. The dude is leaking ambition)

Is that ever stated in the books? Because I didn't really get a Slytherin vibe from him. Remember that Percy basically turned into a miniature Crouch for the vast majority of 4 books and he was a Gryffindore. I don't really see the civil service type as automatically being Slytherin.

Anteros

2011-12-08, 05:15 PM

Is that ever stated in the books? Because I didn't really get a Slytherin vibe from him. Remember that Percy basically turned into a miniature Crouch for the vast majority of 4 books and he was a Gryffindore. I don't really see the civil service type as automatically being Slytherin.

Pretty sure it was mentioned explicitly that he was Slytherin, although I don't remember the exact quote.

Nerd-o-rama

2011-12-08, 05:38 PM

So basically all the effective wizards transcended our world and moved on to a paradise of their own creation? Sounds both plausable and interesting. Also explains the whole 'ancient magic is far more powerful and mysterious than modern' shtick that Rowling had (to be fair that's also pretty much a given for most fantasy worlds).

This sounds like an entirely possible explanation. Only a very few truly great wizards stick around or do things to affect society as a whole. And the ones that do are ambiguously moral people with their own agendas who happen to have good PR like Merlin (if you believe some versions of the Arhturian cycle) and Dumbledore.

Also,

What in the hell is a Hufflepuff?

Weezer

2011-12-08, 06:14 PM

This sounds like an entirely possible explanation. Only a very few truly great wizards stick around or do things to affect society as a whole. And the ones that do are ambiguously moral people with their own agendas who happen to have good PR like Merlin (if you believe some versions of the Arhturian cycle) and Dumbledore.

I think Dumbledore also counts as a ambiguously moral person with his own agenda, his layers of manipulation and plotting aren't exactly straight up "good", just like they certainly aren't evil. I think one of Rowling's better ideas was to make everyone question how "good" Dumbledore really was, just wish it wasn't so ham-fisted and that she had dropped some more hints throughout the series to keep it from being so out of no-where and easy to discount.

Aotrs Commander

2011-12-08, 07:15 PM

I'm talking about the real Houses. :smalltongue:

I feel that this is a very appropriate point to link this extremely funny skit by David Mitchell:

Welcome to Hufflepuff. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXF4JuA6tcg)

Nerd-o-rama

2011-12-08, 07:29 PM

I think Dumbledore also counts as a ambiguously moral person with his own agenda, his layers of manipulation and plotting aren't exactly straight up "good", just like they certainly aren't evil. I think one of Rowling's better ideas was to make everyone question how "good" Dumbledore really was, just wish it wasn't so ham-fisted and that she had dropped some more hints throughout the series to keep it from being so out of no-where and easy to discount.

If you parse my sentence without the extraneous parentheses, you'll see I meant both Merlin and Dumbledore as examples of that.

I think the reason behind Dumbledore's rather sudden reveal as a guy with extremely dubious methods behind his extremely nice goals is that Rowling is addicted to the last minute plot twist, and wanted to shake up the very foundation of Harry Potter's black and white morality before reasserting it at the end (Dumbledore dies in a chapter called "The Lightning-Struck Tower" for a reason). I think the justification for it is the biased point-of-view I mentioned earlier in this thread: Harry Potter is not only not terribly observant, he sees any paternal figure without a flagrant personality disorder through extremely sympathetic glasses and in Dumbledore's case especially buys completely into his mythic reputation. Thus, so does the narrative voice.

H Birchgrove

2011-12-08, 08:12 PM

I like the house where all the Mary Sues go to. :smalltongue:

(If only I could find that link...)

Nerd-o-rama

2011-12-08, 08:51 PM

I like the house where all the Mary Sues go to. :smalltongue:

(If only I could find that link...)

House Sparklypoo (http://sparklypoo.livejournal.com/)?

(Origins) (http://piratemonkeysinc.com/ms1.htm)

warty goblin

2011-12-08, 09:23 PM

If you parse my sentence without the extraneous parentheses, you'll see I meant both Merlin and Dumbledore as examples of that.

I think the reason behind Dumbledore's rather sudden reveal as a guy with extremely dubious methods behind his extremely nice goals is that Rowling is addicted to the last minute plot twist, and wanted to shake up the very foundation of Harry Potter's black and white morality before reasserting it at the end (Dumbledore dies in a chapter called "The Lightning-Struck Tower" for a reason). I think the justification for it is the biased point-of-view I mentioned earlier in this thread: Harry Potter is not only not terribly observant, he sees any paternal figure without a flagrant personality disorder through extremely sympathetic glasses and in Dumbledore's case especially buys completely into his mythic reputation. Thus, so does the narrative voice.

Also 17 is hardly an unreasonable age for somebody to start to move away from hero worship into something a bit more nuanced.

Traab

2011-12-08, 09:28 PM

House Sparklypoo (http://sparklypoo.livejournal.com/)?

(Origins) (http://piratemonkeysinc.com/ms1.htm)

Thats an awesome origin. Its also the reason why i dont read self insert stories, because they all turn out like that. Its bad enough when they do that to harry himself.

Weezer

2011-12-08, 10:38 PM

If you parse my sentence without the extraneous parentheses, you'll see I meant both Merlin and Dumbledore as examples of that.

I think the reason behind Dumbledore's rather sudden reveal as a guy with extremely dubious methods behind his extremely nice goals is that Rowling is addicted to the last minute plot twist, and wanted to shake up the very foundation of Harry Potter's black and white morality before reasserting it at the end (Dumbledore dies in a chapter called "The Lightning-Struck Tower" for a reason). I think the justification for it is the biased point-of-view I mentioned earlier in this thread: Harry Potter is not only not terribly observant, he sees any paternal figure without a flagrant personality disorder through extremely sympathetic glasses and in Dumbledore's case especially buys completely into his mythic reputation. Thus, so does the narrative voice.

Ahh yes, my bad. Chalk it up to my consistent failure at getting parallel structure right.
She really is addicted to that plot twist, got really irksome after a while.

Tyndmyr

2011-12-09, 12:50 PM

On a rewatch that was a very dickish move on Dumbledoors part.

Man harry barely does anything in all the movies.

And the few things he does...mostly bad.

Oh, you let out the snake. Well, that's one horcrux free that you're responsible for.

Oh, had to go mucking about in the chamber of secrets. Shame he was entirely unable to get in until you came along.

Then, you had to get involved in some competition you didn't enter. Who could have seen that being a trap, eh? Hint: They didn't call it the tri-wizard tournament because they wanted four of 'em competing. Oh good work there, you're responsible for Voldemort gaining power YET AGAIN.

If he'd just attended class and not meddled constantly like a good student, there would have been absolutely no problem. Well, ok, Ginny meddled too. So, there's at least some blame for the other heroes.

Lucky for him that the power of plot makes him apparently kill voldemort for no good reason.

Anteros

2011-12-09, 01:12 PM

And the few things he does...mostly bad.

Oh, you let out the snake. Well, that's one horcrux free that you're responsible for.

Oh, had to go mucking about in the chamber of secrets. Shame he was entirely unable to get in until you came along.

Then, you had to get involved in some competition you didn't enter. Who could have seen that being a trap, eh? Hint: They didn't call it the tri-wizard tournament because they wanted four of 'em competing. Oh good work there, you're responsible for Voldemort gaining power YET AGAIN.

If he'd just attended class and not meddled constantly like a good student, there would have been absolutely no problem. Well, ok, Ginny meddled too. So, there's at least some blame for the other heroes.

Lucky for him that the power of plot makes him apparently kill voldemort for no good reason.

He let out the snake? It's not the same snake from the zoo that is the Horcrux is it? I don't remember any indication of that.

Venom3053000

2011-12-09, 01:19 PM

yeah i get the feeling that if harry just keeped his head down Dumbledore plans would have been just fine and voldemort would have been finished in probably the first book

The Glyphstone

2011-12-09, 01:30 PM

Er...

And the few things he does...mostly bad.

Oh, you let out the snake. Well, that's one horcrux free that you're responsible for.

Nagini is a completely different snake than the one he let loose in the zoo/

Oh, had to go mucking about in the chamber of secrets. Shame he was entirely unable to get in until you came along.

Voldemort/Riddle was entering the Chamber before Harry was, via Ginny-Possession.

Then, you had to get involved in some competition you didn't enter. Who could have seen that being a trap, eh? Hint: They didn't call it the tri-wizard tournament because they wanted four of 'em competing. Oh good work there, you're responsible for Voldemort gaining power YET AGAIN.

Why is this Harry's fault? It was Crouch Jr. who put him in as a contestant, and Dumbledore who refused to let him back out after his name got spat out.

TheArsenal

2011-12-09, 03:00 PM

Just shows how ****ing insane they all are:

HUUUR Something that just happens to spit out the name of the "Chosen one" how WIERD! That won't in any way be a TRAP?

