Daphne and Nott are playing a far deeper game there than simply claiming their innocence. It is important to recognise that their options are rather limited. They are also seriously short of time - and require to convince Harry of their good faith - as you will find out in the story. Choosing to betray the Dark Lord does tend to force you into swift action.

Besides, Harry was in no way convinced that they are not evil. He simply catalogued them as a potential factor in the problem of Voldemort - possibly benevolent, possibly not. He was convinced of their bona-fides during the year when they proved their faith by joining the DA and keeping his secret. They have a very vested interest in helping Harry as you see in the story.

As for the whole Slytherin != evil - I guess I rushed it, but since it is rather germane to the plot (which focuses more on Daphne and Nott's personal and private reasons for helping Harry). I will try to go over it again.

Thanks for the criticism.
Regards,
Maidros

 

It is your choice. As for the point of the meeting - they were simply opening a line of communication with Harry. They did not, in any way, expect, Harry to be convinced of their bona-fides. If you read the story, you would find out why the two Slytherins are rather direct, instead of being indirect, as is usual with Slytherins.

Thanks for the criticism.
Regards,
Maidros

 

That seriously brings to light some things, and the logic involved is infallible.

But to the average reader, they won't be expecting brilliance with an apparently cliche plot device, so I was thinking that you maybe hint towards something deeper, like maybe Ron taking Harry aside after the meeting and voicing his suspicion that Slytherins never take the direct approach?

 

Ron could and did voice his suspicions. Here is the quote from the chapter itself.

Maybe I should have expanded on it and made it more explicit, but Ron has his own prejudices about Slytherins. He would never trust them. As for Hermione being in favour of accepting Slytherins, it is more her zeal for uniting Hogwarts against Voldemort rather than any concrete evidence that the Slytherins want Voldemort dead.

Thanks for pointing out the flaws. I will work on them, and perhaps edit the chapter on ff.net

Thanks for the criticism.
Regards,
Maidros

 

It is more along the lines of her being a naive little school girl who thinks like Dumbledore in that aspect that she trusts people too easily.

Ronald is just racist against the Slytherins because thats the way he was grown up. Dumbledore most likely manipulated the system to think the other houses (mostly the Puffs and Gryf's) to think they're all evil. Although everyone (or nearly everyone here already) knows this. This is why I dispise Ron and totally loathe Granger. They're gullible idiots.

 

They are also 14 yrs. I don't think you should judge them too harshly considering that they are still following the adults and are only just forming their own opinions. The same could be said about the Slytherins.

Before you make an issue of it Harry has never had a positive adult experience until he was around 11 yrs and at that point he's pretty much given up on them.

 

The prologue really makes me hesitant to read the rest of the story. In the process of railing against the Slytherin caricature, you basically turn Ron into a Gryffindor caricature. I realize a lot of people don't like Ron, and I'm not his biggest fan, but managing the Ron/Hermione/Harry relationship is pretty key to this kind of story.

There was no need for Ron to be an irrational bigot ("All Death Eaters are Slytherins! They enjoy licking You-Know-Who's boots")--the three of them have had a lot of negative experiences with Slytherins, and Harry has personal knowledge that a lot of Slytherin students have parents who are active Death Eaters. Ron can still be the voice of distrust, but he doesn't have to turn into Ron the ranting racist ("You can never take a Slytherin at face value"/"they're just trying to hedge their bets in case they lose"/"we should get to know them before inviting them into our secret, illegal association" vs. "You are both insane. I am not going to chummy up with these snakes").

Maybe this gets smoothed over later in the story, I'll keep going for a while to see.

 

A valid point. However, Ron doesn't really use his brain too often except to play Chess, eat and Quiddich, which doesn't say much other than the old "Foot in mouth disease" cliche.

As for Harry, he most likely lost trust in adults at 6, seeing as how his uncle beat him on his 6th birthday (I could be wrong in this).

 

I couldn't get into it. The characterizations were flat and the conversations stilted, not to mention the plot device of Slytherin Isn't Evul! has been run into the ground.

