Were there too many deaths in HP 7? |
 Oct 31 2009, 08:13 AM
Post
#51
|
|
Diagon Alley Magical Bricklayer  Posts: 2,896 Joined: 8:53am April 20, 2006 Location: Prifysgol Bangor Univeristy, Bangor, Cymru  |
I think there were a lot that I didn't expect. Of course, it was in the middle of war so the risk of death was increased.
I found the death of Moody particularly shocking, and I have commented before on how surprised I was that few fans took it as seriously as the others. The Order members sat down at the Burrow to think about it, yet the fandom seemed to pass over it. Hedwig I felt was a bit unessecary. I thik Jo did it then becuase it would take out an uncontinuity for the rest of the book: what would they do with Hedwig in the forest, and she was obvious to the Death Eaters who wanted to track them. It was a shock to have a 'big' death so soon though, but it did set the tone for the rest of the book. Yes, there needed to be big deaths, and I liked that comment a few posts previously about how the older Order died to leave the new group to take over. As a book it really brought home the gory-ness of war, and I don't partiuclarly like re-reading the Battle of Hogwarts. However, it is done; and I think, even two and a half years on, this is the fandom (the topics and discussions) still coping with those deaths. --------------------  "...because if there is one thing I've learned from all I've been through, it's that you only regret the things that you didn't do." Cameron Duncan |
 |
 
 
|
|
Oct 31 2009, 05:42 PM
Post
#52
|
|
|
Just Through the Brick Wall Posts: 5 Joined: 2:31pm October 10, 2009 |
I think that all of the deaths were necessary, and they all represented something. It would not be the same if people did not die. You could say that some deaths were unnecessary, but in a war situation, its not only the main people that are killed. It's all the little people too, the ones that really didnt need to die, and those whose deaths may not have affected others so much at all. it just wouldn't be the same book without the ominous streak. These hard things are necessary, it's like the difference between The Tales of Beedle the Bard and The Toadstool Tales....
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 31 2009, 06:59 PM
Post
#53
|
|
Claw-Clipping Kneazles at the Magical Menegerie Posts: 2,452 Joined: 9:26am July 24, 2007 Location: I'm either in the Muggle Underground Forum or at the Hogwarts Express Roundhouse  |
QUOTE(Seven of Nine @ Sep 19 2009, 11:33 AM)  Jo commented after the release of DH that the deaths of Lupin and Tonks (the two extra deaths she hadn't originally planned on) were symbolic of Lily's and James' deaths with Teddy being in the same place Harry was. I really, really wish I could accept JKR's line of reasoning here. I'm not succeeding. From a quotation of Major General William Tecumseh Sherman: QUOTE "Some of you young men think that war is all glamour and glory, but let me tell you, boys, it is all hell!" -General William T. Sherman, speech 1880 from which we derive the phrase "War is hell" "I am sick and tired of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation. War is hell." From "On Killing", General William T Sherman as quoted by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman "War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it, the crueler it is the sooner it will be over." -William Tecumseh Sherman "War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want." - General William T. Sherman I spent the first half of my professional life as a practicioner of the profession of arms. I know how to rain hell upon an enemy. There's a rush that comes from bringing the fires of two different battalions of artillery on a single target and seeing it utterly demolished. Last night I got from a friend a video of an Infantryman with a wire-guided anti-tank missile. His target was a real tank, fully loaded. It was unmanned, operating on an autopilot. Darn well it was. The searing flames of the onboard ammunition cooking off came through the turret ring, the commander's hatch, the loader's hatch, and the drivers hatch. If it had been a crewed tank, I assure you everyone would have been immolated. There were a couple sub-rosa videos going around the Army a few years ago. One was a helo watching bad guys in Iraq emplace an artillery shell as an IED. It detonated. Another one was a bad guy with his mortar. Where a US infantry mortarmen would say "hang it", these guys were saying "Allahu Akhbar!" ... until they had an inbore high-order detonation. Another one was an Apache helicopter playing cat and mouse with its machine gun and the bad guys. The cat won, by the way. I have a love-hate relationship with these. I've trained men to go to war. You want your enemy to stop firing at your men and retreat. You want to bring your men all home alive, and these videos are living proof someone doesn't come home. On the other hand, my enemies are dead. War is Hell. So, JKR, imo, gratuitously kills off some folk in DH. If you want to drive home the point about war, the deaths of Hedwig and Moody do it. The deaths reported on Resistance Radio (and that's what it truly is, a radio of the Resistance movement, every bit what the French Resistance did 1940-44) do it. Blowing away Remus and Dora doesn't do it. It really doesn't do it in that the configuration of folks entering the forest with Harry is the Marauders, merely minus Pettigrew/Wormtail. If Rowling had wanted to concretely show that the deaths mattered, Tonks should have come to the forest with Remus, and Snape, who has finally demonstrated his courage above and beyond the call of duty, to the last full measure, should also be there. IMO, there was no need in plot or thematic to orphan Teddy Lupin. The shadow of orphanage is an excuse. It does not wash. This post has been edited by JohannMdlAmerica: Oct 31 2009, 07:01 PM -------------------- The last enemy to be destroyed is death-- First Corinthians, Chapter 15, Verse 26 The epitaph of James and Lily Potter |
