The Spying Game and the Shrieking Shack - shorter

[davewitley]

No: HPFGUIDX 39694

Pip wrote:
> 
> One question I've been asking myself is: 'what sort of war is the 
> Voldemort-Potter war?'
> 
> The answer is that it's an undercover sort of war. A terrorist war. 
A 
> modern war. 
> 
Now, I like this theory a lot, not because I necessarily agree with 
it, but because it provides a sort of litmus test for the vexed 
question of the sort of literature that HP is.

My understanding is that the books are about the struggle between 
good and evil, so that there is a fairly clearly identifiable good 
and an identifiable evil.

Characters who are in-between, like Fudge, are still judged in terms 
of the overarching framework, because 'evil flourishes when good men 
are silent' - to be in-between is to unwittingly aid evil.

However, the Dumbledore's Dirty War theory (as in effect this is) 
radically redraws the boundaries.  It is a lot less obvious why 
allegiance should be given to Dumbledore, either by Harry, or, in 
moral terms, by the reader.  I think that if it turns out to be true, 
it will lay to rest forever the claim that these are childrens' books.

Instead of being about the (IMO) essentially juvenile theme of 
choosing between good and evil, they will be about the adult (again 
IMO) theme of choosing the lesser of two evils, of making up your 
moral rules as you go along and never knowing if the outcomes justify 
your choices.

On to the detail.

> ***The Premises***:
> Snape is working to some extent undercover.
> Snape wants Harry, not himself, to take control of the events in 
The 
> Shrieking Shack.
> 
> Snape and Dumbledore know all about Pettigrew being the Secret 
Keeper.
> Snape and Dumbledore already know Peter Pettigrew is Scabbers.
> They intend to let Pettigrew escape. But after Harry has saved his 
> life.
> 
> Dumbledore has *no* idea whether Sirius Black is a  Voldemort 
> supporter or not. Snape is certain Black is guilty, hates him, and 
is 
> very suspicious of Lupin.
> 
> Snape's genuine concussion was a (nearly disastrous) accident.
> 
> Dumbledore cannot afford to have Black's innocence publicly 
declared.
> 
I see what Pip sees, but I can't help thinking that the master 
manipulator is not Dumbledore (aided by Snape) but JKR doing her best 
to make the 'face-value' story plausible - thus, e.g. Snape cuts off 
rat references because it ensures *JKR's* goals of having Pettigrew 
free, Sirius uncleared, Snape mysterious, and Harry being the actor 
whose decisions shape the story.  And, Snape and Dumbledore seem to 
know about Scabbers=Pettigrew because JKR knows and manipulates their 
actions towards the revelation.

Perhaps it's just my tendency to see oddities as FLINTy - or, to be 
precise, as slightly clumsy FLINT-avoidance -  rather than as cross-
book references.

David