Weezer

2011-12-09, 03:23 PM

Just shows how ****ing insane they all are:

HUUUR Something that just happens to spit out the name of the "Chosen one" how WIERD! That won't in any way be a TRAP?

Also I never understood how they couldn't get Harry out of it. If all you need to entrap someone in an unbreakable contract without their consent is their name, why don't people do that all the time to their enemies? The ability to place any lawbreaker inside the constraints of a contract, with dire consequences if the contract is broken, is just about the most powerful law enforcement tool I've heard of. And if people's true names hold such power, why doesn't everyone go the Wizard of Earthsea route and conceal their true names and tell everyone made up names?

Nerd-o-rama

2011-12-09, 03:25 PM

Just shows how ****ing insane they all are:

HUUUR Something that just happens to spit out the name of the "Chosen one" how WIERD! That won't in any way be a TRAP?

You only know it was a trap because you read the book.

Chen

2011-12-09, 03:43 PM

You only know it was a trap because you read the book.

Uh I knew it was a trap before I read the book. Considering the difficulty in accessing the cup, it had to be an experienced wizard who did it. Any experienced wizard probably didn't just do it for ****s and giggles. It was clear there was SOME other motive going on. Trap seemed like the logical conclusion to me.

ScionoftheVoid

2011-12-09, 03:53 PM

And even if it wasn't a trap, Harry was a fourth entry and illegal on the grounds that there are only three competitors. On top of being too young to enter the competition with the added restrictions. If someone manages to not only get past the security but then actually get picked "at random" then something is screwy. If this accompanies an obvious malfunction/sabotage of the device used to choose competitors, then the tournament should be postponed until sufficient investigation has been done. If all this happens while also sending the Chosen One into a situation where he could easily die, this goes double, triple or more! The whole thing was incredibly stupid and dangerous, but apparently that doesn't bother wizards, who don't bother investigating Unforgivables being cast inside one of the best schools of magic in Britain (happens in the same book, even!), and are known to think Quidditch is a really good idea.

Mando Knight

2011-12-09, 04:06 PM

Also I never understood how they couldn't get Harry out of it. If all you need to entrap someone in an unbreakable contract without their consent is their name, why don't people do that all the time to their enemies? The ability to place any lawbreaker inside the constraints of a contract, with dire consequences if the contract is broken, is just about the most powerful law enforcement tool I've heard of. And if people's true names hold such power, why doesn't everyone go the Wizard of Earthsea route and conceal their true names and tell everyone made up names?

Answer to all these questions: despite how intelligent HP Wizards may seem, in all actuality they are morons. They can't deduce their way out of a paper bag. Hermione even points it out in the first book.

Oh, sure, you get a few geniuses like Flamel and the Hogwarts founders, but the rest of the Wizard community is just as reliant on them and the things they give to society as hipsters are on Apple.

Nerd-o-rama

2011-12-09, 04:07 PM

and are known to think Quidditch is a really good idea.

Yeah, honestly, when Quidditch is The Official Sport of Wizards, I just throw all pretense of Wizard sports ever not being stupid out the window.

Weezer

2011-12-09, 04:16 PM

Answer to all these questions: despite how intelligent HP Wizards may seem, in all actuality they are morons. They can't deduce their way out of a paper bag. Hermione even points it out in the first book.

Oh, sure, you get a few geniuses like Flamel and the Hogwarts founders, but the rest of the Wizard community is just as reliant on them and the things they give to society as hipsters are on Apple.

Yeah, honestly, when Quidditch is The Official Sport of Wizards, I just throw all pretense of Wizard sports ever not being stupid out the window.

Well yeah, that is the conclusion I came to about two books in. As I stated earlier, there isn't any other explanation that makes sense. I just enjoy pointing out the new instances of idiocy as this thread brings them to my attention.

warty goblin

2011-12-09, 04:18 PM

Answer to all these questions: despite how intelligent HP Wizards may seem, in all actuality they are morons. They can't deduce their way out of a paper bag. Hermione even points it out in the first book.

Oh, sure, you get a few geniuses like Flamel and the Hogwarts founders, but the rest of the Wizard community is just as reliant on them and the things they give to society as hipsters are on Apple.

Although to be fair moron is probably a fairly accurate statistical summary of the entire species. Or maybe I'm feeling more misanthropic than usual today.

TheArsenal

2011-12-09, 04:20 PM

Its sort of cool to see harry potter as sort of a secret "Fallout for wizards".

edit: Or more like Idiocracy (Love that movie) even

This actually gives me a cool Idea for a DD game. Where magic is not understood like you read by letters. More as in by symbols.

At some point in time in magical history an alternative magic teaching system was developed. It taught you more like "Say this and this for fire!" rather then arcane theories and new teachings. It was revolutionary on how quickly you could teach a student that magic. But eventually people stopped learning the arcane workings of magic.

And after hundreds of years mages are dying out as they forget how to fix thier arcane tech that supports them as they only know basic symbols.

Mando Knight

2011-12-09, 05:31 PM

Although to be fair moron is probably a fairly accurate statistical summary of the entire species. Or maybe I'm feeling more misanthropic than usual today.

Yeah, except that the Wizards are complacent as well as moronic. They wait for super-geniuses to appear and take the world by storm before actually making any changes (They're terribly weak-willed. See also: Voldemort's rise), and we see little if any indication that they have much in the way of engineering... the different broomsticks seem to offer only marginal improvement, if that, and I don't recall there being any reference to much in the way of university-level academia, either.

Mewtarthio

2011-12-09, 06:17 PM

Traab

2011-12-09, 06:41 PM

Also I never understood how they couldn't get Harry out of it. If all you need to entrap someone in an unbreakable contract without their consent is their name, why don't people do that all the time to their enemies? The ability to place any lawbreaker inside the constraints of a contract, with dire consequences if the contract is broken, is just about the most powerful law enforcement tool I've heard of. And if people's true names hold such power, why doesn't everyone go the Wizard of Earthsea route and conceal their true names and tell everyone made up names?

Even if it was possible to force you into a magical contract, it would have been easily solved.

Dumbledoore: "Ahem, since the cup has obviously been messed with, the events shall be changed as follows. The first event, guess which number between 1 and 10 I am thinking of. Event 2 will take place right after and be a tournament game of rock paper scissors. Event three will be A scavenger hunt, the first person to find alastor moody in this room wins. Then, when the event is over and the contract is complete, we will reenter the three names of our champions and only their names and start over again."

Thats assuming they cant just declare the tournament a draw and reset it that way.

Venom3053000

2011-12-09, 06:46 PM

4Event three will be A scavenger hunt, the first person to find alastor moody in this room wins.

Dumbledoore didn't not know moody was a fake at that time it was only after he took harry out of his sight after he was kidnapped that he know he was a fake

Weezer

2011-12-09, 06:48 PM

Dumbledoore didn't not know moody was a fake at that time it was only after he took harry out of his sight after he was kidnapped that he know he was a fake

I think Traab just chose him because Moody is very easy to spot in a room. He kind of stands out, just a bit.

Traab

2011-12-09, 07:08 PM

I think Traab just chose him because Moody is very easy to spot in a room. He kind of stands out, just a bit.

Exactly. I was making up the three events as I went along and moody was the first thing that popped into my head when trying to think of a stupidly easy thing to find in that room. :p I would have used dumbledore or maxime, but I think having the judges take part would be unfair. /nod :smallbiggrin:

H Birchgrove

2011-12-09, 07:30 PM

House Sparklypoo (http://sparklypoo.livejournal.com/)?

(Origins) (http://piratemonkeysinc.com/ms1.htm)

That's the one! Thanks! :smallbiggrin:

warty goblin

2011-12-09, 07:48 PM

Yeah, except that the Wizards are complacent as well as moronic. They wait for super-geniuses to appear and take the world by storm before actually making any changes (They're terribly weak-willed. See also: Voldemort's rise), and we see little if any indication that they have much in the way of engineering... the different broomsticks seem to offer only marginal improvement, if that, and I don't recall there being any reference to much in the way of university-level academia, either.

Again, maybe my misanthropy levels are higher today than average, but I'm not sure I'd say that's a poor characterization of the species in general.

Weezer

2011-12-09, 08:03 PM

Again, maybe my misanthropy levels are higher today than average, but I'm not sure I'd say that's a poor characterization of the species in general.

I think one of the big differences between real people and Rowlings wizards is that despite the fact that most people are pretty idiotic at times there are still a large number of people driving progress (or at the least change), whether it is technological, economic or political. On the other hand the wizarding world seems to lack an intelligent group pushing things forward. No one in the books comes of as truly smart, instead they read like what an unintelligent person would think smart people are like (this is true even for Hermione, the "smart" one of the bunch).

