Deathly Hallows, chapter 19

[anehan]

The Silver Doe

* What is it with the Potters and animals of the deer family? James's Animagus form is a stag, and now we find out that Snape associates Lily with a doe. Though according to Dictionary.com, a doe can be the female of, among others, deer, antelope, goat and rabbit. I think I prefer to think Lily is a female rabbit. Or a goat. So that she can be paired with Aberforth's goat.

* A wreath of Christmas roses? What's that? Is it some kind of English custom to have roses on Christmas?

* Harry imagines someone is calling out to him in the distance. It is Ron, of course, who would rather call out to Harry than Hermione, because he is so much more important to Ron than her.

* Why is Hermione reading A History of Magic? Doesn't she remember it by heart already?

* Why is Harry wearing the Horcrux again? Wouldn't it be safer in his pouch? I would have imagined that Harry and Hermione would have realized how stupid it was to wear the Horcrux around your neck. But I need not wonder. Whatever stupid thing Harry can think of doing, he will do it.

* Oh, so it's bitterly cold in the Forest of Dean, is it? As someone who hails from Lapland, I snap my fingers at your bitter coldness. Apparently wizards can manufacture tents that are as spacious as a real house but not tents that are warm.

* Harry feels as though he is recuperating from some brief but serious illness, an impression reinforced by Hermione's solicitousness. That's because he must turn everything into high drama. One would think that after meeting Voldemort so many times, another confrontation would not faze him, but apparently it was enough to make him lose his sleep.

* Harry is wearing all the sweaters he owned, but he is still shivery. Apparently wizards can't make warm clothes either. Or maybe they are Dudley's cast-offs, which makes me wonder why Harry has continued to wear them even after he came to money? Or is it fanon that he wears them? I can't remember.

* Or maybe it's not wizards who can't make warm clothes. Maybe it's the English. At the very least they can't make warm houses. I once read a Finn who had lived in England write that he had never felt so cold in Finland as he had felt in an English house.

* Harry was on the point of taking out the Marauder's Map, so as to watch Ginny's dot for a while. Creepy, or what?

* So Harry follows the deer. Without telling Hermione where he is going. Is the boy stupid, or what? Oh, but he knows this is no Dark Magic. Of course it isn't, it's a Patronus. Doesn't mean a Death Eater couldn't have cast it.

* By the way, how does Snape know where Harry and Hermione are?

* He thinks the doe is going to speak to him. Which she would do only once she had led him deep into the forest.

* Oh, now Harry considers whether the doe has led him into an ambush. Our glorious hero. Stupid as a sock. (And possibly quite as smelly, too, if he has continued to bathe as often as he did at Hogwarts.)

* I'd like to know why the sword must be at the bottom of a pool.

* Harry remembers that "their daring, nerve and chivalry set Gryffindors apart". Well, if you consider foolhardiness to be daring and nerve, then it's true, as far as that goes. But chivalry? Maybe from someone like Neville, but Harry? Our resident drama queen?

* The description of Harry drowning? Well, let's just say that Rowling reveals another kind of scene she can't write to save her soul.

* Even Ron realizes how stupid it was to dive while wearing the Horcrux. You know, the stupider Harry acts, the more Ron grows on me. Not that he is much better, but at least no anvils of how great and noble he is are dropped constantly on me.

* Harry thinks Ron is supposed to be the one to destroy the locket. "Supposed to"? So now Harry wants to abandon being a hero. Of course, JKR only wrote it this way so that we could have the affecting scene of Ron's insecurities being thrown on his face. Puh-leeeze. As if the readers weren't already perfectly aware of what Ron's insecurities are. Must it always be anvils, JKR? They are so heavy.

* Please, no more Harry intuiting (is that a word?) things.

* Harry shouts and bellows and yells at Ron to stab the thing, but Ron does not listen. Yet he still stubbornly insists it's got to Ron who destroys the locket.

* Okay, so I don't really understand why Ron is so fazed with the locket-Harry and Hermione. Surely he has got the two brain cells that are required for him to realize the locket is preying on his fears.

* Now this Hermione I like. Looking demented, putting Harry and Ron in their places. "Don't you tell me what to do, Harry Potter!" Sweet, sweet words. If only she remembered them when Harry was being his usual self. *cheers Hermione on*

* Ah, the magical Deluminator appears. Or rather, Deus Ex Machina, as I prefer to call it. One of many in the series. And of course Dumbledore would know Ron would need it. The man can't stop meddling even after he is dead.