People don't talk like that. One way to create a believable conversation is to look at the people around you - how do they act? What kind of slang do they use? Accents? Do they talk with their hands or not? Little details like that can help create a realistic conversation between diverse characters. Ron doesn't say the same things as Hermione or Harry. And Harry doesn't sound like a young Dumbledore.

Does one of your characters have a penchant for sarcasm? Perhaps another character doesn't like that particular character's cutting remarks or bad language? When dealing with discussing subject matters between characters, always keep in mind their personality traits. It helps keep the reader interested.

 

I have already pointed out that `Slytherin!= evil' is not a plot point. Daphne and Theodore are helping Harry for very personal and very important reasons. They are betting on a horse and making sure it wins. The Notts and the Lestranges once bet on Voldemort to be the instrument of the change that they desired, only to have that instrument turn into a Frankenstein's monster. Now they need to keep themselves alive from their own creation. You would know this if you read the story. `Slytherin != Evil' is not and will never be a plot point. Being Slytherins, they are loath to disclose all their motives at the first meeting with Potter.

I know what you mean and others have mentioned it. I have made efforts especially in the later chapters to have different people speak differently. I simply did not go back and edit all the conversations in the earlier chapters. I will do it when I have time.

Thanks for the criticism.
Regards,
Maidros

 

I see your point about it - but the problem is: Ron is shallow. He is idiotic enough to fight Cho over her Quidditch team and when she started supporting it. He really has precious little maturity. It would be out of character, IMHO, for Ron to be accepting of Slytherins. However, this is again rather germane, since Ron has precious little part to play in the story.

As for bad experiences with Slytherins, we notice Malfoy and his thugs attacking Harry and Co. (verbally, and even physically), but have we ever seen evidence of others attacking Harry? Evidence of Blaise, or Nott, or Greengrass helping Malfoy attack Harry? Problem is - Ron is biased against `slimy Slytherins', as he calls them. So - to pretend that Ron will be unbiased against Slytherins is, not too valid, in my opinion.

Thanks for the criticism.
Regards,
Maidros

 

Of course Ron is an impulsive, hot-headed, lazy, selfish person with an irrational dislike of Slytherins. But he's not a complete moron--I would expect him to go after the Slytherins with his best ammunition ("Harry, Nott's father was one of the first Death Eaters Voldemort summoned to the graveyard that night--do you really think you can trust him? What if he has to choose between betraying us and disobeying his father?"), not just spout some completely unpersuasive line ("I hate Slytherins!") and stomp out of the room.

Reading Chapter 1, I notice a similar thing with the discussion in the library. The person who has the designated losing side of an argument doesn't make any good points in his favor. It's fine to eventually have Harry be won over, but he should put up more of a fight.

Harry was there at the Department of Mysteries. His theory of overconfidence + squabbling over credit + hostage prophecy = escape makes sense (is it really that crazy that a group of people brought together by their racism and willingness to kill don't work together like a well oiled machine?). Nott's counter-theory--that a group of Death Eaters secretly oppose Voldemort, were able to improvise a fake argument and pretend incompetence without arousing any suspicion by loyal Death Eaters, are (presumably) good enough at occlumency that Voldemort never suspects them despite their repeated failures, and secretly cast spells to keep Harry & co. safe while herding them out to safety during the chaos of an otherwise all out fight--is not that plausible. I wouldn't expect Harry to buy it right away, and would expect him to demand some kind of evidence before he starts trusting Nott.

Seriously, as far as Harry can tell, Nott's father has tried to kill him twice. Now Nott spins some story about how he was really faking it the whole time, and they should meet in secret and work together against Voldemort, and Harry doesn't think it could be a trap?

My advice, and maybe you've already done this in later chapters, is to really rethink the dialog. Make sure you treat all of the people talking as real people--when the character disagrees with your take on things, they should have some reason for it that seems convincing to them, and they should be doing their best to convey that reason. IP82 does a good job with this, when you read his stories you really get a sense that each character is thinking independently and not just reciting lines that he wants them to say. Also, it might help the flow if you were to try reading the dialog out loud while you edit it. In the first couple of chapters it reads like some sort of anime/comic book thing.

