For one, it would be different from all other series where in the end always "good" (note the quotation marks) wins.
Another thing to consider is this: the world of the Wizards is godawful: the pure ones look down on "mudbloods" (the majority of them, even the ones who work in the ministry, supposedly for the sake of all wizards, 25% of which are "mudbloods"), Squibs, half-bloods, half-breeds, etc.
House-elves are slaves, giants are persecuted, centaurs are hated, goblins are feared, gnomes are mistreated and any Wizard mixed with some of the "nearly-human" species is looked down by nearly everybody else.
Wouldn't it be better if such a system came crashing down with the help of Voldemort? I'd say the Wizards overall are not "good" at all. Voldemort is very bad, but if him winning in the end causes the horribly elitist world of the Wizards to be destroyed, is it that bad?
Wouldn't it be, in the end, poetic justice? Seeing them destroyed by their own prejudices?
2007-01-12
22:25:27
·
11 answers
·
asked by
tlakkamond
4
in
Arts & Humanities
➔ Books & Authors
Very good observation, Spikey and Scruffy's Mummy. Yet, what happens when those who form part of "the norm" (Wizards) are divided among themselves?
The greatest fear of Dumbledore was that Voldemort could get help from other creatures: giants, dementors, goblins, werewolves, centaurs, etc.
If "the norm" is:
1) A minority compared to the "abnormals" and
2) Divided against itself
what chance does "the norm" have of surviving? And, wouldn't their destruction be their just desserts?
2007-01-12
22:41:55 ·
update #1
Good always wins?
No, I disagree. I'd say winners are defined as "good," because no one wants to support the losing side and no one wants to feel they support evil.
They don't win because they are good. They are defined as "good" because they have won.
2007-01-13
10:12:04 ·
update #2