The Glyphstone

2011-12-09, 08:37 PM

I think one of the big differences between real people and Rowlings wizards is that despite the fact that most people are pretty idiotic at times there are still a large number of people driving progress (or at the least change), whether it is technological, economic or political. On the other hand the wizarding world seems to lack an intelligent group pushing things forward. No one in the books comes of as truly smart, instead they read like what an unintelligent person would think smart people are like (this is true even for Hermione, the "smart" one of the bunch).

Or what a smart person would think dumb people act like when trying to pretend they're smart.

Nerd-o-rama

2011-12-09, 11:35 PM

Exactly. I was making up the three events as I went along and moody was the first thing that popped into my head when trying to think of a stupidly easy thing to find in that room. :p I would have used dumbledore or maxime, but I think having the judges take part would be unfair. /nod :smallbiggrin:

Ironically, the third task would have been impossible and the tournament could have gone on for months this way. Assuming Crouch Jr. was a very careful liar.

Traab

2011-12-10, 07:03 PM

More problems with the series. The prophecy. This thing has more holes in it than swiss cheese, and has more potential interpretations than the entire lexicon of Shakespeare works. Lets take it bit by bit.

The one with the power to vanquish the dark lord approaches, born to those who thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies.

Ok, lets start here, and even with this I barely know where to start. First off, WHAT dark lord? Is there some rule that states all prophecies must deal with current events? For all we know, 30 years later, some married couple will refuse to follow the rules of some ministry supervisor several times and he will later turn to the dark side, thus having defied him thrice. They will give birth as the seventh month dies. And this is another bit thats rather uncertain.

WHAT seventh month? Is it the 7th month on the calendar? Is it 7 months after the prophecy was made? Is it the 7th month on another calendar entirely? The celtic 7th month falls in between April/May as an example. Which brings up another point. Dont a lot of prophecies use poetic descriptions, or non literal meanings? Taking the celtic calendar, that means he could be born after someone NAMED april/may dies. Though that may be stretching things a bit too far, its still a concern.

Even assuming it means the end of july, it still doesnt state WHICH YEAR he will be born in. For all we know, the one with the power to vanquish this mentioned dark lord, whoever it may be, is coming over on a plane from america where he has spent the last 30 years training in magical combat, and was born 50 years ago on july 31st. So he is approaching and was born as the 7th month dies, just many years ago. Or perhaps many years from NOW he will be born at the end of july. Once again, we dont know that it even refers to voldemort as the dark lord. Could be someone else down the road. or even if it does mean him, that doesnt mean that voldemort wont have 30 years of total control before some plucky lad shows up and whomps him good.

and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not

This phrase is an odd one, in that its fairly clear what it means, but also in that virtually any set of circumstances can be made to fit the guidelines. The power the dark lord knows not, could be anything from some random person knowing a spell that he didnt expect them to know about, for example, he tries to kill a 14 year old, who apparates. This was a power the dark lord didnt know about, because he didnt know the 14 year old could do it. In a story I read The Brave New World, harry in his final duel with voldemort uses a spell that turns water to wine, It does HORRIBLE damage to voldemorts stomach because he had never encountered that spell before. Was THAT "the power he knows not?" The mark is along the same lines. Marked how? Verbally acknowledging someone as a worthy opponent could count as marking him as an equal. The scar could count as a mark, but I fail to see how its a mark of equals, the explanation dumbledoore gave was fairly half assed and nonsensical.

and either must die at the hand of the other for neither can live while the other survives

This seems.... odd if you take it literally. Especially that last part, neither can live while the other survives. Now, harry lived for a solid 16 years while voldemort was surviving, and then eventually alive again. So obviously it doesnt mean it that literally. It may mean neither can truly live, or achieve their goals, while the other exists. So harry cant have his safe normal life as long as voldemort is around, and voldemort cant truly rule britain so long as harry is alive. Either must die at the hands of the other is an interesting bit, because it adds in an element of "holy crap!" to consider. Taken literally this means that only by acting directly, or at the very least indirectly against each other, can either of them die. If Voldemort had known this, and been smart, he would have approached the longbottoms and potters and said, "Hey, if you both take your families and leave for Australia, you have my sworn word, enforced by magical oath, that i shall neither move against you, nor allow any under my command do so, for so long as you stay the hell away from britain, also enforced by magical oaths." BANG! Voldemort is now unbeatable and truly immortal. Time will tell what would happen with the boys life spans.

One last interesting idea, nothing to do with prophecy. This is how I would protect myself and my family. A fidelius protected bunker inside my house. Think of it as a bomb shelter. Voldemort turns up with a dozen followers, sets up wards that prevent you from leaving. Everyone runs to the shelter, whose secret is known only to the immediate family, and hides there. Protected by wards and charms that keep air flowing and debris from crushing them, and they can sit there trying an emergency portkey to saint mungos once every half hour till the bad guys get bored and leave, and the wards stopping them collapse.

Nerd-o-rama

2011-12-10, 08:20 PM

warty goblin

2011-12-10, 08:48 PM

Traab

2011-12-10, 08:51 PM

That deep of an analysis of the prophecy kind of misses the point. It works like a Greek prophecy in that by trying to **** it up you're pretty much guaranteed to enact it (it's even in the text - the Dark Lord will mark as equal anyone he thinks can fit the prophecy and tries to rub out) and that it's just a description of what is going to happen. You can't avert it because it's just a description of future events. And a nicely vague one because it doesn't give a conclusion other than "one of them will die at the hand of the other".

Also, Voldemort (being an idiot) acted on an incomplete version of it, missing all the vital parts about how he was the one acting on it.

As for the vagueness, yeah, so?

So? The point is, both dumbledoore and voldemort managed to reach the same decision on the true meaning of the prophecy, and immediately locked their view into that as its only possible meaning. The ONLY question was which of two boys it was aimed at. There are hundreds of possible meanings to just the part voldemort heard, most of which meant it didnt even involve him.

I understand thats the whole point of the story, its just, I would have expected things to be a little bit more blatant in order to so quickly cement everyones belief. Have the prophecy mention harry by lyrical titles or something. Stormbrow, Serpent Slayer, He Who Has Her Eyes, SOMETHING that would directly point to harry beyond claiming a scar means he was marked as voldemorts equal. Thats NOT what the scar was, it was a side effect of his mothers effort to protect him, WHAT THE HELL PART OF THAT MAKES HIM VOLDEMORTS EQUAL?!

Indeed, prophesies are seldom of the form "If you are at the corner of seventh and King streets at 3:43PM on October 28th, 2012, somebody will give you a free pizza." The things being nebulous as all hell dates back something like twenty-four hundred years at the least, to the wooden wall of Athens.

I know this and you are right, my problem is most of those prophecies are interpreted wrong until after they are fulfilled, in this case dumbledoore had it pegged 17 years before it came true.

Mando Knight

2011-12-10, 09:24 PM

that would directly point to harry beyond claiming a scar means he was marked as voldemorts equal. Thats NOT what the scar was, it was a side effect of his mothers effort to protect him, WHAT THE HELL PART OF THAT MAKES HIM VOLDEMORTS EQUAL?!
Except it was. They remark back in the first book that the scar shows that he has been marked by a terrible Curse... the scar isn't the side effect of Lily's love, it's the part of the AK magic that got through her love-barrier. It marks Harry as Voldemort's Equal because it's the mark that shows that he's the one that Voldemort thought could be his equal.

TheArsenal

2011-12-11, 02:01 AM

I took inspiration from harry potters thingy and created my own:

When the Dark smith fishes for glory
When the Dark smith slips

One man, will combat the dark smith and show him to be false.

Guess what this one is about.

SaintRidley

2011-12-11, 03:23 AM

VanBuren

2011-12-11, 06:14 AM

More importantly, it's a bit of Voldemort's soul wedged in there. Voldemort marked Harry as his equal by making him equal Voldemort in a slightly more literal sense.

Voldemort, by acting on the prophecy, made it about him. It's kind of what he does, being a raging egomaniac and all. If he'd never touched it, the prophecy would have sat around going unfulfilled (maybe somebody far in the future might trigger it, but then again maybe not; the whole point is, after all, the self-fulfilling nature of prophecy and the ego of the prophesied).

^Boom. This right here. Voldemort marked him as his equal both by leaving that scar when he tried to kill him, and also by inadvertently wedging a bit of his soul inside of him, which also fulfills the whole "power he knows not" thing because Voldemort had no idea that he'd turned Harry into a Horcrux and everything that goes with it.

As for the prophecy not specifying which Dark Lord, it's the same as what SaintRidley said: Voldemort made it about himself.