* Ron's pyjamas are maroon. Somehow I'm not surprised. Molly must really hate him, only she can't admit it to herself, so she takes it out in this passive-aggressive way. (I think this last piece is the most interesting bit of the chapter.)

Comments

[aasaylva.livejournal.com]

What is it with the Potters and animals of the deer family? James's Animagus form is a stag, and now we find out that Snape associates Lily with a doe.
As offensive as it is, I think the whole point was that Lily's inner self defining her personality was to be James Potter's wife. And yes, I know a doe is NOT the biologically correct mate of a stag but I'm ready to bet Rowling doesn't. In children's books stag and doe are often "married" and Rowling is the one who ascribed eye-lids to snakes, after all. So it's not just "oh dear, maths!", it's also "oh dear, biology!"

Why is Hermione reading A History of Magic?
The author felt, there needed to be a spot of characterization here. Like, you know, making a Frenchman utter "Mon dieu!" every other sentence.

Harry was on the point of taking out the Marauder's Map, so as to watch Ginny's dot for a while. Creepy, or what?
The sad thing is that it might have been completely natural IF their relationship or at least Harry's longing for Ginny had been established in a convincing way beforehand. As it is, this effort to remind us of their presumed love doesn't come off like a boy in love who'll cling to anything that reminds him of his beloved girl, but creepy, like a scientist watching bugs in a Petri dish...

Of course it isn't, it's a Patronus. Doesn't mean a Death Eater couldn't have cast it.
I am not sure but wasn't there an interview where JKR stated that DE couldn't cast a patronus because they are too "light" to issue from corrupted souls like theirs? If so, she contradicted herself again when she made Umbridge cast one at the ministry because your soul can't get much nastier than hers, can it?

Please, no more Harry intuiting
Another word for it is "plot-devising" which should be a word after DH came out.

[the-bitter-word.livejournal.com]

I am not sure but wasn't there an interview where JKR stated that DE couldn't cast a patronus because they are too "light" to issue from corrupted souls like theirs? If so, she contradicted herself again when she made Umbridge cast one at the ministry because your soul can't get much nastier than hers, can it?

I had to look it up (http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/7/30/j-k-rowling-web-chat-transcript), naturally. She said Snape was the only DE would could cast a Patronus because it's magic used to fight the magic DEs make. DEs don't need to use Patronuses (Patroni?) because DEs are all about the Dark Magic (ooh) -- that light stuff is for sissies. I think if DEs knew that they could lead people around with a Patronus, they'd learn how to use them. But that would be logical.

JKR also said the locket helped Umbridge cast her Patronus. Mixes messages much?

She was asked about the Doe-Stag thing, and confirmed it wasn't a coincidence before sidestepping the question entirely.

[anehan]

She said Snape was the only DE would could cast a Patronus

That doesn't make sense. Why would Snape be an exception? Maybe it's his love for Lily, which purifies him and makes him worthy. *gags*

[seductivedark.livejournal.com]

Why would Snape be an exception?

I think the idea is that he's fighting Dark Magic too and so can cast a Patronus.

I think it sucks as a Good Guy ID Spell. IMO, magic should be amoral and what is actually done with a spell (like dropping people from hundreds of feet with a stunner and killing them) should be the criteria for deciding if a wizard used Dark Magic. Murder is Dark even if you tickle them to death.

[tdotm.livejournal.com]

Too Right! Intent is surely what's key for the majority of magic. I refuse to believe that a Death Eater couldn't call on witnessing the birth of their child and feel equally strong happy thoughts. I'm sure WB could come up with some black patronuses for those wicked Slytherins. I do believe some magic would be dark in itself - creating a horcrux for example, but this would surely be in the minority.

Even 2/3 of the Unforgiveable Curses could be classed as amoral. 500 years ago, Avada Kedevra could have been used for capital punishment. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but Muggles used it as well at that time. I also think it would be far more humane then the Dementor sucking out your soul scenario.

Imperius is obviously wrong, as it's forcing people to act against their will, but I had little trouble with the way it was used at Gringotts. To quickly get out of a tricky situation, rather than force someone to do your bidding, frequently illegal/wrong especially in the long term. I could see Aurors using it in the same way, even if it's not ideal.

The Cruciatus is one of relatively few spells that couldn't possibly have any other use except for torture. So what does our 'hero' use for no good reason? He even gets praised for it. Bastard.

[anehan]

So what does our 'hero' use for no good reason?

