Harry Potter?

[i<3franciscans]

[quote name='BG45' timestamp='1322786067' post='2343434']
Mysterious ticking noise?

My officemates and I at my last job did a rendition of that with our faculty members instead of characters...
[/quote]
I did that with a bunch of friends.
[quote name='Luigi' timestamp='1322781784' post='2343383']

Clearly, you haven't taken any college-level literature courses. This is tame stuff comapred to what they (critics and/or college students) do to, say, [u]Hamlet [/u]or [u]Pride and Prejudice[/u].
[/quote]
P & P is one thing. Harry Potter is just to far below...

[beatitude]

[quote name='i<3franciscans' timestamp='1322853805' post='2343710']
I did that with a bunch of friends.

P & P is one thing. Harry Potter is just to far below...
[/quote]

There are many literary critics who would argue that Jane Austen wrote the populist fiction of the eighteenth century, 'drawing room drama'. I disagree with that viewpoint, but there are some strong arguments in favour, most of which centre on [i]Pride and Prejudice[/i] (perhaps Austen's weakest and most simplistic work). It's an interesting question in its own right, which gives rise to another: if something is populist, does that necessarily make it bad from a literary point of view?

[Luigi]

[quote name='i<3franciscans' timestamp='1322853805' post='2343710']
I did that with a bunch of friends.

P & P is one thing. Harry Potter is just to far below...
[/quote]

For those who are of the lit-crit bent of mind, the source text is often rather less important than the process. They'll analyze [u]Star Wars[/u] (any iteration, but they all have their preferences), the "current continuity" of Superman or Spiderman, which is the best episode of [u]Everybody Loves Raymond[/u], or which sig quote is most meaningful & why.

[tinytherese]

[quote name='beatitude' timestamp='1322856689' post='2343737']

There are many literary critics who would argue that Jane Austen wrote the populist fiction of the eighteenth century, 'drawing room drama'. I disagree with that viewpoint, but there are some strong arguments in favour, most of which centre on [i]Pride and Prejudice[/i] (perhaps Austen's weakest and most simplistic work). It's an interesting question in its own right, which gives rise to another: if something is populist, does that necessarily make it bad from a literary point of view?
[/quote]

Pride and Prejudice is considered her weakest and most simplistic work by many literary critics?

[tinytherese]

[quote name='MithLuin' timestamp='1322765770' post='2343234']
I don't really feel the need to hide spoilers - but if you're interested in avoiding them...skip to the end and don't read this post.

Dumbledore's 'Severus...please' is a request that Snape kill him. Snape vows to do so at the beginning of the book having already agreed to the murder at the beginning of the year. Why was Dumbledore so intent on being killed by Snape rather than dying peacefully in his sleep or being taken out by a random Deatheater or Draco? Why did Dumbledore make Snape agree to this murder-in-cold-blood? It's not assisted suicide. Dumbledore is very concerned about the fate of his...wand. The wizard who kills him will get ownership of it, and it's teh!most!powerful!wand!ever. He wants to keep it out of the hands of the Deatheaters (and particularly Voldemort). Of course, by asking Snape to do this...as soon as Voldemort figures out the wand-loyalty business, Snape is a dead man.


[/quote]

Okay, that makes sense for the plot, though it still is murder. I can see why Dumbledore didn't tell Harry everything, but some things I can't help but think he should have told him, such as how to destroy a horcrux instead of having Harry, Ron, and Hermione beat their heads against a wall for months trying to figure it out. Sure, they eventually discovered how to do it, but why waste those months?

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote]Dumbledore's 'Severus...please' is a request that Snape kill him. Snape vows to do so at the beginning of the book having already agreed to the murder at the beginning of the year. Why was Dumbledore so intent on being killed by Snape rather than dying peacefully in his sleep or being taken out by a random Deatheater or Draco? Why did Dumbledore make Snape agree to this murder-in-cold-blood? It's not assisted suicide. Dumbledore is very concerned about the fate of his...wand. The wizard who kills him will get ownership of it, and it's teh!most!powerful!wand!ever. He wants to keep it out of the hands of the Deatheaters (and particularly Voldemort). Of course, by asking Snape to do this...as soon as Voldemort figures out the wand-loyalty business, Snape is a dead man.[/quote]