Arakune

2011-12-11, 09:00 AM

Traab

2011-12-11, 10:05 AM

Except it was. They remark back in the first book that the scar shows that he has been marked by a terrible Curse... the scar isn't the side effect of Lily's love, it's the part of the AK magic that got through her love-barrier. It marks Harry as Voldemort's Equal because it's the mark that shows that he's the one that Voldemort thought could be his equal.

Except that it IS a side effect of lilys protection. The AK doesnt leave a mark on the people it kills. It wasnt blocked by anything special that harry is or did, it was rebounded by his mothers love. Lily potter defeated the dark lord then, not harry. Also, voldemort didnt think harry was his equal at the time, he thought harry was a potential future threat. You dont have to consider someone your equal to recognize they are dangerous. So once again, it required fairly strenuous twisting to make this prophecy fit harry and voldemort.

But even putting all that aside, the fact remains that generally speaking, prophecies remain unclear until they are completed, aka the fall of troy, and various other stories that revolve around prophecies. There is always this big twist to them that nobody suspected. Dumbledoore had the entire thing figured out from day one. The only question he had was what this power he knows not may be, though he believed it was love. (nope) The power he knows not was actually a combination of harry being the master of the elder wand, and voldemort turning himself into a sort of proto horocrux for harry due to his resurrection ritual)

Xondoure

2011-12-11, 01:06 PM

Except that it IS a side effect of lilys protection. The AK doesnt leave a mark on the people it kills. It wasnt blocked by anything special that harry is or did, it was rebounded by his mothers love. Lily potter defeated the dark lord then, not harry. Also, voldemort didnt think harry was his equal at the time, he thought harry was a potential future threat. You dont have to consider someone your equal to recognize they are dangerous. So once again, it required fairly strenuous twisting to make this prophecy fit harry and voldemort.

But even putting all that aside, the fact remains that generally speaking, prophecies remain unclear until they are completed, aka the fall of troy, and various other stories that revolve around prophecies. There is always this big twist to them that nobody suspected. Dumbledoore had the entire thing figured out from day one. The only question he had was what this power he knows not may be, though he believed it was love. (nope) The power he knows not was actually a combination of harry being the master of the elder wand, and voldemort turning himself into a sort of proto horocrux for harry due to his resurrection ritual)

I don't know it always seemed to fit quite well as explained in the books to me, but that is the subjectivity of language for you.

SaintRidley

2011-12-11, 01:55 PM

Also, voldemort didnt think harry was his equal at the time, he thought harry was a potential future threat. You dont have to consider someone your equal to recognize they are dangerous.

Voldemort never considered anyone his equal. It's not about him thinking someone is his equal. It's about him wedging a bit of himself into someone else and therefore making them actually count as his equal (Harry is, while he has the soul bit, Voldemort too).

But even putting all that aside, the fact remains that generally speaking, prophecies remain unclear until they are completed, aka the fall of troy, and various other stories that revolve around prophecies. There is always this big twist to them that nobody suspected.

Yep. That's pretty much how it works. And we got one a bit more complex. It's a two-stage prophecy built in much the same tradition.

Dumbledoore had the entire thing figured out from day one. The only question he had was what this power he knows not may be, though he believed it was love. (nope)

You could make a pretty good case that the power Harry has that Voldemort does not is having people who actually love him, as well as Harry's capacity to love. Voldemort can't effect anybody in the school with his magic after he kills Harry in the woods because Harry goes to die for their protection, something he does out of love.

If Voldemort could hurt the students and faculty after that point, he's still skilled enough for a Potterverse wizard that he would have nearly routed the school. Harry's sacrifice, as it were, made it possible for Voldemort to lose.

The power he knows not was actually a combination of harry being the master of the elder wand, and voldemort turning himself into a sort of proto horocrux for harry due to his resurrection ritual)

As well as the above. I mean, someone else could actually have done the Voldemort-killing if they'd just landed a hit on him between the forest and Harry revealing himself. At that point it wasn't so much required for Harry to do it but the boy wanted to and the people wanted him to.

Mewtarthio

2011-12-11, 02:59 PM

You could make a pretty good case that the power Harry has that Voldemort does not is having people who actually love him, as well as Harry's capacity to love.

Yeah, that "power of love" thing has always bugged me. Harry doesn't really seem to be an exceptionally loving person. In fact, post-Book-4, he's mostly motivated by vengeance. Don't get me wrong: Voldemort certainly does need to die, but when the books keep hammering home that the only way to do so is through love and self-sacrifice, then I expect the hero to show a bit of love or self-sacrifice. Harry never does, barring that cheap, five-minute death in the Forbidden Forest (and even that's not exactly an expression of love. He wants Voldemort to die, and so he does the same thing he's been doing for the past seven books: He waits for Dumbledore to tell him what to do, then does that).

Honestly, it starts to veer into self-parody at times. Particular that one scene in Book 6, where Dumbledore is talking with Harry about the Power of Love and it starts to look like he's not even listening to Harry's responses:

"You see, the Power of Love is all-powerful and overcomes all dark magic! Tell me, if Voldemort showed up right now and offered to let you join him, would you?"

"Of course not!"

"And why not?"

"Because he killed my parents! I hate him with every fiber of my soul! I want to put him under the Imperius Curse and make him flay himself alive! Raaah! Death! Blood! Revenge!"

"Exactly! Because of your capacity to love!"

SaintRidley

2011-12-11, 03:05 PM

Love and hate. same emotion in a lot of ways.

But on a more serious note, you are right that Harry should have been shown to be more loving. It would have lent more credence to what happened in the forest.

At least we did get what we did, though. It's obvious throughout the series that Harry loves Hogwarts, that it has provided him with the best feelings and memories he's ever had. He goes into the forest aiming to sacrifice himself for Hogwarts and the people there. He's got the intent. The fact that he got to come back after getting himself killed only pleases me on the level of "well, mildly successful use of that part of the messianic archetype." I was rooting for him to die and stay dead. Never really liked the kid. Hermione and Ron were just much more interesting characters.

VanBuren

2011-12-11, 06:14 PM

Except that it IS a side effect of lilys protection.

Actually, it's exceedingly more likely that it's a byproduct of Harry being turned into a Horcrux, given the fact that it's always the part of him that gets all hurty when Voldemort is doing his thing.

Terry576

2011-12-11, 07:54 PM

I really liked the idea someone put forth of a "Wizard of Earthsea" esque hide your true name thing. It would make for a really interesting fic.

...

*scribbles some stuff down*

It would also explain why people dislike Muggleborns so much rather well - because they go around babbling their true names like no tomorrow when that's like the ultimate source of power.

Nerd-o-rama

2011-12-11, 08:23 PM

Grieving and vendettas are a side effect of love...okay, yeah, I came into this conversation saying that Rowling was bad at her story agreeing with her blankly stated themes, and I'm just going to reiterate that now.

The fact that he has actual friends is an important and consistent thing, though.

I'm going to go ahead and just plug A Very Potter Musical directly because I'm listening to it anyway and I think this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gctiXV0pu_0) summarizes this theme in an overwrought musical form.

Incidentally, this song starts off as romantic because Harry's romance plot actually goes somewhere in the play.

Mewtarthio

2011-12-11, 11:37 PM

The fact that he has actual friends is an important and consistent thing, though.

That's like letting your fantasy hero harness the Power of Athleticism because he can run a ten-minute mile.

I'm going to go ahead and just plug A Very Potter Musical directly because I'm listening to it anyway and I think this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gctiXV0pu_0) summarizes this theme in an overwrought musical form.

That deserves to be plugged. I'd say it's easily the best fan-produced musical adaptation of a children's hepatology I've ever seen. Even if I'd utterly hated the series*, I'd still say it's worth reading just for that musical.

*For the record: No, I don't utterly hate the series. I actually liked the first four books despite their flaws, though it's pretty hard to go back and re-read them as an adult. The last two books were mediocre, though. Fifth book could have been just as bad, except that Delores Umbridge is such a very deplorable villain, and I enjoyed all the parts of the plot relating to her.

Nerd-o-rama

2011-12-12, 12:07 AM

That's like letting your fantasy hero harness the Power of Athleticism because he can run a ten-minute mile.

What I mean is it's a big point of contrast between him and Voldemort. Voldemort has no friends and his basest motivation is wanting to never die, and this absolute denial of death cripples him. Harry, on the other hand, has friends he's willing to die for, and that's ultimately what lets him win. (The cheese with the Elder Wand was just a way for him to survive winning).

I'll refrain from quoting the relevant Very Potter Musical version of this, since it loses a lot of effectiveness without context.

Weezer

2011-12-12, 12:24 AM

What I mean is it's a big point of contrast between him and Voldemort. Voldemort has no friends and his basest motivation is wanting to never die, and this absolute denial of death cripples him. Harry, on the other hand, has friends he's willing to die for, and that's ultimately what lets him win. (The cheese with the Elder Wand was just a way for him to survive winning).

