Fanfic/Coding theories/trusting DD..

[carolynwhite2]

Kelly: >>Just finished my set of posts.<<

CW: Here's some more: 40401-45000

Kelly:
>>In this past set, there was a thread discussing the merits of 
fanfiction, and whether it was a valid interpretation of the books 
and consistent with authorial intent or not. 
<snip>
Also, for a quick laugh, read the P.S. in post 38988.<<

CW: If 38988 was an example of the thread, there is an argument for 
coding to 1.3.1.3 What is canon? Amanda's posts are ones where I 
admit to giving the benefit of the doubt, especially for amusing PS's 
about vampires.

Kelly:
>>Also, Carolyn, I couldn't find a theory on the list; perhaps it 
should be added? "Reverse Memory Charm Jobberknoll Variant With 
Optional Snape and Moody". :) Hey, it was capitalized, so it 
counts,right?<<

CW: Right, as in you're next to take up Barry's morning coffee...


On the subject of other wild Cindy-theories, Talisman responds:

>>I don't think you have a sub-problem. 34752 is regurgitation of 
what Cindy wrote in 34690, the gist of which had already been 
reiterated in 34728. (Both of which I coded up as keepers, by the 
way.) It got the "adds nothing new" ax because it didn't. Except for 
the nifty name.

I suppose the introduction of a name is sufficient reason to keep it. 
Barely. Though I would have coded ONLY to the name myself, the rest 
of it being thrice repetative.
<snip>
I really only kept it because you had included the acronym in the 
list. So, does coming up with a name or acronym insure retention?<<

CW (keeping a wary eye out for concealed WMD):
Yes, for now, I think we should keep the posts which coin an acronym, 
as by definition that *is* something new (however crap). The reason I 
added the other codes is so that people who happened to be searching 
on categories other than the actual acronym would find it, eg Snape.

Talisman:
>>You are an agent provocateur, aren't you, Carolyn? Well, lets get 
the party started...<<

Carolyn hums innocently, fooling no one.

<snip>

JKR: Absolutely right, I find that all the time in the book, if you 
need to tell your readers something just put it in her. There are 
only two characters that you can put it convincingly into their 
dialogue. One is Hermione, the other is Dumbledore. In both cases you 
accept, it's plausible that they have, well Dumbledore knows pretty 
much everything anyway, but that Hermione has read it somewhere. So, 
she's handy.

Talisman:
>>The word "reliable" is conspicuously missing. This passage has to 
do with how much explaining must accompany information the author 
wants to introduce, not whether the conduit is mistaken or 
dissembling.

If you had some other quote in mind, steer me to it. Not that I'd 
necessarily believe it, considering the source (JKR).<<

Carolyn: 
Good quote. I found the word 'plausible' particularly interesting. My 
OED defines it as: '[of argument, statement] specious, seeming 
reasonable or probable; [of person] persuasive but deceptive'. A 
fairly accurate word picture of DD, IMO.

<snip>

Talisman:
>>And, I have to agree with Carolyn's "dancing on a pin" comment 
here. Not only is lying by ommission equivalent to lying by 
assertion, but Dumbledore does plenty of both, to Harry or otherwise.

Rules that can't be broken and truth that must be told? Regarding a 
series that demonstrates, book after book, not only the necessity, 
but the desirability, of breaking rules and telling lies? A bit too 
much irony for me.<<

Carolyn:
And before someone digs up the 'epitome of goodness' quote, I'll do 
it for them, in context for once:

J.K. Rowling Interview," CBCNewsWorld: Hot Type, July 13, 2000
JK: Well, you see, Harry is good. And I personally do not find Harry 
boring at all. I mean, he has his faults. Ron and Hermione are both 
very good characters but they're
 
JK: No, I'm not bored by goodness. I'm not bored by goodness.
E: Do you have more fun writing the evil characters? Because 
Voldemort [the sinister wizard who killed Harry's parents] is the 
quintessential evil character.
JK: Yeah, he's a bad one. Do I have more fun? I loved writing 
Dumbledore and Dumbledore is the epitome of goodness. But I loved 
writing Gilderoy and I loved writing Rita. Because I just find them 
comic characters.
E: So you don't have a favourite?
JK: No, actually, I don't think I do. I really enjoyed writing Dudley 
as well. Dudley's great fun to write.

The interview is about characterisation, about the writer's art. She 
enjoys depicting both goodies and baddies in her story, and in saying 
DD is an 'epitome' (OED: 'person who embodies a quality'), she is 
simply making a statement about his role in the story, as opposed to 
say, Voldemort's. What 'goodness' actually means in the Potterverse 
is still very much up for grabs, IMO.

Talisman:
Lovely people though they are, Rowling Obviously Lies Like An 
Inveterate Dumbledore (R.O.L.L.A.I.D.) and Dumbledore Obviously Lies 
Like A Rug (D.O.L.L.A.R.).

Carolyn:
Pleased to see T.A.L.I.S.M.A.N. in action (Torching All Listies In 
Savage Murder Attacks Nightly); and a founder member of D.U.S.T 
(Dumbledore Surveillance Team), as I recall.