"I wind up thinking that's the answer to their whole storyline, that the author!god just twinkled and said, "Oh, I don't think their soul is so damaged--it amuses me to let them live."
Or as someone else said, they're not quite evil enough to kill. It has to go back to the Slytherin issue. JKR was bound & determined to make sure we know Slytherins are inferior in every way. They're "cunning", yet apparently not even very good at escaping a bad situation. I kept expecting the Malfoys & Death Eaters to revolt & take down Voldemort themselves. After all, he attacks his followers almost as much as his enemies. Why are they still there? It was border-line unrealistic. The Malfoys & Snape seemed like the ultimate survivors, yet in DH they all seemed to lapse into this confused passivity. It's like JKR realized that people admired their survivor skills & decided to take that away too - just to make sure there's nothing to really admire about a Slytherin ever. The Slytherin-bashing at the end was just petty IMO - Ron's still making fun of them 20 years later, and look, Draco's got a receding hairline! Take that, fangirls. It's all about building up Harry by pointing out how superior he is to his rivals/enemies.
Personally, I like survivors. It takes toughness, skill, bravery & resourcefulness to survive, and especially to live after a huge war like the one in DH. The Malfoys were struggling to live & save each other, in contrast to Harry, who just obediently trotted off to death. But the thing is, JKR seems to value martyrdom & glorious death more than just, you know, living. And that's reflected in the portrayal of the Malfoys. So why didn't the Malfoys develop? I think it's a combination of 1. Slytherins are in essence bad, can't show too much change, 2. Heroic death and self-sacrifice is more noble & admirable than being a survivor & 3. Girls, don't go for the bad boys!
no subject
Or as someone else said, they're not quite evil enough to kill. It has to go back to the Slytherin issue. JKR was bound & determined to make sure we know Slytherins are inferior in every way. They're "cunning", yet apparently not even very good at escaping a bad situation. I kept expecting the Malfoys & Death Eaters to revolt & take down Voldemort themselves. After all, he attacks his followers almost as much as his enemies. Why are they still there? It was border-line unrealistic. The Malfoys & Snape seemed like the ultimate survivors, yet in DH they all seemed to lapse into this confused passivity. It's like JKR realized that people admired their survivor skills & decided to take that away too - just to make sure there's nothing to really admire about a Slytherin ever. The Slytherin-bashing at the end was just petty IMO - Ron's still making fun of them 20 years later, and look, Draco's got a receding hairline! Take that, fangirls. It's all about building up Harry by pointing out how superior he is to his rivals/enemies.
Personally, I like survivors. It takes toughness, skill, bravery & resourcefulness to survive, and especially to live after a huge war like the one in DH. The Malfoys were struggling to live & save each other, in contrast to Harry, who just obediently trotted off to death. But the thing is, JKR seems to value martyrdom & glorious death more than just, you know, living. And that's reflected in the portrayal of the Malfoys. So why didn't the Malfoys develop? I think it's a combination of 1. Slytherins are in essence bad, can't show too much change, 2. Heroic death and self-sacrifice is more noble & admirable than being a survivor & 3. Girls, don't go for the bad boys!