I'll refrain from quoting the relevant Very Potter Musical version of this, since it loses a lot of effectiveness without context.

The thing is Harry doesn't have particularly vast amounts of love in his life, sure it's more than a power hungry racist who goes around torturing his followeres, but enough to justify him winning based on the power of love? Not a chance.

Also, on the Very Potter Musical note? Excellent show indeed, love the take on Voldemort/Quirrel.

Tyndmyr

2011-12-12, 02:33 PM

Er...

Nagini is a completely different snake than the one he let loose in the zoo/

Is there a word of god on that?* I'll grant that they appear to be different snakes in the movie, but in the book, there appears to be nothing contradicting this, and it fits together rather well.

Also, even if not...he's still causing random havoc by letting a large snake loose in the city(most certainly not it's native climate).

*There was a tumblr post saying it was, but some people are saying it's a fake. Seems insufficient as is.

Voldemort/Riddle was entering the Chamber before Harry was, via Ginny-Possession.

My bad. Sorc Stone was the one where he was entirely to blame for meddling. Chamber of Secrets was Ginny's fault for meddling.

Why is this Harry's fault? It was Crouch Jr. who put him in as a contestant, and Dumbledore who refused to let him back out after his name got spat out.

None of which made much sense. He knew he hadn't entered, and he didn't HAVE to compete. It's explicitly stated that they knew he didn't have the magic to have done it, reference is made to dark wizards, and the power of the charm necessary to create this effect. None of this screams "It's a good idea to go along with it". Harry has no reason to do it, and Dumbledore has no reason to want it.

Incidentally, Voldemort establishes in Goblet of Fire that thanks to a few drops of Harry's blood, he can touch Harry without harm. If it's Lily's protection that causes this effect, then this would seem to indicate he bypasses Lily's protection. This makes the final battle quite confusing.

Nerd-o-rama

2011-12-12, 02:47 PM

Is there a word of god on that?* I'll grant that they appear to be different snakes in the movie, but in the book, there appears to be nothing contradicting this, and it fits together rather well.

Wait, what? There is absolutely nothing to indicate that this is true. Just because we see a constrictor snake in the first book in a zoo doesn't mean it's the same constrictor snake three books later in a mansion in another part of the country. There is more than one of the damn things in the world. And you'd think Nagini would have been like "oh crap it's another piece of Master HEY MASTER GET ME OUT OF HERE" and not just "sigh, captivity is dull".

Incidentally, Voldemort establishes in Goblet of Fire that thanks to a few drops of Harry's blood, he can touch Harry without harm. If it's Lily's protection that causes this effect, then this would seem to indicate he bypasses Lily's protection. This makes the final battle quite confusing.

Okay, I probably just have to re-read Deathly Hallows again (ugh), but when in the hell did Lily's protection come into Harry's survival after that scene in book 4? I always just took it (and the movie more or less confirmed) as that Harry was the master of the Elder Wand, therefore the Elder Wand would not kill him (seriously, Voldemort, even if a gun is beneath you, get a knife or something).

The place where Love ProtectionTM came in in the final battle was Harry's sacrifice protecting everyone else. From Voldemort specifically, sadly, since Rowling still had to put a few more notches on the finale body count tally.

The Glyphstone

2011-12-12, 03:00 PM

Is there a word of god on that?* I'll grant that they appear to be different snakes in the movie, but in the book, there appears to be nothing contradicting this, and it fits together rather well.

Also, even if not...he's still causing random havoc by letting a large snake loose in the city(most certainly not it's native climate).

*There was a tumblr post saying it was, but some people are saying it's a fake. Seems insufficient as is.

I'm not sure how it fits together at all. Rather, it seems to be grasping at straws a bit to assume that the only two snakes 'on-screen' during the entire series are the same...

Actually, now that I think of it, it's impossible for them to be the same snake. Nagini bites her prey, and has poisonous fangs - the snake Harry sets loose in the zoo is explicitly a python, which would swallow/constrict prey.

hamishspence

2011-12-12, 03:12 PM

While described as a "Brazilian boa constrictor" in the book, it's also described as "big enough to coil around Uncle Vernon's car and crush it into a pair of dustbins"- anaconda-ish.

The Glyphstone

2011-12-12, 03:19 PM

While described as a "Brazilian boa constrictor" in the book, it's also described as "big enough to coil around Uncle Vernon's car and crush it into a pair of dustbins"- anaconda-ish.

Much bigger than Nagini then:

"The huge snake emerged to climb slowly up Voldemort's chair. It rose, seemingly endlessly, and came to rest across Voldemort's shoulders: its neck the thickness of a man's thigh; its eyes, with their verticle slits for pupils, unblinking. Voldemort stroked the creature absently with long thin fingers..."

Tyndmyr

2011-12-12, 03:25 PM

Wait, what? There is absolutely nothing to indicate that this is true. Just because we see a constrictor snake in the first book in a zoo doesn't mean it's the same constrictor snake three books later in a mansion in another part of the country. There is more than one of the damn things in the world. And you'd think Nagini would have been like "oh crap it's another piece of Master HEY MASTER GET ME OUT OF HERE" and not just "sigh, captivity is dull".

There's no reason to assume that one horcrux can instantly recognize any other. In fact, Harry pretty explicitly cant, and there does not appear to be widespread recognition of Harry as a horcrux.

I realize this is not positive confirmation, but we clearly can't expect recognition...on the other hand, did he touch the snake in the zoo? Given the fate of Quirrel, that would be a pretty certain debunking.

[quote]Okay, I probably just have to re-read Deathly Hallows again (ugh), but when in the hell did Lily's protection come into Harry's survival after that scene in book 4? I always just took it (and the movie more or less confirmed) as that Harry was the master of the Elder Wand, therefore the Elder Wand would not kill him (seriously, Voldemort, even if a gun is beneath you, get a knife or something).

The place where Love ProtectionTM came in in the final battle was Harry's sacrifice protecting everyone else. From Voldemort specifically, sadly, since Rowling still had to put a few more notches on the finale body count tally.

If sacrificing yourself to protect others resulted in protecting you, then Lily would still be alive, right?

And he used Malfoy's wand at one point...I'd have to reread to remember the exact bits, but I'm pretty sure he used at least three wands to try to kill Harry. You've got the matched wands excuse for his, sure...but there's only so many times you can use "this wand won't work" reason.

Edit: Both of those descriptions of snakes sound pretty remarkably big. I don't think that size is a huge limiter here. In fact, both of them being so big is probably more an indicator for than against. Snakes that big are fairly exceptional.

hamishspence

2011-12-12, 03:27 PM

Mewtarthio

2011-12-12, 03:32 PM

My bad. Sorc Stone was the one where he was entirely to blame for meddling. Chamber of Secrets was Ginny's fault for meddling.

I think it's a bit harsh to blame an eleven-year-old child for being possessed.

None of which made much sense. He knew he hadn't entered, and he didn't HAVE to compete. It's explicitly stated that they knew he didn't have the magic to have done it, reference is made to dark wizards, and the power of the charm necessary to create this effect. None of this screams "It's a good idea to go along with it". Harry has no reason to do it, and Dumbledore has no reason to want it.

Once again: Crouch Senior was under Voldemort's control at the time. The Triwizard Tournament was his jurisdiction. Therefore, Voldemort was directly responsible for the ruling that forced Harry to compete. Dumbledore might have been able to challenge that ruling (particularly after Crouch's disappearance), but Magical Britain was still mired in the rampant denialism of the Fudge administration at the time.

Tyndmyr

2011-12-12, 03:34 PM

Constrictor snakes tend to be thicker in the body than at the neck.

Nagini being big enough to eat a person
Charity Burbage.
puts her as pretty huge, or pretty flexible in the jaw- it's still considered debatable as to whether a constrictor of the largest species (anaconda, reticulated python, African Rock Python) can swallow an adult human.

She seems to have abilities of both types- powerful coils + poisonous bite- a bit like a D&D Dire Snake.

That said- I think in book 4 she's mentioned as being around 12-14 ft long- very short considering the aforementioned neck thickness. Maybe it's a thin man's thigh, just above the knee?

I don't recall a specific length from the books. She seems quite long in the movies, though there they are somewhat limited by having to use real life snakes, and snakes of that exceptional size being rare at best, and probably unsafe to use for filming even if you can get one.

That said, they do use a python for Nagini in the movie. I guess that sort of conflicts with the poison thing, but it's an understandable substitution. I suspect the sizes of the snakes in the book were chosen more to sound impressive than to be representative of typical real world snakes.

VanBuren

2011-12-12, 03:36 PM

Is there a word of god on that?* I'll grant that they appear to be different snakes in the movie, but in the book, there appears to be nothing contradicting this, and it fits together rather well.

