The series ends, but questions remain
Jul. 26th, 2007 10:30 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
vovatThis 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![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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 (asobsessical 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.
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.
