Re-Titling Game

[sunnyskywalker]

So, there's this quote on Red Hen that I've been turning over in my mind:

"When you take a clear overview, Rowling’s books stopped being “about” their titles after PoA. [...] The Goblet [...] was carried in, got confunded, spouted something that tossed Harry into the soup, boogied off and we never saw it again. [...] The Order was just about totally irrelevant to the course of the actual story [...] The Half-Blood Prince was a somewhat different proposition, I agree, but he wasn’t the story either. Or not the main story. [...] [The Deathly Hallows] would be the McGuffin that kicks off a major part of the adventure, or they will be some gaudy peripheral issue that Harry cannot access, until the final showdown."

Whereas the philosopher's stone was a driving force (albeit mysterious) to the first book, the Chamber of Secrets was essential to the second book, and the prisoner who escaped from Azkaban was absolutely essential to the book's unfolding plot and conclusion.

So, looking back at the latter four books...

- If you kept their titles, how would you make the titles actually relevant? (Maybe the Goblet of Fire not only spits out the Champions' names, but is waiting for them at the end of the final task, and so it ends up being Harry's semi-goal and is the object which transports him and Cedric to the graveyard, for instance.)

- If not, which titles would you choose instead?

Goblet of Fire had a working title of Harry Potter and the Doomspell Tournament. Cheesy, but at least more relevant. Harry Potter and the Triwizard Tournament would be equally relevant, but also a bit boring. Harry Potter and the Three Tasks? There must be something better.

Order of the Phoenix might work better as Harry Potter and the Department of Mysteries, given that Harry's dreams/visions drive a lot of the action and are crucial to the climax. But I'm sure there are other options too.

Half-Blood Prince... I dunno. Harry Potter and the Room of Requirement? Not very zingy. You could go the movie route and make Draco's task less mysterious, and call it Harry Potter and the Vanishing Cabinet.

...and so on. We have some brilliant minds here; surely we can come up with good titles!

Comments

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

Oh! For Book 6: Harry Potter and the Unbreakable Vow

[sunnyskywalker]

Oh, I like that! It appears early on, drives a lot of the action (not that Harry knows, but you can see it in retrospect), and is crucial to the climax.

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

Though I think Rowling was trying to make Snape's true allegiances a surprise in Book 7. I wonder if the Unbreakable Vow as a title would have been too much of a hint.

[sunnyskywalker]

I think since we see an Unbreakable Vow actually being made in chapter 2 of book 6, it would work. While reading, we wouldn't be quite sure what Draco's task was and so what Snape was promising, but we would feel it as an ominous force throughout just because it's in the title, and that conversation Harry overhears between Snape and Draco would seem even more portentous. At the end of the book, we still wouldn't know Snape's motives for making it - was he really trying to support V's cause and killing Dumbledore was a major goal, or protect Draco (or both), or was it on Dumbledore's orders? And we could have spent the time between 6 and 7 wondering whether that was the only UV in play, or whether the Dark Mark is a variant of it and so Snape has to be a loyal DE since he's still alive, or whether Snape ever made one to Dumbledore (and if so, what was it), and so on.

Come to think of it, why didn't Voldemort work some of the function of an Unbreakable Vow into the Dark Mark? You take it, which means you swear loyalty to the Dark Lord or drop dead.

Dark Mark

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

In one of Pasi's stories, it is impossible to take the Dark Mark with treason to the Dark Lord in one's heart. The story opens with Moody attending the funeral of a brilliant young Auror, a superb Occlumens who managed to fool Voldemort into being offered the Mark--and the Mark killed him. I think it was the sequel to Apothecary and Auror.

However, once someone is in... well, think about it. If the Mark killed anyone who felt disloyalty, then the first time a follower felt the flicker of a qualm at what he was ordered to do, or was disturbed by how Voldemort treated a fellow DE (perhaps a relative or close friend), good-bye to that follower. You'd be having DE's dropping dead on their first serious "operation" left and right, as they found out what they were in for. Even if you tied it to overt disobedience to order--a momentary hesitation to act would kill the follower. Exactly what happened to Peter, in fact.
Maybe Tom had tried it (he did expertly tie a loyalty clause into Peter's hand, after all) and found he lost too many DE's that way.

Whereas as we saw with Draco casting the Cruciatus, initial reluctance can often be overcome when the stakes are high enough. Indeed Tom enjoys watching the struggle to do so. So why waste followers, so long as they learn in the end to obey promptly?

No, better to use Legilimency to monitor his DE's loyalty, and fear to keep them obedient.

Or, maybe Tom just didn't think of it at first, couldn't imagine that anyone having once joined him would wish or dare to turn. But then his long vacation in Albania gave him a lot of time to reflect on how loyal his devoted followers apparently were. However, by then it was too late to redesign the Dark Mark itself.

Either of those work for you?

Re: Dark Mark

[sunnyskywalker]

Hm, maybe. But we see that you can have a Vow about actions rather than feelings only (watch and protect, fulfill the task if necessary, etc. - involving concrete actions, with wiggle room like "to the best of your ability"). So could he have designed one that lets you feel as disloyal as you like, so long as none of your actual deeds are intended to harm the Dark Lord or his cause. "Act obediently and promptly to the best of your ability" would allow for plenty of squirming without killing too many followers, and "Don't do anything expressly intended to counteract my orders or harm my wellbeing" probably offers enough wiggle room too (eg hesitating is fine, zapping a fellow DE to stop him from carrying out orders isn't, but hitting him by mistake is also fine; trying to build up power and influence for yourself is fine, so long as you aren't doing it as part of a plan to depose and/or kill Voldemort).

So, yeah, maybe he just didn't think of it because he couldn't imagine someone not being awed or terrified enough to actually betray him. He does think better of his abilities than seems warranted.