My good sir, you seem to have done this all backwards. The burden of proof doesn't rest on proving that Nagini wasn't the Zoo snake.

Incidentally, didn't that snake say it had been raised in the zoo and had never seen the outside world?

hamishspence

2011-12-12, 03:38 PM

Yup- by pointing to the "Bred in the Zoo" sign.

Nagini being a magic snake covers her unusual traits.

Tyndmyr

2011-12-12, 03:44 PM

I think it's a bit harsh to blame an eleven-year-old child for being possessed.

When you find a hidden diary, you probably shouldn't read through it. Especially in a world of magical things, but really, it's common politeness.

Note that I don't say she's evil or anything...just that their meddling is responsible for much of the problems.

Once again: Crouch Senior was under Voldemort's control at the time. The Triwizard Tournament was his jurisdiction. Therefore, Voldemort was directly responsible for the ruling that forced Harry to compete. Dumbledore might have been able to challenge that ruling (particularly after Crouch's disappearance), but Magical Britain was still mired in the rampant denialism of the Fudge administration at the time.

Right...but Dumbledore is not really in lockstep with that admin anyway. Neither is Harry. Crouch himself even basically said it sounded fishy(btw, good work there Voldemort), and his disappearance merely adds to the obviously suspect set up. It couldn't appear worse if admiral akbar himself were there, screaming in harry's ear.

The "bred in zoo" sign is a bit of a damper on that theory, come to think of it. If it were just the sign, I'd pass it off as an excellent cover, but the snake pointing to it is indicative of it being true. So, in that case, he's merely responsible for releasing a dangerous animal into the wild where it probably eventually perished due to lack of survival skills.

hamishspence

2011-12-12, 03:46 PM

When you find a hidden diary, you probably shouldn't read through it. Especially in a world of magical things, but really, it's common politeness.

Wasn't it a blank diary at the start? With writing only appearing after she first wrote in it?

It was for Harry, at least.

EDIT:

So, in that case, he's merely responsible for releasing a dangerous animal into the wild where it probably eventually perished due to lack of survival skills.

It's worth remembering that Harry has no control over his magic at that point.
A snake that size would probably be found before it had even gotten out of the zoo.

Weezer

2011-12-12, 03:57 PM

Wasn't it a blank diary at the start? With writing only appearing after she first wrote in it?

It was for Harry, at least.

I'm almost certain it was blank. And when you find a diary, why not look in it to see whose it is so you can return it, if it's blank then there is no reason not to use it.

But as usual for a kids book, if she had just listened to her father's advice she would've been fine: ''Don't trust something when you can't see where it keeps it's brain''*

*disclimer: probably not word for word accurate, been a while since I read it

Tyndmyr

2011-12-12, 03:57 PM

Wasn't it a blank diary at the start? With writing only appearing after she first wrote in it?

It was for Harry, at least.

Yes. However, she not only opened it, she made a habit of using it, and confiding in it. This is what led to the possession.

Even for an 11 year old, you have to admit that's a fairly dodgy thing to put your trust in.

EDIT:

It's worth remembering that Harry has no control over his magic at that point.
A snake that size would probably be found before it had even gotten out of the zoo.

Quite possibly.

Tyndmyr

2011-12-12, 03:59 PM

But as usual for a kids book, if she had just listened to her father's advice she would've been fine: ''Don't trust something when you can't see where it keeps it's brain''*

That sounds about right, yes. And yeah...it's pretty reasonable and basic advice, and sort of strengthens my point that she shouldn't have played with it.*

*Well, certainly not after it started responding, at any rate. That's when you go talk to someone.

Goosefeather

2011-12-12, 04:04 PM

If sacrificing yourself to protect others resulted in protecting you, then Lily would still be alive, right?

I think you might be getting confused. Harry's sacrifice in the final battle protected others from Voldemort's magic, but his own survival was nothing to do with that - it was the whole Deathly-Hallows-Master/Kind-Of-A-Horcrux thing he had going on at the time.

warty goblin

2011-12-12, 04:15 PM

That said, they do use a python for Nagini in the movie. I guess that sort of conflicts with the poison thing, but it's an understandable substitution. I suspect the sizes of the snakes in the book were chosen more to sound impressive than to be representative of typical real world snakes.

Indeed, expecting herptological rigor in a snake a dark wizard uses to hide a bit of his soul strikes me as asking a bit much. Personally I'd always figured it was some sort of special Dark Arts evil snake anyway, not just your common or garden giant assault reptile. There's no evidence for this, but I find it fits the feel of things a lot better.

Nerd-o-rama

2011-12-12, 04:31 PM

If sacrificing yourself to protect others resulted in protecting you, then Lily would still be alive, right?

And he used Malfoy's wand at one point...I'd have to reread to remember the exact bits, but I'm pretty sure he used at least three wands to try to kill Harry. You've got the matched wands excuse for his, sure...but there's only so many times you can use "this wand won't work" reason.

Okay, let me try this again.

Love ProtectionTM has nothing to do with Harry surviving Deathly Hallows. Nothing. Zip. Ignore it. It's entirely irrelevant to his personal survival at that point. What is relevant is that he is the Master of the Elder Wand (thanks to disarming Draco, who disarmed Dumbledore) and indeed all three Deathly Hallows since he received the other two as gifts (and then symbolically ditched them signifying his yadda yadda yadda). It's established somewhere or other that the Elder Wand will not turn on its current master, and that's why an Elder Wand-issued AK killed the part of him that was Voldemort, but not the rest of him.

This was, incidentally, entirely happy coincidence and not part of Dumbledore and Snape's plan. Voldemort killing Harry properly would have made him just as vulnerable as what ended up happening.

By the way, I completely forget why Lucius Malfoy's wand didn't work on him. Guess I should at least go back over the first couple chapters...

Tyndmyr

2011-12-12, 04:33 PM

I think you might be getting confused. Harry's sacrifice in the final battle protected others from Voldemort's magic, but his own survival was nothing to do with that - it was the whole Deathly-Hallows-Master/Kind-Of-A-Horcrux thing he had going on at the time.

Well, here's the thing...He's got the hallows, sure...but the invisibility cloak, while generally awesome and useful, does not stop harm. The stone? He uses it only to summon his family to comfort him. I'm not seeing protective value there...(though it IS indicate that the stone can extend life). He doesn't have it when he meets Voldemort, at any rate.

So, that only leaves the Wand. This is where things get confusing. We have what is evidently intended as a transition from Dumbledore to Draco to Harry. It is not clear that this transition is at all intended by Dumbledore, either.

Apparently, this makes expelliarmus the most powerful of spells. This is rather incongruous considering the history of the masters of the wands is one of death. It also appears to work despite people not even using the elder wand in battle or ever having touched it. You'd seriously think this would have come up before, given how popular the spell appears to be both in battle and practice.

Morever, it requires that Harry Potter not have been considered "defeated" at any point after he disarms draco. Which, considering he did not cast a spell to disarm draco in book seven, means basically any setback, really. It's obviously not keyed to magic. Someone taking a weapon from you appears to do it. Voldemort blasting Harry into the life/death state apparently does not? Why not? *

Oh, something something, true master of deathly hollows by facing death. This pretty much entirely ignores what Dumbledore did.

I get that it's supposed to be messianic and all, but I honestly can't figure out why Harry wins other than that he's obviously supposed to on account of being the protaganist.

*Edit: There's also the gringotts scene and the room of requirements scene, neither of which go entirely well for Harry, but do not apparently count as a defeat.

Nerd-o-rama

2011-12-12, 04:40 PM

I don't think the Elder Wand's rules are 100% established in text, but I inferred that it transfers ownership when its owner is directly defeated through violence (fatal or nonlethal, most people in the past have apparently decided it should be fatal just in case). It does not acknowledge being given as a gift or looted from a corpse killed by someone else.

I suppose it counted Harry's willing sacrifice as a suicide rather than Voldemort defeating him, although why it would not do the same for Dumbledore letting some sixteen-year-old chucklehead disarm him I'm not sure. I think this one's a legitimate plot hole.

hamishspence

2011-12-12, 04:48 PM

Nerd-o-rama

2011-12-12, 04:57 PM

Tyndmyr

2011-12-12, 05:02 PM

I think Dumbledore, in the "train station" explains that in the graveyard, during the Prior Incantatem scene, Harry's wand absorbed a little of Voldemort's power- making it especially powerful vs Voldemort (but only vs Voldemort)- so when Voldemort used another wand, Harry's was able to break it.

Why would the same not work in reverse?

I mean, the whole Prior Incantatem thing always seemed like a bit of a stretch...but the matched wand thing was mentioned early on, so I'll buy it as a reasonable setup for explaining why people with matched wands can't hurt each other. But a power transfer from one to the other? That doesn't seem equal at all, and I can't understand why such a thing should happen.