 

This is a persuasive argument. I will take it into consideration.

Note - this contains serious spoilers for the story.

There are several points you raise here. There may be a serious difference in interpretation that you and I have. The Death Eaters are a feared lot. Their mere appearance at the Quidditch World Cup sent people into a panic reflex and they were albe to tweak the nose of the Ministry without getting caught. Even Dumbledore says, "Many of his followers are as terrible as Voldemort himself". The whole idea about kids running away from a bunch of Death Eaters without being hit is, IMHO, completely ridiculous. I tend to give Death Eaters credit for some basic competence. They would not be feared if they were all ridiculously stupid and/or inept. They were springing an ambush, and they left a door open? They let Harry and Co. smash shelves without retaliation> Finally, What is involved in JKR's theory is that a couple of dozen spells flew melodramatically, but none of them hit the targets - especially, when targets were less than ten yards away. Is it realistic, I ask you?

Let us take Nott's counter theory one step at a time and address your objections. The fake argument is directly from canon - Bella going ballistic. At a time when obtaining the prophecy is paramount, she goes into a rant about purity of blood? If you interpret Bellatrix as an insane bitch, then your theory holds. I interpret it as a deliberate ploy to distract attention from Harry.

Second - pretending incompetence. If you remember, they split up into pairs while searching. Rookwood simply never put in an appearance until they all appeared as a group in the Death Chamber. Nott was injured at the outset and did not participate in the battle any further. Rabastan was paired with Crabbe - who conveniently got turned his head turned into a baby's. Any treachery by Rabastan would be unknown simply because Crabbe cannot testify to it. As for any treachery by Bellatrix and Rodolphus - they were paired together, and you surely don't expect them to testify against each other, do you?

We know for certain that Bellatrix is a very good Occlumens. I am inclined to believe that many others are also decent at Occlumency. Further, legilimency, especially in fanfiction, has been vastly overrated. Nowhere does legilimency imply that the legilimens will be able to learn everything his victim is thinking. It takes long and careful questioning even to verify definite suspicions (Dumbledore's experience with Voldemort's uncle - the guy who got thrown in prison - and Dumbledore's inability to extract Slughorn's memories is example of limitations of legilimency. Besides, before what they did with Harry, whatever their thoughts may have been, none of them had done anything to actively betray Voldemort. So - I find it completely possible that they would have been able to get away with it.

Finally, repeated failures - I am not sure what you are referring to here. Can you please be more specific?

Nott's father has never tried to kill Harry. He appeared at Voldemort's resurrection, but there is no evidence that he did anything at all. Au contraire, there is serious evidence that he was never high in Voldemort's favour (remember his speech to Avery, Nott, Crabbe and Goyle at the graveyard). In the Department of Mysteries, he was again there, but there is no evidence that he so much as fired a single spell.

Besides, you are overlooking one thing. Nott has, for the better part of a year, proved his loyalty to Harry by staying with the DA and not betraying it. Harry does, to a limited extent, trust the members of the DA.

Thanks for the advice on the dialogue. I will keep it in mind. Like you say, there are definitely places where the dialogue could use improvement and I will work on it.

Thanks for the criticism.
Regards,
Maidros

 

Maidros,rj_stone does also believe that the Death Eaters are a feared lot and should have more than a modicum of competence.

But perhaps you've misunderstood what he said, which makes perfect sense if you think about it.

Let's say you are a Death Eater, eager to earn some credit now that the Dark Lord is back, and wants to lay his hands on the prophecy. Obviously the desire to get that prophecy far overrides their willingness to kill indiscriminately, especially if you consider that at times Harry has used the prophecy as a pseudo-hostage, threatening to smash it, which would be disastrous for them.

Now factor in the fact that they know they are facing 15-year old adolescents whom are far beneath them in outright duelling (and should be, rightfully so) and they believe almost completely untrained in self-defence, though this is not the case.

Add in some elements of luck and is the escape really that inconceivable? The moment the Order and especially Dumbledore arrived the shocked Death Eaters all but crumbled.

