A Headmaster other than Albus

[oryx_leucoryx]

So here is an idea for an AU scenario. Anyone is free to develop it into a fic, but we can just discuss the what-if:

Sometime between November 2nd 1981 and July 1991 Albus Dumbledore died suddenly. Maybe in some magical mishap, maybe a sudden heart attack, whatever. The important bit is he didn't expect this to happen and had no time to do any ad-hoc cover-ups nor did he have a chance to influence the choice of his replacement or to incorporate his death into some plot. The permanent replacement is chosen by the Board of Governors. If this happens early enough Lucius isn't yet on the board, if later he is on, but probably still trying to earn a reputation as an outstanding member of society who would have never joined forces with Voldemort willingly so I don't think he'd support anyone blatantly against the inclusion of Muggleborns. Anyway, the replacement turns out to be someone not as outwardly impressive as Dumbles - not so showy, with perhaps average or slightly above average magical performance, but a capable administrator with good organizational and interpersonal skills, but most importantly someone who cares about the students' well-being and education. It can be someone from Slughorn's network or even someone who thought well of Albus as long as s/he didn't have a chance to look too closely at how Hogwarts was run, but definitely not an Order member or any other close associate of Dumbles. Maybe an older, more experienced and less idealistic version of Percy.

The members of the Hogwarts staff are as we know them in PS (Care of Magical Creatures is taught by Kettleburn, Hagrid is still a groundskeeper), except for DADA. Depending on timing, Quirrell might be the Muggle Studies teacher. I think the DADA curse should still be active, so the teachers are still being replaced annually (we don't want the new school Head to have it too easy).

So I think this new person shows up and tries to run Hogwarts like a normal school. Some teachers object because that's not the way it was always done, some are relieved to have a professional in charge for a change. The handling of disciplinary matters changes. The inter-House politics change.

And then in the summer of 1991 Quirrell comes back from a sabbatical with a personally transplant. And one Harry Potter oddly doesn't reply to his acceptance letter to Hogwarts. (I doubt the new Head had a reason to look into Harry's situation of hir own initiative earlier, but maybe someone can make a convincing argument for that?) So what now?

Comments

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

I really do think you're right. Maybe that's the source of my confusion ... a leftover from the pre-HBP days when I, too, assumed she knew what she was doing.

With the publication of HBP and then DH it was made obvious that she *didn't* ... but I guess I've confined my contempt for Rowling and her lack of storytelling logic to those last two books (which really are an order of magnitude worse than their predecessors). I look back at PS, scratch my head and part of me insists there was something there which I'm forgetting.

But when it comes down to it ... why should an author who showed a complete lack of planning for books 6-7 be any different than the one who wrote books 1-5?

Why, then, did the fandom take off as it did, why were the earlier books accepted as they were? Because of the simple *promise* that there was a plan? That's what you're saying, and I guess you're right. I suppose I'm now asking the same question that pro-Jo defenders throw in my face when I proclaim the series - certainly DH at least - a literary disaster. "A billionaire can't be wrong." With them trying to put the onus back on me to find another reason why the series was so commercially successful, if the actual material was rubbish.

Sigh.

There must be material out there which analyses the (marketing?) phenomenon behind the books just as much as we critique the books themselves. Or are most professionals out there solidly behind the Rowling bandwagon? Like most reviews of DH were positive (critics and writers writing their articles with one eye solidly on the number of books sold before DH even hit the presses)?

Sigh.

[oryx_leucoryx]

Back in the day, when POA came out, Terry Pratchett wrote an article - praising the series (as it stood then) in general but taking digs at Rowling for her claims about how she didn't realize she was writing fantasy as well as those fans who accused him of stealing from Rowling (not realizing that his Unseen University had been around since 1983, and was intended from the start as a parody of universities and professional academics). He explained that all works of fantasy are bound to have shared elements because the authors are all 'fishing in the same pond' - ie using elements from the same folklore. As far as I know, he has been silent about Rowling since.

My point: a) While Rowling knows her folklore she wasn't quite sure how much she wanted to follow the conventions of the fantasy genre and how much she wanted to go against them deliberately ending up in a mess (starting from the very first chapter of PS where she mixes the trope of an orphan abandoned outside the orphanage door and the trope of a mentor figure arranging for a simple, hidden, but safe and decent upbringing for a 'chosen one' - compare to Merlin or Obi-Wan). Hence her pretentious claim about not realizing it was fantasy.
b) I think some people did realize the series wasn't living up to expectations but were being politely silent.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Whereas we are most definitely not 'polite', hey? ;-)

Would a claim that it was one hundred per cent 'fantasy' have absolved Rowling of her sins against literature? Is there lesser pressure on a 'fantasy' author to nail things down and make the rules and events of her series self-consistent? (I'd argue not.)

The HP series stands condemned no matter what label is affixed to it, but it still would have been an interesting - if farcical - defence if Rowling had waved her hands while exclaiming 'FANTASY!!' as well as 'Oh, Maths!' and the rest. Maybe then other fantasy authors would have rushed in to protect their genre's reputation.

She did do a decent job in separating her magical (fantasy) world from modern society, I think, dreaming up the Obliviators, Arthur Weasley's department and so forth, even if she mixed up her tropes.

I do so wish more critics had ignored their editors and written what they thought about DH. Maybe some of them didn't have time to absorb much more than the hand-waving. The rest probably didn't want to lose their jobs. After all, what paper would want to lose readers when it became known as the periodical which "GOT IT WRONG ABOUT HARRY POTTER"? Given as how DH was known to be a SUCCESS before it appeared in the shops?

Sigh.

[oryx_leucoryx]

I don't think you understood me. Fantasy isn't an 'everything goes' genre. There are reasons why some fantasy tropes are common. They often are based on real wishes and desires and on real fears shared by many people. So if an author wants to mess with fantasy tropes the author has to understand the function of the trope in its common form first. Randomly changing things is what creates messes of characterization and values as in HP.