So, if harry's getting voldemort's power, voldy should get harrys or some such. And the specific advantage vs just him seems really sketchy.

hamishspence

2011-12-12, 05:14 PM

The full quote:

"There's more," said Harry. "There's more to it. Why did my wand break the one Voldemort borrowed?"

"As to that, I cannot be sure."

"Have a guess, then," said Harry, and Dumbledore laughed.

"What you must understand, Harry, is that you and Voldemort have journeyed together into realms of magic hitherto unknown and untested. But here is what I think happened, and it is unprecedented, and no wandmaker could, I think, ever have predicted it or explained it to Voldemort.

"Without meaning to, as you now know, Lord Voldemort doubled the bond between you when he returned to human form. A part of his soul was still attached to yours, and, thinking to strengthen himself, he took part of your mother's sacrifice into himself. If he could only have understood the precise and terrible nature of that sacrifice, he would not, perhaps, have dared to touch your blood ... but then, if he had been able to understand, he could not be Lord Voldemort, and might never have murdered at all.

"Having ensured this two-fold connection, having wrapped your destinies together more securely than ever two wizards were joined in history, Voldemort proceeded to attack you with a wand that shared a core with yours. And now something very strange happened, as we know. The cores reacted in a way that Lord Voldemort, who never knew that your wand was the twin of his, had never expected.

"He was more afraid than you were that night, Harry. You had accepted, even embraced, the possibility of death, something Lord Voldemort has never been able to do. Your courage won, your wand overpowered his. And in doing so, something happened between those wands, something that echoed the relationship between their masters.

"I believe that your wand imbibed some of the power and qualities of Voldemort's wand that night, which is to say that it contained a little of Voldemort himself. So your wand recognized him when he pursued you, recognized a man who was both kin and mortal enemy, and it regurgitated some of his own magic against him, magic much more powerful than anything Lucius's wand had ever performed. Your wand now contained the power of your own enormous courage and of Voldemort's own deadly skill: what chance did that poor stick of Lucius Malfoy's stand?"

"But if my wand was so powerful, how come Hermione was able to break it?" asked Harry.

"My dear boy, its remarkable effects were directed only at Voldemort, who had tampered so ill-advisedly with the deepest laws of magic. Only towards him was that wand abnormally powerful. Otherwise it was a wand like any other ... though a good one, I am sure," Dumbledore finished kindly.

VanBuren

2011-12-12, 05:27 PM

TL;DR: Every time Voldemort did anything to gain some sort of advantage against Harry, he secretly and unknowingly gave one or two to Harry.

Goosefeather

2011-12-12, 05:32 PM

Morever, it requires that Harry Potter not have been considered "defeated" at any point after he disarms draco. Which, considering he did not cast a spell to disarm draco in book seven, means basically any setback, really. It's obviously not keyed to magic. Someone taking a weapon from you appears to do it. Voldemort blasting Harry into the life/death state apparently does not? Why not?

Nitpick, but I thought Harry did disarm Draco, during the flight from Bellatrix' manor? Or wherever it was. About half-way through book 7.

Edit: actually you may be right, I can't find the relevant quote but it seems he wrested the wand out of his hand, physically.

H Birchgrove

2011-12-12, 05:44 PM

Did ever a wizard try to dual wield wands? :smallwink:

Mewtarthio

2011-12-12, 06:14 PM

TL;DR: Every time Voldemort did anything to gain some sort of advantage against Harry, he secretly and unknowingly gave one or two to Harry.

Alternatively: Voldemort lost because MAGIC.

Xondoure

2011-12-12, 06:39 PM

Nagini - I think there is word of god that it's the same snake. May be wrong. However there isn't a plot hole as Nagini was only made into a horcrux at the beginning of book 4 (using the old groundskeeper.) Remember Voldy wanted six, but was at five when he killed Harry and didn't know Harry had been made into a horcrux. As for poison, well, horcrux. Different rules apply to magic snakes.

Harry Surviving - The killing curse killed the part of voldemort in Harry (why avada kadavra wasn't used against the other horcruxes… I don't know.) Additionally he had control of the elder wand which will not kill its master. So Voldy uses it destroying the horcrux within harry and then marches off with Harry's protection guarding everyone in the world against him. So we get to the final fight and because Harry has mastery of the Elder wand and Harry and Voldemort are still so closely connected the wand comes to Harry when he disarms Voldemort and Voldemorts own magic is directed towards himself. Yeah its confusing.

VanBuren

2011-12-12, 06:44 PM

Traab

2011-12-12, 07:17 PM

Priori incantatum was a STUPID plot device. Why? Think about it. I doubt very much that ollivander takes only a single hair from every unicorn in britain to make his wands. There have to be dozens of hickory wood, unicorn hair (from the same unicorn) wands out there at any given moment, and wands connecting to each other has to have happened numerous times throughout history. Similar with dragon heartstrings, I doubt very much each dragon heart has only one useable string, thats just plain silly, and would require dozens of dragons be slaughtered every year at least just to supply them with wands. So once again, ash wood, dragon heartstring wands, they eventually are going to clash with each other and lock up if this is an actual thing that works how they claim it does. Even if its fairly rare, its still something a knowledge wonk like voldemort would be expected to be able to find out about without having to torture and murder every wandmaking expert in the world.

Arakune

2011-12-12, 07:32 PM

From what I understand, it was a fake quote that turned up on Tumblr and got circulated for a bit sometime around July. As far as I am aware, there is no legitimate Word of God on the subject either way.

She would probably say "sure, why not?" just to confuse everyone else.

Nerd-o-rama

2011-12-12, 07:35 PM

knowledge wonk

voldemort

Dude was so arrogant and myopic he couldn't be bothered to spend five minutes looking up a common Wizard nursery rhyme after hearing about the Elder Wand for the first time. He finds one source of Ultimate Power and fixates on it to the exclusion of all else, including the history and flaws of that very same power.

Come to think of it, you'd think Voldemort would have come across the Deathly Hallows way before Horcruxes when researching ways to make himself immortal, but since there wasn't any evidence of them outside the kids' book and oral tradition, he might have just skipped the whole story.

Traab

2011-12-12, 08:31 PM

Dude was so arrogant and myopic he couldn't be bothered to spend five minutes looking up a common Wizard nursery rhyme after hearing about the Elder Wand for the first time. He finds one source of Ultimate Power and fixates on it to the exclusion of all else, including the history and flaws of that very same power.

Come to think of it, you'd think Voldemort would have come across the Deathly Hallows way before Horcruxes when researching ways to make himself immortal, but since there wasn't any evidence of them outside the kids' book and oral tradition, he might have just skipped the whole story.

On the other hand, maybe he didnt really want to try to chase them down. The elder wand is a giant neon sign reading "kill me" to anyone who has it, and noone had ever even found a trace of the stone until dumbledoore spotted that voldemort had made it into a freaking horocrux. As for the cloak, it had been a family heirloom for centuries, and so had never really been in circulation. Apparently not even the potter family ever thought it odd that their cloak stayed good forever.

So you have two artifacts that have been missing for as long as the rumor of their existence has been around, and thus no real proof that they even DO exist, and a powerful wand that is a death sentence for anyone who carries it because everyone wants the ultimate wand. The only reason he even wanted the elder wand in book 7 was because he realized that he needed an edge to counter harrys wand advantage, he was already powerful enough in all other respects that until then he had no need to seek out an artifact that would make him a target.

Manga Shoggoth

2011-12-13, 05:56 AM

Harry Surviving - The killing curse killed the part of voldemort in Harry (why avada kadavra wasn't used against the other horcruxes… I don't know.)

Two reasons:

(a) The only horcrux that avada kadavra would have had any effect on is Nagini - all the others were inanimate.

(b) I would suspect that avada kadavra wouldn't be much use on a living horcrux under normal circumstances - the others required significant effort to destroy. Remember Voldemort was using the Elder Wand here, and he presumably expects it to to be the portable nuke of wands.

(and, of course, what kind of idiot creates a horcrux using a living creature? What happens when it dies? Does it have to go around and create a load of horcrux for itself?)

Sotharsyl

2011-12-13, 08:45 AM

On the other hand, maybe he didnt really want to try to chase them down. The elder wand is a giant neon sign reading "kill me" to anyone who has it,

And now Harry has it, oh wait he doesn't have it he left it to rot in a tomb especially to rot, his plan is to destroy it by dying a peacefully death.

Yeah great plan Harry,you have a wand that attracts Dark Wizards like flies to honey but you won't use your power to defend yourself and your endgame is dying naturally at the end of your life.

Can anybody in class, pick up on some flaws of this plan?

And don't think that they won't come just because he saved the WW give it 10 years maybe 20 and young ambitious DW won't give a damn who the old guy is just that he has "phat loot".