|
|
|
|
Nov 1 2009, 02:36 PM
Post
#54
|
|
Triwizard Champ of the Lily and Stag Inn  Posts: 2,040 Joined: 8:34am April 9, 2008 Location: Swimming in lunacy   |
QUOTE(JohannMdlAmerica @ Oct 31 2009, 11:59 PM) If Rowling had wanted to concretely show that the deaths mattered, Tonks should have come to the forest with Remus, and Snape, who has finally demonstrated his courage above and beyond the call of duty, to the last full measure, should also be there. But would Snape have wanted to be there? Sure people go on about it being a good time for Harry to say thanks and/or sorry to Snape but would Snape have wished to hear it? It never mattered to Snape what Harry thought of him, it was always all done for Lily and Lily alone. Why would Snape want to stand next to Lily, with James on her other side, and gaze down on the son she had with a man he hated. I don't think there was anything Snape would have wished to say to Harry. Like wise Tonks, she wasn't as close to Harry as the others were so I see no reason for why she should have been there. Her place was with Remus perhaps but the stone conjured up those Harry loved and lost. Tonks wouldn't have held a strong part of Harrys heart as the others did. Edited by Dreamteam to remove a Trick or Treat This post has been edited by Dreamteam: Nov 7 2009, 05:04 PM -------------------- |
|
|
|
|
Nov 1 2009, 10:24 PM
Post
#55
|
|
|
Claw-Clipping Kneazles at the Magical Menegerie Posts: 2,452 Joined: 9:26am July 24, 2007 Location: I'm either in the Muggle Underground Forum or at the Hogwarts Express Roundhouse |
Sirius,
I interpret the canon through a lens of Christianity. From my study of canon, and my study of Denise Roper's work Lord of the Hallows, I believe this is not an inappropriate lens. Given that, Revelation 21:4 applies, which is what happens beyond the veil: 4 He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." The transformative work is complete as we cross from life to eternal life; we are made whole, the issues of pettiness and hate are done away with forever. So yes, I think James and Severus can get along. I think Tonks should be with her husband; it helps complete him. I believe the plot device would be the stronger for the inclusion of these characters to the forest scene again. I know others may disagree, they are operating within their lenses. That's ok, too. -------------------- The last enemy to be destroyed is death-- First Corinthians, Chapter 15, Verse 26 The epitaph of James and Lily Potter |
|
|
|
|
Nov 3 2009, 03:15 AM
Post
#56
|
|
|
Being Eaten by the Pea Soup Posts: 25 Joined: 1:32am October 2, 2009 |
QUOTE(JohannMdlAmerica @ Nov 2 2009, 11:24 AM) Sirius, I interpret the canon through a lens of Christianity. From my study of canon, and my study of Denise Roper's work Lord of the Hallows, I believe this is not an inappropriate lens. Given that, Revelation 21:4 applies, which is what happens beyond the veil: 4 He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." The transformative work is complete as we cross from life to eternal life; we are made whole, the issues of pettiness and hate are done away with forever. So yes, I think James and Severus can get along. I think Tonks should be with her husband; it helps complete him. I believe the plot device would be the stronger for the inclusion of these characters to the forest scene again. I know others may disagree, they are operating within their lenses. That's ok, too. (Actually I wonder if there's any typing error in the underlined sentence, which seems to imply that the lens of Christianity does not apply...) One problem with this argument is that we don't really have to see what completes Remus (or James or Lily or Sirius) to know that they're "completed". Even though we don't actually see who complete(s) him, we already see a "completed" Remus appearing from the Resurrection Stone. We can feel how "completed" Remus is when he talks about not regretting the end to his life. In fact it is the feeling that they're so completed and happy and young etc. that lessens Harry's fear of death. Also, I don't believe the main purpose of the plot device is to show how things are in the world beyond the veil. Though the point is touched, the main purpose of activating the Resurrection Stone is to have Harry accompanied and supported when he walked into his own (presumed) death. Even the mentioning of the world beyond serves this major purpose. Therefore I would either: only have people who are most emotionally intimate with Harry, or; just have all the dead that Harry knows for a bit appear, including Cedric, Moody, Colin Creevey etc. In other words, I think "who complete(s) Harry" is more important than "who complete(s) James/Lily/Remus/Sirius" here. This post has been edited by Silvia_CMC: Nov 3 2009, 03:17 AM |
