Pet Theories (Re: No responses on the main list )

[Erin]

Phil wrote:
... it felt as if many posters each had their own pet mcguffin which 
they were determined to interject into the discussion regardless of 
whether there was any support for it in canon. <snip>  I think the 
main "miscreants" are those who have chosen their favourite 
character, or at any rate their *interpretation* of that character, 
and are prepared to defend their opinion to the death.


Now Erin says:
I don't know, Phil.  I've been with HPfGU a year(I don't post much), 
and I think that people willing to defend their theories is one of 
the things that makes the list great.  A lot of times this is the 
only way a new theory gets any attention; if someone is willing to 
stay with it and plug it at every opportunity until it gets some 
discussion.

I agree, though, that people should definitely be citing canon in 
their arguments, or at least include a link to an earlier post if 
their theory has one defining post where they've laid out all the 
canon.  I point to Pippin on the main list as someone who always does 
the thing correctly, no matter how many times she's done it before.

Done properly, people defending theories is the cornerstone of this 
list.  Without it, all we'd have would be a bunch of newbies sitting 
around going "Say, did you notice that gleam in Dumbledore's eye?  
What d'you suppose *that* means?"


Now Phil gives some examples: 
> Some people are desperate for a time-travel story, so they will try 
to work that into the HP series, disregarding all the warnings about 
it stated within canon. Suggesting that Dumbledore *must* be Ron 
Weasley sent back in time, despite all the back-story about DD in 
canon, and the absurdity of such a prominent figure springing up out 
of nowhere, is a prime example.


Erin: 
You must have been reading the wrong posts on this theory.  I don't 
believe it myself, but I could come up with a buttload of supporting 
canon evidence in a heartbeat.  And I'm not sure what you mean 
by "warnings about it stated in canon"  Perhaps you're talking about 
Hermione's "plenty of wizards have killed their past or future selves 
by mistake"?  Easily gotten around, as Ron going back 135 years or so 
wouldn't be likely to meet his past self, would he?  Or 
Dumbledore's "You know the law, Miss Granger, you know what is at 
stake"?  Well, the law doesn't seem to be "thou shalt not muck 
around," but rather "thou must not be seen to be mucking around".  
The trio has broken the law before (time turner, helping Sirius Black 
escape)  and there's nothing to say they wouldn't do it again if the 
need was great.  

All the backstory about DD?  You mean his awards and such?  Easily 
countered.  The only important thing is that the earliest bit of DD 
backstory is him passing his N.E.W.T.s.  As Ron hasn't yet reached 
N.E.W.T. age yet, he could easily nip back in time, claim to be a 
transfer student from another school, take his N.E.W.T.s, and live 
out the rest of his life as Dumbledore.

No, the Dumbledore=Ron theory is not your best bet for an example of 
this kind, I'm afraid.  Vampire!Snape is more what you're looking 
for :-)  Or HalfDementor!Snape.  Or the alchemy people, some of whom 
are truly scary.


Another example from Phil:
 there's no reason to jump up and down insisting that Lupin and 
Sirius *must* be lovers, for example. Maybe JKR will incorporate a 
character who is openly gay, maybe she won't. I don't happen to think 
it will make the books bad literature if she never does.


Erin:
You seem to be picking out not the theories that have no backup 
canon, but the ones that irritate you personally.  Dude, just skip 
over them.  

No, there's no reason to jump up and down (other than Lupin moving in 
with Sirius, the two of them giving Harry a joint gift, etc., etc.) 
but then there's no particular reason to espouse *any* Harry Potter 
theory, except that we like the books.  If it makes people happy and 
they have canon to back it up, leave 'em alone.


Phil again: 
> As for what I think about people who haven't learnt what "snippage" 
is and just quote entire posts because they're too lazy to edit, I'm
> afraid as a long-ago Usenet freak, my opinion is well-nigh
> unprintable. 


Erin:
On this we are in total agreement.



--Erin