The way I see it, Dumbledore is incredibly manipulative, but ultimately trying to do what he thought was the right thing. He was trying to protect Draco from having to actually kill him. He knew Draco was stuck between a rock and a hard place (with his family and Voldemort and his conscience), and was trying to save him. Dumbledore knew that Snape had already been torn apart by leading Voldemort directly to the home of his childhood love, and indirectly was completely responsible for her death. I'd imagine that that would cause much of the same "soul-ripping" as killing someone with your own hands. Combine that with Snape already agreeing to kill Dumbledore, Dumbledore is just encouraging Snape to follow through on his Unbreakable Vow. Because if Snape didn't follow through, he himself would die from breaking the vow. Dumbledore isn't interested in protecting his wand. He's interested in protecting his student, even if that means manipulating the crud out of Snape. Time and time again we see that Dumbledore's weakness is the welfare of his students, particularly Harry, his favorite student. So it makes sense that he'd manipulate the croutons out of someone who led some of his former students to their deaths in order to protect more of them.

Actually, Draco gets the Elder Wand, because he overpowered Dumbledore. You don't have to kill the owner to get the wand - you just have to win it from him. Draco becomes the owner by completely disarming Dumbledore, and then Harry becomes the owner by taking Draco's wand. I don't think Dumbledore was thinking that Snape would be dead once Voldemort figured that out. Or maybe he did. Either way, his intentions (however twisted) were to protect Draco at the expense of Snape, not to keep the Elder Wand out of the hands of Death Eaters. Because that wouldn't matter - Harry would destroy the horcruxes and that would be a more powerful blow than having the Elder Wand.

[quote name='tinytherese' timestamp='1322910369' post='2344022']

Okay, that makes sense for the plot, though it still is murder. I can see why Dumbledore didn't tell Harry everything, but some things I can't help but think he should have told him, such as how to destroy a horcrux instead of having Harry, Ron, and Hermione beat their heads against a wall for months trying to figure it out. Sure, they eventually discovered how to do it, but why waste those months?
[/quote]

So that the epic battle of Hogwarts would be at the end of the school year. Plus I think it was good for their character development - being thrown together into the unknown and allowing Ron to have his moment of growing up. Throughout the books he's definitely the most immature out of the three, and experienced the least hardship. So I think he needed a big reconciliation moment. Maybe he thought they'd figure it out faster - I mean, Hermione was pretty quick on the uptake in book 3, and they were only 13 then. Or it could have been a way to really keep Harry out of the forefront of the battle as long as possible. Because knowing Harry, he totally would have charged in, wand blazing as soon as he could, and probably would have gotten killed. The extended camping trip was a way to give him time to figure out how to make his "death" do the most damage and the most good.

[Luigi]

[quote name='tinytherese' timestamp='1322909686' post='2344021']

Pride and Prejudice is considered her weakest and most simplistic work by many literary critics?
[/quote]

I much prefer [u]Mansfield Park[/u]. I think it's her best work. Then [u]Persuasion[/u], [u]Sense and Sensibility[/u], [u]Emma[/u], [u]Pride and Prejudice[/u], and finally [u]Northanger Abbey[/u]. But that's just one man's opinion.

Edited December 3, 2011 by Luigi

[Nihil Obstat]

My favourite Austen works are Pride and Prejudice, and Persuasion.

[beatitude]

[quote name='tinytherese' timestamp='1322909686' post='2344021']

Pride and Prejudice is considered her weakest and most simplistic work by many literary critics?
[/quote]

Yes, and I agree that it's not her best (although I wouldn't call it weak - just weak in comparison to her other books). It is a polished version of a story Austen wrote while still very young, [i]First Impressions[/i]. She was testing her wings as a writer, and she hadn't developed the technical abilities that she would exhibit in later works. [i]Mansfield Park[/i] and [i]Emma[/i], for example, are quite subtle and nuanced in terms of both plot and character development - everybody is a mixture of light and shadow, with their own concerns in life, and the result is greater realism. [i]Pride and Prejudice[/i] is a straightforward love story, and the characters are far simpler - Lady Catherine is a snob, Bingley gullible and good, Jane gullible and good, Darcy the misunderstood hero, etc. That is never the case in her other books. Look to [i]Mansfield Park[/i], and you will find a much more convincing and absorbing representation of snobbishness and family politics than the picture that is painted of Rosings in [i]P&P[/i]. Sir Thomas is a snob, and his behaviour to Fanny is at times far worse than that of Lady Catherine to Elizabeth, yet the reader can't cheer when he ends up so badly wounded at the end of the novel, in the same way that they cheer at the thwarting of Lady Catherine. He is more than just one characteristic, and because of that the reader is able to sympathise with him.

