I am using "story" as the physical action, and "plot' as the conflict/emotional action. Thus, the driving force of the story is Voldemort and Harry's need to defeat him. The plot is the conflict between Harry and Severus. That's how I see it, anyway. I guess I need to make this clearer.
I'm assuming Lily's patronus is a doe because otherwise, how would Snape's patronus connect to Lily? He'd just be a feminized James, wouldn't he, and that doesn't make sense. And we do know the sex of both Albus's and Harry's Patroni; they are both male.
That all the Unforgivable Curses are so because they damage the soul is, perhaps, my deduction, but I'm sticking to it. There's a whole different (short) essay there! Briefly, it's another example of Rowling's failure to think things through and give her readers complete information. She's (understandably enough, given what inspired her to write these books) obsessed with death as the ultimate evil. But death is also a part of life, and something we must all accept/go through in the end, so how can it be the ultimate evil? This is one reason why I thought these books actually *required* Harry's death (as they do not require Snape's).
But you see the contradiction? A. Death is the ultimate evil B. Death is a part of life, and the ultimate evil comes from someone trying to avoid death and make himself immortal.
This doesn't make much sense, does it?
Actually, what's evil is *murder*. When you deliberately kill someone else, you stand in judgement on them and insist their life is not as valuable as yours. And when you torture or brainwash them, you do exactly the same thing. You show, through your actions, that the person you use or torment is less than you, and less than human. By making that judgement, you (ironically) make yourself less than human - you damage your soul. And there is no way around this.
It's been interesting to me to see all the 180 degree turnarounds on the Christian boards. I was arguing with Travis on Sword of Gryffindor that Joyce Odell was right and there were good grounds (as of HBP) for thinking that Dubmledore was a liar and a manipulator. He was insisting that could not be, because Dumbledore was good and Christ-like and a good person does not lie. Well, after DH, we all know Dumbledore is a liar of the worst kind. Travis still insists that he's the 'epitome of goodness'; his lies merely humanize him and make him more sympathetic! (or something like that)
And John Granger argued very persuasively two years ago that all the Unforgivables were soul-killing, and that Imperio was the worst. Now that DH is out and Harry, our Christ figure, (ugh!) uses both Imperio and Crucio, there's been a lot of back-pedaling. It's sad, because Professor Granger was right in the first place, just as Joyce (who has *not* back pedaled) was right about Dumbledore the liar. But it seems almost as though some of these commentators have joined a cult. Rowling can do no wrong; therefore, the values she espouses *must* be good - even though they are clearly not!
What's most disappointing about these books is that they could have been so very good. Rowling, after all, invented Severus Snape. His heroism shines through all her conscious efforts to diminish him - had she been *really* thinking of her *plot*, and not just of her (very mechanical) story we might have gotten a true classic. But she just wasn't up to it. So we ultimately have something half-baked and poorly thought out, with some wonderful characters stuck in the mess. At least, that's how it strikes me!
no subject
I am using "story" as the physical action, and "plot' as the conflict/emotional action. Thus, the driving force of the story is Voldemort and Harry's need to defeat him. The plot is the conflict between Harry and Severus. That's how I see it, anyway. I guess I need to make this clearer.
I'm assuming Lily's patronus is a doe because otherwise, how would Snape's patronus connect to Lily? He'd just be a feminized James, wouldn't he, and that doesn't make sense. And we do know the sex of both Albus's and Harry's Patroni; they are both male.
That all the Unforgivable Curses are so because they damage the soul is, perhaps, my deduction, but I'm sticking to it. There's a whole different (short) essay there! Briefly, it's another example of Rowling's failure to think things through and give her readers complete information. She's (understandably enough, given what inspired her to write these books) obsessed with death as the ultimate evil. But death is also a part of life, and something we must all accept/go through in the end, so how can it be the ultimate evil? This is one reason why I thought these books actually *required* Harry's death (as they do not require Snape's).
But you see the contradiction?
A. Death is the ultimate evil
B. Death is a part of life, and the ultimate evil comes from someone trying to avoid death and make himself immortal.
This doesn't make much sense, does it?
Actually, what's evil is *murder*. When you deliberately kill someone else, you stand in judgement on them and insist their life is not as valuable as yours. And when you torture or brainwash them, you do exactly the same thing. You show, through your actions, that the person you use or torment is less than you, and less than human. By making that judgement, you (ironically) make yourself less than human - you damage your soul. And there is no way around this.
It's been interesting to me to see all the 180 degree turnarounds on the Christian boards. I was arguing with Travis on Sword of Gryffindor that Joyce Odell was right and there were good grounds (as of HBP) for thinking that Dubmledore was a liar and a manipulator. He was insisting that could not be, because Dumbledore was good and Christ-like and a good person does not lie. Well, after DH, we all know Dumbledore is a liar of the worst kind. Travis still insists that he's the 'epitome of goodness'; his lies merely humanize him and make him more sympathetic! (or something like that)
And John Granger argued very persuasively two years ago that all the Unforgivables were soul-killing, and that Imperio was the worst. Now that DH is out and Harry, our Christ figure, (ugh!) uses both Imperio and Crucio, there's been a lot of back-pedaling. It's sad, because Professor Granger was right in the first place, just as Joyce (who has *not* back pedaled) was right about Dumbledore the liar. But it seems almost as though some of these commentators have joined a cult. Rowling can do no wrong; therefore, the values she espouses *must* be good - even though they are clearly not!
What's most disappointing about these books is that they could have been so very good. Rowling, after all, invented Severus Snape. His heroism shines through all her conscious efforts to diminish him - had she been *really* thinking of her *plot*, and not just of her (very mechanical) story we might have gotten a true classic. But she just wasn't up to it. So we ultimately have something half-baked and poorly thought out, with some wonderful characters stuck in the mess. At least, that's how it strikes me!