Tyndmyr

2011-12-13, 09:57 AM

Did ever a wizard try to dual wield wands? :smallwink:

Dual wielding wands brings up logical issues. If wielding multiple wands adds additional power, the first wizard who duct tapes a ball of wands together wins at everything forever.

Harry Surviving - The killing curse killed the part of voldemort in Harry (why avada kadavra wasn't used against the other horcruxes… I don't know.) Additionally he had control of the elder wand which will not kill its master. So Voldy uses it destroying the horcrux within harry and then marches off with Harry's protection guarding everyone in the world against him. So we get to the final fight and because Harry has mastery of the Elder wand and Harry and Voldemort are still so closely connected the wand comes to Harry when he disarms Voldemort and Voldemorts own magic is directed towards himself. Yeah its confusing.

Now, specifically with reference to the only killing the voldemort bit...that's really not a viable protection. In no other instance did the object that was a horcrux remain intact through an event that should have killed it, while the bit of soul died. Given that several horcruxes were living beings, this provides plenty of precedent. The bit that makes you a horcrux normally dies when you do.

Priori incantatum was a STUPID plot device. Why? Think about it. I doubt very much that ollivander takes only a single hair from every unicorn in britain to make his wands. There have to be dozens of hickory wood, unicorn hair (from the same unicorn) wands out there at any given moment, and wands connecting to each other has to have happened numerous times throughout history. Similar with dragon heartstrings, I doubt very much each dragon heart has only one useable string, thats just plain silly, and would require dozens of dragons be slaughtered every year at least just to supply them with wands. So once again, ash wood, dragon heartstring wands, they eventually are going to clash with each other and lock up if this is an actual thing that works how they claim it does. Even if its fairly rare, its still something a knowledge wonk like voldemort would be expected to be able to find out about without having to torture and murder every wandmaking expert in the world.

Yeah. It's worse than that. IIRC, it just has to be a matching core, not an entirely matching wand. You'd think that such a thing would be pretty commonly known about. As a result, you'd expect backup wands to be a pretty reasonable thing. Well, they already sort of are, due to expelliarmus, but that would only make them more important.

Also, the effect is frigging useful. It cuts off the duelers from the outside world, correct? Two guys using matched wands could seriously use that to benefit themselves.

(and, of course, what kind of idiot creates a horcrux using a living creature? What happens when it dies? Does it have to go around and create a load of horcrux for itself?)

Someone fairly short sighted. It's aright in the short term, but Nagini was used on missions and things...quite useful, but also fairly risky for what's basically a phylactery.

Nerd-o-rama

2011-12-13, 10:11 AM

And now Harry has it, oh wait he doesn't have it he left it to rot in a tomb especially to rot, his plan is to destroy it by dying a peacefully death.

Yeah great plan Harry,you have a wand that attracts Dark Wizards like flies to honey but you won't use your power to defend yourself and your endgame is dying naturally at the end of your life.

Can anybody in class, pick up on some flaws of this plan?

And don't think that they won't come just because he saved the WW give it 10 years maybe 20 and young ambitious DW won't give a damn who the old guy is just that he has "phat loot".

That is one of two things the movie version of Deathly Hallows did better than the book. The other being putting most of the boring stuff in a separate movie for convenient skipping.

Not going to touch the Priori Incantatem Special Effects Extravaganza except that it's one of Rowling's several plot devices she brings out for Harry without thinking of the logical extensions in the wider setting. Honestly, most "rules" about wands beyond "wave it and point it at your target" in this setting are ridiculous.

H Birchgrove

2011-12-13, 10:34 AM

Dual wielding wands brings up logical issues. If wielding multiple wands adds additional power, the first wizard who duct tapes a ball of wands together wins at everything forever.

That makes sense.

Nothing should stop them from holding a gun or a sword in one hand and a wand in the other... But that would make too much sense show disrespect to wizard traditions, I guess.

Didn't Voldemort hold a (ceremonial) knife at one point? Or am I just thinking of typical human sacrifice scenes in fiction?

Tyndmyr

2011-12-13, 10:36 AM

That makes sense.

Nothing should stop them from holding a gun or a sword in one hand and a wand in the other... But that would make too much sense show disrespect to wizard traditions, I guess.

Didn't Voldemort hold a (ceremonial) knife at one point? Or am I just thinking of typical human sacrifice scenes in fiction?

Well, he or one of his cronies did in Goblet of Fire, I believe. For the taking of Harry's blood. So, knives are a thing for them.

I'd be pretty ok with a wand and a handgun.

Traab

2011-12-13, 10:57 AM

Someone fairly short sighted. It's aright in the short term, but Nagini was used on missions and things...quite useful, but also fairly risky for what's basically a phylactery.

Ok, this is mostly conjecture, but I think its accurate. Nagini was made into a horocrux because voldemort believed he needed that one last vessel in order to get some sort of unspecified bonus due to the whole magically important number 7. As for sending nagini on missions, keep in mind this was sort of a way for voldemort himself to go out on missions without being spotted, as at the time he was pretending to not be back while the ministry was tripping over itself to defame voldemorts worst enemies. So it was risky yeah, but nagini wasnt going on combat missions, he/she was acting as a scout and voldemorts eyes in the field. And at the end of book 7, voldemort knew someone had killed all his horocruxes so he didnt dare let this last one out of his sight.

Nerd-o-rama

2011-12-13, 11:10 AM

Voldemort's just one of those few wizards who makes effective use of his familiar, despite the risk to his XP level and/or CON score.

Aotrs Commander

2011-12-13, 11:13 AM

Sorry to derail the conversation slightly back to the original topic (especially with my usual brand of silliness), but I just had a thought (while reading through TVTropes British English page, which I find endlessly fascinating despite being a native (and often, amused when I read things like that and it says "no actual British/English person uses this phrase" when I use it all the time...))

Anyway, what would Harry Potter be like if Tom Riddle was a (steriotypical) Geordie1 (apart from a) incomprehensible to most foreigners and b) hilarious)? Would anyone have taken him seriously while trying to reconcile his attempt to dominate the world and live forever with his steriotypically cheery/cheeky accent (once apparently voted the "most attractive in England"...? (I just have this image of Voldemort in the graveyard going "We're gonna duel, now Harry, like...")

Actually, give a fair sprinkling of the broader accents (aside from Hagrid...) across HP in general would be quite amusing (Dumbledore sounding like Phil Harding from Time Team, maybe...)

I'll...go and be quiet now...

(Though seriously - for once - if done correctly, you could even find the (percieved) incongurity in a Geordie (etc)-accented Voldemort could even heighten the creepiness and menace.)

1That is like Ant and/or Dec, if that means anything to non-UK posters. (If it doesn't, then at least, as they say, you may be none-the-wise, but you are better informed...)

Nerd-o-rama

2011-12-13, 11:17 AM

I have absolutely no idea what you just said, but broad, silly, and incomprehensible accents from the British isles can be plenty threatening. At least to people who watched Snatch.

DiscipleofBob

2011-12-13, 12:55 PM

If we're going to go for silly ways to make Harry Potter cooler, at the end of Book Four, right when Voldemort is revived, there's a bright, unexpected flash of light. When it subsides, there stands a blue police box. Out steps an eccentric man dressed as a muggle. "What sort of wizardry is this?" asks a confused Voldemort. The man replies, "I'm not a wizard. I'm a Doctor." Then he proceeds to do something insanely clever with his sonic screwdriver and seals Voldemort away forever and make everything right again.

Proposed alternative: at some point the entire series' plot is derailed when Torchwood raids the Ministry of Magic.

Tyndmyr

2011-12-13, 03:51 PM

Alternatively: Voldemort lost because MAGIC.

That's pretty much where I'm at. The wand recognizing a caster who is not wielding it? That brings up a lot of questions. Are wands sapient?

Ok, this is mostly conjecture, but I think its accurate. Nagini was made into a horocrux because voldemort believed he needed that one last vessel in order to get some sort of unspecified bonus due to the whole magically important number 7. As for sending nagini on missions, keep in mind this was sort of a way for voldemort himself to go out on missions without being spotted, as at the time he was pretending to not be back while the ministry was tripping over itself to defame voldemorts worst enemies. So it was risky yeah, but nagini wasnt going on combat missions, he/she was acting as a scout and voldemorts eyes in the field. And at the end of book 7, voldemort knew someone had killed all his horocruxes so he didnt dare let this last one out of his sight.

Hmm...but he apparently didn't know that Harry was a horocrux. In addition, the novels place little importance on numerology.

Don't get me wrong, Nagini was quite useful on missions...but the risk is...high for a lich.

Disciple o' Bob...I've always said that my preferred plot change would be to replace harry and wand with Stathalm and a glock. Everyone else remains the same.