The series ends, but questions remain

[vovat]

This post includes some more thoughts on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, as well as on the series in general.

To begin with, there's now an article in which Rowling explains some more about the fates of her characters after the defeat of Voldemort. Despite Harry's desire to be an Auror back in Order of the Phoenix, you might think he's had enough excitement for one lifetime. I guess danger is in his blood, or something. She also says that Hogwarts has a new Headmaster (not McGonagall) and a permanent Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher. I wonder whether the Headmaster has to have had teaching experience. Even if that's the general rule, I can see the rules being subject to change in the extraordinary circumstances brought about by the death of Voldemort. Regardless, I can't think of anyone, current teacher or not, who strikes me as being particularly suited to either position. Any ideas?

I've addressed the oddities of Slytherin before, but aliste's comment here made me think of this subject again. The Sorting Hat's song in Book 1 says that Slytherins "use any means to achieve their ends." In Book 4, the Hat speaks of "great ambition" as the House's defining trait. And I think it might be Book 5 (which I still can't find) in which the obsession with pure blood is implied to be the most important thing. While the Machiavellian behavior mentioned in the first book does imply ambition, isn't it possible to be ambitious while still having scruples? And the blood-based bigotry seems totally unrelated, yet it often seems more important than the other two. When Dumbledore says to Snape that he thinks wizards might be sorted too early, he's speaking of Snape's bravery. His role as a double agent also requires plenty of loyalty and intelligence. But he never seems to be particularly ambitious. I guess he's a Slytherin because he's mean, or perhaps just because he wanted to be. (Is there anyone who ended up in a House they really didn't want to be in?) I think that Slughorn, who is perhaps rather pompous, not NOT nasty or obsessed with bloodlines, is a model for how Slytherins CAN be good without ending up better suited for a different House. He displays favoritism toward members of his Slug Club, but he chooses them based on merit, and not ancestry or House placement. I think the addition of this character to the series was, like the Sorting Hat's warnings, meant to hint at a plot point that was never really developed.

Speaking of plot points that were never really developed, one that I had meant to include in my list in the last entry was (as obsessical mentioned in a comment) the veil at the Department of Mysteries. Perhaps she chose not to elaborate on it because she didn't want to get too deeply into the afterlife? While the books definitely support the idea of life after death, and imply that it's a good thing, Rowling seems to avoid getting TOO much into the spiritual.

Another thing I was wondering about was the nature of the Patronus. We know that they're related to the caster's happiest memory, and that they take the form of animals. (Actually, I can't recall whether Rowling specifically SAID they had to be animals, but I can't think of any exceptions to the rule either.) Sometimes (as in the cases of Harry, Tonks, and Snape), they're linked to memories of a specific person. The Dumbledore brothers' are both animals that are important to them, although we don't know what specific memories they're linked to. In other cases, though, it seems less clear. What, for instance, do otters have to do with Hermione's happiest memory? I'm assuming the otter is just a physical manifestation of this memory, and not that the memory actually involves otters, but it's not like I know for sure.

Comments

[zaph.livejournal.com]

Maybe Professor Sprout for Headmaster? Since we know Neville takes over her teaching job...

Yeah, the lack of explanation of the Department of Mysteries struck me as odd. I was sure we were going to see that locked door or the Death Chamber again.

But I don't think a Patronus has to be related to the happiest memory, you just need to think of something positive to cast it. It's always the same animal, though. It's more a representation of the person than the memory, much like a person's Animagus form - it's not something they choose, and as we've seen, Peter, especially, has a very ratty personality, for example. His Patronus, were he able to conjure one, would almost certainly be a rat.

I also suspect that if a person has a particular affinity for a particular animal, that will come out in the Patronus, which is, I think, why Hermione's is an otter and Aberforth's is a goat, since neither of those necessarily represents its caster's personality.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Maybe Professor Sprout for Headmaster? Since we know Neville takes over her teaching job...

Yeah, although we don't know how soon. I wonder if there are post-Hogwarts courses that prospective teachers have to take.

It's more a representation of the person than the memory, much like a person's Animagus form - it's not something they choose, and as we've seen, Peter, especially, has a very ratty personality, for example. His Patronus, were he able to conjure one, would almost certainly be a rat.

I wonder if an animagus' Patronus would always be in the same form as his or her animal form. I can't actually recall an animagus casting a Patronus, and the whole animagus angle was largely dropped after Book 4 anyway.