(Note: I don't really include [i]Northanger Abbey [/i]as part of the Austen literary canon, because she wrote it as a parody and she intended it to be shallow.)

[MithLuin]

Being populist does not mean that something lacks quality. But the [i]Harry Potter[/i] novels are not exactly the stuff of literary classics. They're fun and they're best-sellers. They're better written than [i]Twilight[/i], but... They're still fun stories to discuss though, so I don't see a problem with looking at characters' motives after the fact and discussing the moral implications of certain actions (etc). I think that's a much more dynamic way of reading a story - to interact with it and play 'what if?' and such.


*super spoilery*

I understand that Dumbledore wanted to save Draco from becoming a murderer. BUT, a few problems with the timeline arise if we consider that his *primary* goal in asking Snape to murder him.

We know he made the request of Snape at about the time his hand was withered. Snape patched him up. And how did Dumbledore come across that wound? From being less-than-careful when playing with the Ring, which was a horcrux...and a hallow. So, he knew Tom Riddle was as interested in the Deathly Hallows as he was. Potter had the cloak, Dumbledore had the Elder Wand....and Voldemort had the Resurrection Stone (well, at first).

All of that happened before Voldemort even asked Draco to kill Dumbledore, before Narcissa came to Snape for help. Snape agreed to the Unbreakable Vow...[i]knowing he'd already promised Dumbledore[/i] he'd do it. That's how Snape rolls as a double agent - he tells both his Masters nearly the same thing, which does make it deucedly hard to figure out his actual loyalty. Later on in the year, he tries to back out, but Dumbledore holds him to it.

And on the night of Dumbledore's death, he keeps requesting that Harry take him to see Snape. He insists on it over and over. This is before he knows that Draco has succeeded in sneaking Death Eaters into Hogwarts (Dumbledore thought that could not be done). So, even in the absence of Draco making an attempt on his life, he *still* wants Snape to kill him, and he does *not* want to die by natural causes. (Well, not that asking Harry to forcefeed him a poisonous potion is natural causes, but you get the idea.)

Thus, while I agree that he has a strong interest in protecting Draco, I do not view that as his primary motivation for planning his own demise.

The wand loyalty business is way too convoluted by the end to actually stand up, but the point was supposed to be that even if Voldemort gets the Elder Wand, it won't be loyal to him. And...it isn't. Dumbledore did save the world from that particular outcome, and he wasn't above asking Snape the former Deatheater to become a murderer to do so.



While Dumbledore certainly could have told Harry about how to destroy Horcruxes ahead of time, he probably figured he already had - basilisk venom. And he willed him the Sword of Gryffindor, so...all bases covered, right? What he's very inconveniently not telling Harry is that his scar is a horcrux and he has to confront Voldemort ready to die. There's a few reasons to keep this under wraps. The first reason being that the knowledge that your quest is going to end in your own death is a heavy burden to bear, and will deter some people from even trying. Harry's got enough to worry about without that knowledge weighing him down. Secondly, Harry is the honorable type, so if he gets bogged down in the horcrux hunt, he might be tempted to skip to the end and deal with the horcrux at hand before finding the rest/confronting Voldemort. This would be...unfortunate, so Dumbledore doesn't want to tell him until the time is right (ie, all the others have been destroyed), and Harry will confront Voldemort personally in order to die.

And, yes, Rowling forces all of her plotlines to climax in June, so there's that.

[Basilisa Marie]

Can I just say how much I'm enjoying this?

I assumed that Dumbledore wanted to see Snape so badly because he could work his amesome skills and possibly halt the effects, just as he had done with the ring - not because he wanted Snape to kill him. Snape was probably very skilled in the Dark Arts, more than any other person at Hogwarts (which is why Dumbly wouldn't give him the position of DADA professor for so long). And I don't think Snape already knew he would kill Dumbledore before the Vow - why would he hesitate and hand-twitch (and agree after being goaded by Bellatrix) when agreeing to that condition if he already knew he was going to do it? I think that part was genuine hesitation, but Dumbledore later manipulated Snape by forcing him to follow through, but this time on Dumbledore's own orders, because Snape would have backed out (and probably died from breaking the Vow instead) given the chance.

Dumbledore did even have the cloak at one point - he had it in his possession when Harry's parents were killed (who knows...having it around maybe would have saved Lily), then kept it for 11 years until giving it to Harry on Christmas. He may have only given it back because he didn't think he could get his hands on the ring.

