Nagini's attack on Arthur in OotP

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

We know that Arthur was an Order member, guarding the door to the DoM (and asleep on the job under an invisibility cloak which didn't hide him from a creature that hunted by heat and scent), when Voldemort's snake attacked him.

What did the Ministry think, and the average Prophet reader?


If Fudge had realized Arthur was there on Dumbledore's orders, surely he'd have sacked him?

In fact, why wasn't Arthur sacked anyway? What business had he to be in the Ministry at all in the middle of the night? Much less loitering suspiciously outside the DoM with an invisibility cloak?

And just what kind of security does the Ministry have, that Order members, Voldemort's slaves and pets, and schoolkids, can come and go after hours as they please? I've never worked anywhere that didn't lock up when everyone left.

In fact, aren't the Aurors based in the building? Shouldn't they have a night shift (what, Dark wizards never operate at night, you tell me?), and therefore a night shift on reception to check people in who have business there?

Finally, if Fudge didn't think the snake was Tom's pet, whose did he think it was and how did he think it got in and escaped?

Thoughts?

Comments

[oryx_leucoryx]

Informed attributes are a shorthand that works in oral folktales, I think - where you don't have whole chapters to introduce characters and their background. But even there, if the simple son turns out sophisticated and subtle, if the wise adviser gives stupid advice, if the brave knight leaves innocents to a horrible fate - then we can't just trust the story teller with the attributes of the characters.

The last two books can't help but cast a bad light on the previous five.

Right. Because it is one story. At the very least characters shouldn't be arbitrarily changing beliefs and motivations from one book to the next. If something changes I want to know why. But if I can't trust the apparent reading then no wonder I end up preferring conspiracy theories :)

[the-bitter-word.livejournal.com]

Informed attributes are a shorthand that works in oral folktales, I think

What is interesting to me is how the information imparted by an unreliable narrator (or unreliable author) on a character's attributes is taken as gospel long after the story has been told and the information proven incomplete or even incorrect in the story. E.g., the characters of Dumbledore and Snape - are they what pre-DH Rowling told us they were when she was covering her tracks? Some still believe so, or want to believe. (Add to Rowling's disinformation the depictions in the films and in fan works, which can deeply color perception, and you're in a mess.)