I'd say that DH totally nullifies my argument, and proves that the DEs are utter nobheads in battle who can be easily taken down by schoolchildren and Percy/Ron Weasleys. Shows how contradictiory JKR is, and how she her ownself underestimate the DEs and pathetically make them out to be idiots. But ignore DH and you should be fine.

 

It is possible that they really are almost all "nobheads" with very few exceptions, and that it is their willingness to cast unforgiveables indescriminately, and perhaps Voldemort's extremely well honed sense of public display that keeps the wizarding population in the dark. Notice that the rest of the wizarding population is fairly stupid as well. Seems to me that if you combine some strategically placed and timed magical terror attacks with a generally idiotic population, you get a perfect "reign of terror" with minimum effort and maximum results. After all, even in school, Tom Riddle was a master of public image.

 

Aye, a master of public image he is, but a fool he is most likely not. Even Riddle will realise as powerful as he may be, it is not enough and that he will need some competent followers. I think it is more realistic to say that he has trained them in the art of combat, whether personally or not is another question. But the point remains that they have probably received training. After all, Bella did claim that Voldemort instructed her "personally" in the Dark Arts. Is it that hard to believe that the rest would have received some sort of training too?

If they have no knowledge of dueling in the first place, however would they have managed to deal with the Aurors? They would get massacred, and easily cracked down on.

So yeah, I still believe that their portrayal in DH or basically any encounter they have with the schoolkids was horribly unrealistic. Does she think all her readers are dumb as the fangirls/kids?

 

I think I will simply make it clear that I cannot believe in the stupidity of an entire world, with Harry and Co. being the only intelligent/moderately competent ones. If the wizarding world is that stupid, it is doomed, no matter what Harry will or will not do. Consequently, I will keep all sides at least reasonably intelligent.
Regards,
Maidros

 

Really impressive when an author will sit and take the time to converse with folks who can nitpick things.

I personally got too pissed off at the only major flaws folks were finding was should of/should have, and a few past tense errors and flaming me for it.

Trying to build suspense and keep folks guessing is often an exercise in frustration as well, since the average kid reading doesn't want to be left in the dark and they get uber bitchy, lol

 

Nice premise, but poor execution in places. The prologue was a real off-put for me, and I know you said you didn't want to edit it just now, but fleshing it out with some healthy disbelief on Harry's part, and not having Ron stomp away like a small child would probably keep a lot more people reading on.

As it is, there's not much to grab you apart from two Slytherins joining and Harry's sudden epiphany about equality. It's kind of uncharacteristic for him to start comparing how he was treated at the Dursleys with the prejudice against Slytherins, especially since he's spent so many years at odds with them. Harry as he is in canon at this point is kind of slow when it comes to not seeing things in black and white - even Sirius has to point out to him that 'the world's not divided into good people and Death Eaters'. Like rj_stone2 said, rethinking the dialogue for the first chapter would make it a lot more believeable, and if you set down a solid foundation of Nott and Daphne earning his trust then having him listening to Nott's argument later on about helpful DEs would be more plausible.

As I said before, I liked the premise of Slytherins entering the DA as a window for Harry to break away from Dumbledore, but there were too many things left unexplained or not elaborated on enough for me to want to read beyond the first two chapters.

For example:

Okay, we all know Dumbledore's a manipulative bastard, but at the end of OotP he's just done a very good job of explaining to Harry why he hadn't given him the prophecy before and exactly why he should trust him. It's relatively safe to assume that at the time Harry bought his argument of 'cared about you too much to ruin your life further'. If you're gonna do the manipulation angle that's all cool, but if you followed Harry's thought processes to how he reached the conclusion that he's been manipulated it would have a better ring to it than a sweeping statement without back-up.

We know he's been manipulated because we've got the next two books to look at, but at this time Harry's got no indication that Dumbledore's going to do anything other than his absolute best to train him up ready for Voldemort after finally revealing the prophecy. So far the ultimate 'betrayal' tally for Dumbledore totals at not telling Harry the prophecy because he 'cared about him', and making the mistake of ignoring him all year. So...manipulative!Dumbledore = great, a lack of basis = not so great.