[quote]While Dumbledore certainly could have told Harry about how to destroy Horcruxes ahead of time, he probably figured he already had - basilisk venom. And he willed him the Sword of Gryffindor, so...all bases covered, right? What he's very inconveniently not telling Harry is that his scar is a horcrux and he has to confront Voldemort ready to die. There's a few reasons to keep this under wraps. The first reason being that the knowledge that your quest is going to end in your own death is a heavy burden to bear, and will deter some people from even trying. Harry's got enough to worry about without that knowledge weighing him down. Secondly, Harry is the honorable type, so if he gets bogged down in the horcrux hunt, he might be tempted to skip to the end and deal with the horcrux at hand before finding the rest/confronting Voldemort. This would be...unfortunate, so Dumbledore doesn't want to tell him until the time is right (ie, all the others have been destroyed), and Harry will confront Voldemort personally in order to die. [/quote]

^ I agree. I also heard Rowling talking about the scar in an interview (probably with Mugglenet or something), and she said she always imagined that Harry's scar hurt when the piece of Voldemort's soul was trying to rejoin the rest of him by leaving the way it came. Talk about creepy.

[MithLuin]

The primary reason that Dumbledore refused to give Snape the DADA position was that he knew it was cursed - after he turned down Tom Riddle for the post, he was never able to keep someone for more than one year (with the exception of Quirrel, who took a one year sabbatical to get around that). So, granting Snape DADA meant that his time at Hogwarts would be at an end.

Dumbledore decided that that time had come before he recruited Slughorn, obviously, which was before Snape made the Vow (just sayin) but after Dumbledore's hand was ruined.

Yes, Snape was a master of the Dark Arts as well as Potions, so it's quite possible Snape could have offered some aid. But Dumbledore knew he was dying, and he had a lot of things set into place suggesting that he was [i]not[/i] simply looking for the antidote. And...this is Dumbledore; it's not like he couldn't do whatever magic Snape could himself.

Snape did flinch, yes, but that was because everything up to that point was stuff he could fulfill while still equivocating. The idea of 'helping' someone is so vague, his actions would be sure to qualify. But that last one...it was binding. It was one thing that he'd agreed to kill Dumbledore (privately). The Unbreakable Vow would hold him to that promise. Snape felt trapped, because that's exactly what the Vow was. But I do not see him agreeing to it if he hadn't already decided he would do it. After all, it would have been easy enough to beg off by saying that he would not cross the will of the Dark Lord.

The stories are mysteries, so the information you get is usually not enough to draw the correct conclusions up front. Taking the series in its entirety and looking back, it seems fairly certain that Dumbledore planned his own demise, and that while he wished to save Draco in the process, he wasn't about to die before Voldemort's defeat unnecessarily.

Regulus Black apparently died of the potion he'd ingested, so really, the argument could be made that Harry Potter had killed Dumbledore already (on Dumbledore's orders, of course, to make him drink all the potion). The point of that scene seems to be to set up the idea that Dumbledore might order someone else to kill him. I don't think Dumbledore worked Snape's Unbreakable Vow into his plan, though I understand that the details surrounding Snape's motives and actions are very vague.


I enjoy these discussions, too, and had fun teasing out all the details and rehashing things with people in the leadup to the release of the last couple of books. I suppose I worked my ideas on Dumbledore and Snape into my post-DH fanfic: [url=http://occlumency.sycophanthex.com/viewstory.php?sid=5216]Snape's epilogue[/url]

[Basilisa Marie]

So then Dumbledore was lying when he told Snape that it was so that it was "old habits" and temptations that prevented him from giving him the position? I mean, he totally could have been lying, that'd be consistent with his character. I suspect that the "truth" was a combination of the two.

[quote]Yes, Snape was a master of the Dark Arts as well as Potions, so it's quite possible Snape could have offered some aid. But Dumbledore knew he was dying, and he had a lot of things set into place suggesting that he was [i]not[/i] simply looking for the antidote. And...this is Dumbledore; it's not like he couldn't do whatever magic Snape could himself. [/quote]

Yes, but why involve Snape then when the ring was making him die, if he was fully capable of doing it himself? I mean, yeah, it's Dumbledore, but even Dumbledore has his magical limits. Dumbledore has such an abhorrence for the Dark Arts I doubt he'd be as skilled as Snape in them.