[rockinlibrarian.livejournal.com]

Well, nineteen years went by-- likely McGonnagle WAS Headmistress at first, but in nineteen years they're bound to get a few more teachers hired and promoted.

I think the addition of Slughorn was meant as a counterpoint to Snape, mostly. Everyone (readers AND Harry) by that point has developed this Slytherin=Evil concept, and it was important to show that this was NOT the case, especially WITH the need for the Houses to show unity against evil. If there'd been no Slughorn, Snape's apparent betrayal at the end of the book would have sealed the deal on the "never trust a Slytherin" idea, and the importance of choosing your side in the book would have been seriously undermined. Yeah, and I think the reason Snape is in Slytherin had a lot to do with what he valued at the time of his sorting-- the ambition was in getting in with the good families.

Perhaps she chose not to elaborate on it because she didn't want to get too deeply into the afterlife? Perhaps being Catholic has made it easier for me to accept that concept than other folks! I just figure it's just to show that there IS an afterlife and the rest is Mystery. Likewise Dumbledore said (at the end of book 5) the locked door in the Department of Mysteries contained the power of love and that the great wizards were still trying to figure it out. Another unexplained Mystery, accepted on faith. One thing I love about Luna is that she symbolizes Faith-- just believe and don't worry about it, she feels! And the best part is, sometimes she's actually right!

I can't think of anything to say on the nature of Patronuses... Patroni? Uh, apparently except how to pluralize it.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

Well, nineteen years went by-- likely McGonnagle WAS Headmistress at first, but in nineteen years they're bound to get a few more teachers hired and promoted.

That's true. Is there ever an indication as to how long Dumbledore was in that position? Longer than most, I would imagine, but I'm sure he was an extraordinary case anyway.

[rockinlibrarian.livejournal.com]

Well, less than fifty years-- when Riddle first tried to get the Defense Against the Dark Arts post it was right after he graduated, and Dippet was still headmaster. Then how much time passed before he tried again when Dumbledore was there? Ten years or something?

[onib.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the link. I've been curious which character got "the reprieve" from death. I'd be interested in a Potter Encyclopedia whenever she gets around to it. She mentioned Dean Thomas having a much more detailed back story that never got explored and several other side stories that got cut. It'd be interesting to see the world fleshed out in a non-story way.

I thought a Patronus could change (e.g., in this book Dumbledore is surprised that Snape's Patronus is still the same, and in book 6, I thought a point was made that Tonk's Patronus changed after Sirius' death), but I don't remember if it was ever said that the particular animal was tied to a certain event or person in a literal way.

I think Harry could be a pretty successful auror even if he didn't want to fight. He has so much press going for him that despite the fact that he only performs about 4-5 spells on a regular basis, many people might just give up outright rather than risk fighting him.

[arfies.livejournal.com]

I read an interview with J.K. where she said that originally, Mr. Weasley was going to die in Book 5, but she decided not to kill him. Good to know. Also, Harry became an Auror, Hermione ended up in Magical Law Enforcement as a lawyer. Google the interview with Meredith Viera.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

I had thought her comment about a character getting a reprieve referred specifically to the last book, but I guess not. After Arthur was saved in Book 5, he was apparently safe right up until the end.

[zimbra1006.livejournal.com]

I think I heard that she was going to kill Arthur in *this* book, and decided to off Fred instead.

[rockinlibrarian.livejournal.com]

Oh, one of the other things I dreamt last night was that there is an 8th book (in which all the aftermath is wrapped up), and also that there is yet another Weasley son, falling in age somewhere between Charlie and Percy, named Michael, for most of the dream-- part of the dream he was named George, and even in the dream I was like, "Wait, THAT'S stupid of them!" It's like George Foreman!

Maybe his name is George Michael...

[vovat.livejournal.com]

And he was ostracized from the family for being gay? Or was it his pursuit of rock music as a career? :P

[rockinlibrarian.livejournal.com]

Probably the rock music, he struck me as rather too manly to be gay.

[loz]

His role as a double agent also requires plenty of loyalty and intelligence. But he never seems to be particularly ambitious.

I think I disagree. I think we see plenty of ambition in Snape, especially when he was young. He gets in with Mulciber for those reasons. He wants to prove himself. For years he longs to teach DADA. He strives to be respected. Snape has ambitions of grandeur.

[vovat.livejournal.com]

That's true. I guess it's just not ambition of the "I want to be incredibly wealthy and/or powerful" variety. A lot of it seems to be more of a desire to fit in than anything else.