|
|
|
|
Nov 3 2009, 12:42 PM
Post
#57
|
|
|
Kibble Boy/Girl at the Magical Menagerie Posts: 308 Joined: 3:29pm August 10, 2005 Location: The Three Broomsticks lifting a pint or two with Hagrid |
QUOTE(Silvia_CMC @ Nov 3 2009, 03:15 AM) QUOTE(JohannMdlAmerica @ Nov 2 2009, 11:24 AM) Sirius, I interpret the canon through a lens of Christianity. From my study of canon, and my study of Denise Roper's work Lord of the Hallows, I believe this is not an inappropriate lens. Given that, Revelation 21:4 applies, which is what happens beyond the veil: 4 He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." The transformative work is complete as we cross from life to eternal life; we are made whole, the issues of pettiness and hate are done away with forever. So yes, I think James and Severus can get along. I think Tonks should be with her husband; it helps complete him. I believe the plot device would be the stronger for the inclusion of these characters to the forest scene again. I know others may disagree, they are operating within their lenses. That's ok, too. (Actually I wonder if there's any typing error in the underlined sentence, which seems to imply that the lens of Christianity does not apply...) One problem with this argument is that we don't really have to see what completes Remus (or James or Lily or Sirius) to know that they're "completed". Even though we don't actually see who complete(s) him, we already see a "completed" Remus appearing from the Resurrection Stone. We can feel how "completed" Remus is when he talks about not regretting the end to his life. In fact it is the feeling that they're so completed and happy and young etc. that lessens Harry's fear of death. Also, I don't believe the main purpose of the plot device is to show how things are in the world beyond the veil. Though the point is touched, the main purpose of activating the Resurrection Stone is to have Harry accompanied and supported when he walked into his own (presumed) death. Even the mentioning of the world beyond serves this major purpose. Therefore I would either: only have people who are most emotionally intimate with Harry, or; just have all the dead that Harry knows for a bit appear, including Cedric, Moody, Colin Creevey etc. In other words, I think "who complete(s) Harry" is more important than "who complete(s) James/Lily/Remus/Sirius" here. “not an inappropriate lens” is a double negative, meaning it is an appropriate lens – not grammatically correct but then I can’t spell to save my own life. (just my 2 cents) -------------------- Gringotts Express . . . . Never disapparate without it
W.O.M.B.A.T. 1 - Acceptable W.O.M.B.A.T. 2 - Outstanding W.O.M.B.A.T. 3 - Outstanding |
|
|
|
|
Nov 3 2009, 01:23 PM
Post
#58
|
|
|
Knight Bus Driver in Training Posts: 600 Joined: 6:25am December 9, 2007 Location: Canada |
First of all, the expression "not an inappropriate lens" is absolutely and perfectly good grammar. It is not a double negative. It the same as saying "I believe this is an appropriate lens", but in a more elegant manner. It is used all the time - correctly - in professional writing and speech.
Also, I don't believe the main purpose of the plot device is to show how things are in the world beyond the veil. Though the point is touched, the main purpose of activating the Resurrection Stone is to have Harry accompanied and supported when he walked into his own (presumed) death. - Silvia_CMC I agree. The whole point of this particular part of the story was simply to have Harry use the Stone to call forth those whom he loved the most to accompany him on his most difficult journey to death. Period. These four are the dead beings whom he loved the most, who he believed loved him; with them there he had the courage to do what he had to do, what most people could not (which is why DD called him "a man in a million" at King's Cross). Obviously, in the Potterverse, Snape, Tonks, Colin Creevey, etc. are all in the same place as James, Lily, Lupin and Sirius: that is, beyond the veil, beyond the curtain we saw in OoP. That is the theology of the Potterverse. I agree. I accept that. But there would be no reason for all of the people Harry had ever known (including Cedric ... and Quirrell, for that matter) to appear. He did not need them or want them. The Resurrection Stone knew exactly who Harry Potter needed to be brought back, it saw into his heart. And it did that. Harry did not say the four names out loud, either to the Stone or to us, but he was thinking them. Look at how it is written in DH: "And again, Harry understood, without having to think. It did not matter about bringing them back, for he was about to join them. He was not really fetching them: they were fetching him. He closed his eyes. and turned the stone over in his hand, three times." The "them" Potter was referring to, was thinking of, was James, Lily, Remus and Sirius. It was they he was concentrating on when he turned the Stone over three times. And the magical Hallow knew this. Laura This post has been edited by Laura W: Nov 3 2009, 02:26 PM -------------------- |
|
|
|