See, I'm still not sure if Snape had already decided to do it. If what you're saying about Snape being a giant equivocator holds, then I'd argue that just the fact that the Vow would cause him to [i]do [/i]something would be enough to cause him to hesitate. He's never really [i]done [/i]anything of substance in the series until then. The two exceptions that come to mind are protecting Harry in book one and the Occlumency lessons. But protecting Harry was done of his own will, to satisfy a debt he felt to James Potter, and the Occlumency lessons ended disastrously - he ended up quitting anyway. Snape seems to be all talk and finds his way out of [i]doing [/i]anything for either side - I mean, he even says that his biggest asset to Voldemort was his information - not his position at Hogwarts to do anything.

[quote]Regulus Black apparently died of the potion he'd ingested, so really, the argument could be made that Harry Potter had killed Dumbledore already (on Dumbledore's orders, of course, to make him drink all the potion). The point of that scene seems to be to set up the idea that Dumbledore might order someone else to kill him. I don't think Dumbledore worked Snape's Unbreakable Vow into his plan, though I understand that the details surrounding Snape's motives and actions are very vague. [/quote]

But Regulus didn't die from the potion - he died when the Inferi drowned him in the lake, after drinking its water as an antidote to the potion. The point of that scene was to show that Harry would be loyal Dumbledore's orders through the end, even if doing so was difficult and repulsive. The Unbreakable Vow was one reason why Dumbledore told Snape that he [i]had [/i]to kill him. Sure, it satisfied Dumbledore's own means, but it allowed Snape to live long enough to show Harry why Harry needed to die, in such a way that Harry would agree. One of the Death Eaters would have killed Dumbledore if Draco had in fact backed down. But that would have resulted in Snape's death, because he wouldn't have done all he could to protect Draco and he wouldn't have killed Dumbledore himself instead. So Dumbledore had to take the Unbreakable Vow into account - if anything it provided the ultimate manipulating power to get Snape to do what he wanted.

[quote]I enjoy these discussions, too, and had fun teasing out all the details and rehashing things with people in the leadup to the release of the last couple of books. I suppose I worked my ideas on Dumbledore and Snape into my post-DH fanfic: [url="http://occlumency.sycophanthex.com/viewstory.php?sid=5216"]Snape's epilogue[/url]
[/quote]

Oh, very nice. I'll have to check it out. I'm an RP kid myself, and recently got involved with myhogwarts in my spare time.

[MithLuin]

Dumbledore didn't precisely lie, but he *did* avoid telling the truth an awful lot. He insisted on keeping Trelaney at Hogwarts to protect her from Deatheaters. But he never told her that she'd made an important prophecy about Lord Voldemort. One could argue that such information was 'need to know' only, but...one could also argue that she was convinced she had no real talent in life and was so depressed about this that she fell into alcoholism. Had Dumbledore informed her that she'd made a genuine prophecy (well, 2) about important things (Dark Lord, Harry Potter), this could have drastically improved her life. But...Dumbledore never shared that knowledge with her.

People no doubt speculated about why Snape was teaching Potions rather than DADA, but Dumbledore only shared with Harry that the position was cursed when they discussed Tom Riddle's life - this was hardly common knowledge. And Dumbledore couldn't exactly let that info get out because it was hard enough to hire people as it was. Granted, it wasn't like that rumor wasn't out already - I think someone tells Harry in the first book that the DADA position is cursed. It's one of those rumors that no doubt started to spread when the pattern made it clear that no one was staying in that job.

People who knew Snape's history (known Death Eater) would no doubt have thought Dumbledore didn't really trust him to teach DADA. But in reality, Dumbledore trusted Snape more than nearly anyone else, so I doubt he was worried about a 'relapse'. He *knew* Snape was on their side because of his love for Lily, and Dumbledore firmly believes that love is the most powerful force in the world.

That doesn't mean that Dumbledore wouldn't have thought Snape wouldn't need some...reminders. Nor would he be likely to tell the professor that he was keeping him in the Potions position so as to be able to keep him at Hogwarts indefinitely. It's more likely that Dumbledore made his decision and didn't share his reasons with anyone...but since we know that Dumbledore knew about the curse and [i]did[/i] want Snape to remain at Hogwarts...that suggests a reason for his actions.


You did not mention that Snape did something very drastic at one point - he went to Dumbledore for help when he knew Voldemort was targeting the Potters. Dumbledore trusts Snape for this reason alone. And I agree that Snape would have preferred to be able to get out of it....which is why he flinched when Narcissa slipped that into the Vow.

[InPersonaChriste]

DUMBLEDORE!
lol could not resist!