...?

[farla]

So Warlorn-chan just emailed me out of the blue to say that Ash would trust his friends so he's OOC. I emailed back and asked if he was talking about the current chapter or later ones.

I don't what trap you're setting, but no thanks. he replied.

And this on the heels of someone else emailing me asking me to tell them what questions to ask about a story. I'm still not sure what they meant.

Well, anyway. I'm still disappointed in the lack of a Harry Potter blowup, but I read this lovely meta on the Crouchs of book three. It's like a Socratic dialogue, only even better.

I think it's easier to enjoy these things with the books done. I realize most of my irritation wasn't the books themselves but the way people would deal with them.

Book One
Me: Yeah, but I don't like her making the Slytherin house evil. It's ridiculous to think that one-quarter of the Hogwarts kids are monsters, yet everyone puts up with it, and it's just so lame to set things up so your protagonist is going up against Cardboard Evil.
Apologist: No she didn't! It just seems that way, but it's obvious that in Book Two there are other Slytherin who are good.

Book Two
Me: So the Slytherin. Still pretty evil.
Apologist: No, it's just that they seem like that and we focus on Draco and his goons as well as Riddle. But in Book Three she'll show that the Slytherin aren't all evil.

Book Three
Me: So, Slytherin. They still seem pretty evil.
Apologist: But there was that guy, and his one-line introduction was not followed by "And then he sneered at Harry because he was a bastard" so he's not evil, which is a setup for the next book. In Book Four, and she'll show that there are good Slytherin.

Book Four - Six
Me: So, Slytherin. Looking pretty evil.
Apologist: But not all of them are proved evil yet! She's just setting it up to look like that! It's just Harry's POV! They'll be redeemed in the next book!

Book Seven
Me: So, Slytherin. Evil.
Apologist: Dammit.

And now, after a mere decade, all discussions about the Harry Potter books can only be about the Harry Potter books, not the upcoming book which will clearly fix all the perceived problems, validate every fan theory, solve world hunger and be written so well angels will come down from heaven to proclaim Rowling's glory. And, like magic, all the meta has instantly become readable.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Harry used crucio and was happy about it.(torture)
Ron walked out on Harry and Hermione and knew that when he did that he wouldn't be able to come back.
Hermione set a bunch of birds on Ron in the sixth book(can't remember the reason right now though, so maybe he deserved it which supports he is evil) and she also tried setting giants and centaurs on Umbridge.(possible attempted murder)
Neville continued to advertise the DA which caused the torturing of several people(though he may have not realized that it would end in that).
Tonks isn't enough of a major character to really have too many flaws, she's really just there to marry Lupin and introduce the ideas of morphmagius(can't remember how to spell it).
Lupin tried leaving his unborn child.(it's very likely that he wouldn't have enough money to pay child support)
Sirius mistreated his house elf.(mistreatment of a living being)

Some of the things they do could be crimes if you think about it...

[farla.livejournal.com]

Oh, there's certainly some major moral issues - Harry not only uses cruico in the last book when he could easily stun or immobalize, but his teacher follows it up with imperio rather than, again, any sort of stunning spell. Unfortunately the books make it very clear that despite all this, Harry and his group are not criminals but heros within the universe setup.