Yes! You can think of more-or-less benign uses for the other Unforgivables, but not for the Cruciatus. Harry picked his spell well.

[seductivedark.livejournal.com]

Even 2/3 of the Unforgiveable Curses could be classed as amoral.

Oh, absolutely! AK = execution or euthanasia. Imperius could be used by an undermanned and overwhelmed Auror patrol to keep captured criminals from running off while they continued to hunt the others. Healthcare workers could use it to restrain violent patients. The way it was used at Gringotts was a perfect example of its use in a war situation. No doubt about it.

Cruciatus has no other reason than to torture. Even if it's just a second or two, pain's pain and gratuitous inflicting of pain is torture. I'm amazed that so many fans still trot out the now-old chestnut of Harry not being a plaster saint. It's one thing to be fallible, another to torture when another spell would have been at least as effective if not moreso.

[tdotm.livejournal.com]

I HATE that reasoning. It's almost as bad as blaming all of Book 5 on 'Voldemort *made* him be a jerk!'

When Harry saved Draco's life, and minutes later he was back to his old tricks, I actually laughed when Ron punched him in the face! Not ideal behaviour, but *that's* how you let your temper get the better of you in such a bad situation. That's how you prove someone's not perfect (though JKR ensured we already knew that about Ron.)

If Harry had punched Carrow in the face (it was the male wasn't it?), I wouldn't have blamed him for a second, just smirked. Instead he used torture, and not even in a battle situation. He used it as punishment, putting him on a par with the worst Death Eaters. And where does JKR get off making McGonagall praise him? If she'd warned him that to fight a monster, it's important not to become one yourself, the whole scene could have been saved. Pah.

A pox on Harry and this book series.

[seductivedark.livejournal.com]

It's almost as bad as blaming all of Book 5 on 'Voldemort *made* him be a jerk!'

I'd almost buy that above the Cruciatus in DHs. LV waltzing in and out of his head, bringing his own issues, sure, it might affect Harry. I don't see why Rowling just couldn't have had it be the usual teenaged angst and dramatizing. Either way, I'm the person who warned the daughters that PMS is not an excuse with me for emo angst so guess what I'd tell Harry.

Oh, yeah. Punching someone is a time-honored way of showing stress. Here we have Wizarding-raised Ron using it so it's apparently a universal reaction. Maybe there's a WW equivalent spell or something, like maybe "Puncharella," but nothing is as satisfying as actually winding up and striking.

Lacking that, yes, McG acting like the teacher she is supposed to be and telling Harry the whole monster lecture would have worked. That "Gallant" remark was just gratuitous. Everyone has to succumb to the Saviour of the Wizarding World in the end or die.

[jodel-from-aol.livejournal.com]

Hell, AK could have been used for hunting. Unlike a pistol, it wasn't developed *only* to kill humans. And, frankly back in the day, it probably had a better range than an arrow or a spear, and wouldn't have been deflected by wind or anything but the most pounding rain. Definitely an advantage for getting your village through the winter.

And of course even among wizards there were situations where a "mercy stroke" may hae been called for. Although capital punishment was a lot more likely to have been the intended use.

[anehan]

Also,

DEs are all about the Dark Magic (ooh)

I guess we have finally got a definition of Dark Magic. It is magic that Death Eaters use. So when Harry uses the Cruciatus Curse, it is completely benign magic.

[aasaylva.livejournal.com]

Aagh - because it's magic used to fight the magic DEs make.
Seriously? The only indication for using a patronus (apart from the email-thingy Dumbledore devised)is fighting off Dementors. So do DE make Dementors? Of course not as we are told those are "breeding" in HBP.
DEs don't need to use Patronuses (Patroni?) because DEs are all about the Dark Magic (ooh)
What a pile of brainless crap. Her whole reasoning is SO preschool level it'd be embarrassing for a teenager, let alone a grown woman.

[anehan]

As offensive as it is, I think the whole point was that Lily's inner self defining her personality was to be James Potter's wife.

I fear you are right. And it really doesn't get much more offensive than that. Though really, must JKR make Lily and James so meant-to-be that even Snape can see it?

Like, you know, making a Frenchman utter "Mon dieu!" every other sentence.

OT, but much as I love Hercule Poirot, his frequent use of "Mademoiselle" and "Madame" and all the rest drives me mad. There's no reason for someone who is as fluent in English as Poirot to use French words when he's speaking English. And if he did use them, they sure as hell wouldn't be such easy words as "Mademoiselle"! *rants*

[aasaylva.livejournal.com]

much as I love Hercule Poirot...
*g* There are more similarities between Rowling and Christie (coughadverbitiscough), take on sexuality, severe middleclass snobism...

[tdotm.livejournal.com]

When it comes to sexuality and being a snob, Christie a middle class woman born in 1890 - she was a product of her age. What was JKR's excuse?

[eir-de-scania.livejournal.com]

Being labeled as a "children's writer" might play a part when it comes to the (lack of) sexuality.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Well - it isn't so much the lack of sexuality (the last book, especially, is full of double entendres, and I am still astonished - and horrified - at the goat question in a book being read by small kids). Rather, it's her attitude towards relationships, which seems to be:
The ideal is for people to be married. Single women are inferior (In previous books, I would have said that McGonagall was a counterexample, but, after DH and the torture scene, I can't.)
Girls ought to manipulate boys and play hard to get.
You ought to marry your high school sweetheart.
Lust=love.
After marriage, a wife ought to stay home and homeschool her kids.
Motherhood is sacred. The best thing a woman can do is be a mother, and the best thing a mother can do is die for her child.

And so on. I grant you that I do think motherhood is (or can be) a wonderful thing, but still, the view of womanhood and family life in these books is deeply, deeply conservative. Add to this the unnecessary Dumbledore=gay statement. Whatever one thinks of homosexuality and the gay lifestyle, it should be obvious that Rowling considers Dumbledore's sexual orientation a flaw in his character. That's also a conservative attitude. I'm really puzzled by the gays who celebrate Dumbledore's homosexuality as an example of Rowling's tolerance. It's not. For one thing, he isn't actually gay in canon; she just said that in an interview. For another, his homosexuality led him into evil. For a third, he is, IMHO, a thoroughly unpleasant character.

Sorry for the length!

[aasaylva.livejournal.com]

You beat me to it. I'd like to add the general (very Christieish) idea that a "good" relationship is one where either of the two acts as a stand-in for mother or father. Equal relationships are doomed - which makes sense in a roundabout way because one of the hall-marks of eroticism is polarity, i.e. two people who are and stay (!)very much their own people while still giving themselves to the other one. This tension is stopped by one giving up their autonomy by becoming the "child".

[tdotm.livejournal.com]

I knew a French woman who lived here for 30 years and was 100% fluent, but kept a very strong accent and threw in obvious french words all the time. She'd mastered the language long ago, but refused to give up her accent. She was proud of being French and wanted people to know it. Especially as her name was Marie Smith!

Poirot (and maybe Fleur)could well be asserting his nationality in a way which wouldn't cause him to be misunderstood.

Or maybe I'm reading too much into it.

[seductivedark.livejournal.com]

I thought he was playing the "stupid foreigner" bit to allay suspicions of his intellect. Running around tooting his own horn didn't hurt people's lowered expectations either.

He was Belgian, though. Hated being taken for a Frenchman IIRC but, if he'd stopped to think, he spoke French, had a French accent, had highly affected manners, of course people would get it wrong.

My late aunt was from Mexico. I don't even know how long she lived here - more than thirty years for sure - but she kept her accent and tossed in a few words and phrases, too. She loved it when one of us or one of our kids would take Spanish in school. She also translated at the local court. She was very proud of her heritage.

[montavilla.livejournal.com]

I prefer to think the doe meant something else altogether to him, and he was using carefully selected memories to manipulate Harry into doing what Harry had to do. ;-)

Me, too. For one thing, he had no idea that James was associated with stags, so his idea of Lily/doe wouldn't really have a James component. Secondly, it's really only Tonks's Patronus that is connected symbolically to her would-be lover (although Hermione's Patronus is an otter). Luna's hare seems more connected to her own "lunacy," Ernie's and Seamus's Patroni are connected to their nationality, and Harry's Patronus is connected to his dad.

And yes on the carefully selected memories, too. It may be delusion on my part, but that's between me and my imagination.

[the-bitter-word.livejournal.com]

If a beloved location, Snape's patronus may reflect the River Doe (http://www.flickr.com/photos/24429795@N04/3492718528/) in the Yorkshire Dales, where he and Lily may have spent a most pleasant afternoon. (Delusional, I know.)

[eir-de-scania.livejournal.com]

So it's not just "oh dear, maths!", it's also "oh dear, biology!"
***Yes. and "Oh Dear History".