Catching Up - MAGIC DISHWASHER

[bluesqueak]

No: HPFGUIDX 45331

[Catching up after RL intervenes]:

Metathinking: 
Can I just join in with Grey Wolf and say that Metathinking is fine 
in and of itself? In fact, I remember doing quite a few posts 
comparing JKR's style to Agatha Christie's. :-)

What I object to is doing a long, heavily researched post 
considering a theory from the point of view of internal evidence, 
trying to argue it from the point of view that the Wizarding World 
is real and the characters within it have realistic motives [and I 
know which is the real world and which isn't; the real world is the 
one in which I just got my phone bill
], and then getting a reply 
that says [basically], `well, your theory can't be true because the 
books are called Harry Potter and
'.

Such a reply is arguing from a totally different level of theory, 
which the original post wasn't trying to address or consider. As 
Grey Wolf says' `it's not fair play'. 

I doubt Marina and I are ever going to agree about literary theory, 
because I suspect we're arguing from different theoretical 
backgrounds; me being essentially trained to produce a believable 
characterisation from a written text to an audience that probably 
mostly thinks `semiotics' is a brand of semolina [grin]. But this is 
part of the fun of this list – we all have different backgrounds and 
bring our own different interpretations.

But I accept that my interpretation of Marina's use of `literary 
text' was due to my not realising that she was using it in reply to 
a previous post. I do believe that a literary theory which refers to 
the internal evidence of the text is essentially superior to one 
that doesn't – but then, that's why I studied drama and history at 
college rather than English Lit [grin]. [Oh, and I *hate* Brecht
]

Melody: 
>Me still blushing:
>Really? My own room in the theory house? Why I don't know what to 
>say.

Sneeky the House Elf is getting your room ready – you don't have to 
use the DISHWASHER if you don't want; we welcome guests who prefer 
to wash their own conspiracy theory/spying/secret background 
planning dishes.

Richard Gulplum:
>Lupin was there and was doing a magnificent job of keeping things 
>under control until Snape arrives. Despite being one of the "old  
>crowd" andclearly quite powerful in his own right, was Lupin not  
>trustworthy enoughnot to manage to get things done according to   
>the Master Plan withoutSnape's involvement? What was Snape's 
>involvement *meant* to achieve, and what *did* it achieve which 
>could not have been achieved by Lupin alone?

Well, Lupin in the Shrieking Shack is also a werewolf who has 
forgotten to take his Wolfsbane potion on the night of a full moon – 
as Snape reminds him, in Chapter 19 of PoA. So, no, I don't really 
think that Dumbledore's Master Plan involved Harry becoming a plate 
of Wolfie Chunks, and yes, he might think Snape's involvement was 
necessary, even if he did believe totally in Lupin's trustworthiness 
when not in werewolf form.

 As to whether Lupin is trustworthy: Pippin might have a thing or to 
to say about that [and already did, back  in post # 39362].

Richard: 
>the main function of M.D.appears to be to give Snape a 
>more "honourable" function in the story to 
>date than canon would imply at first glance.

Oh, I never said Snape was *nice* [grin]. But way, way back in post 
#39265 I quoted the Sphinx's definition of `spy', which appears in 
the same book that we discover Snape was a spy:

        First think of the person who lives in disguise,
	Who deals in secrets and tells naught but lies. 
[ GoF Ch. 31 pp.546 to 547 UK Hardback].

Take that quote and run with it and you end up with an interesting 
interpretation of Current!Snape.

Snape is only the centre of post #39662, part 2 of the Magic 
Dishwasher/Spying game is post # 40044 which is primarily concerned 
with Voldemort.

Phyllis:  
>what troubles me is why Dumbledore would allow the third task to 
>proceed at *night* within a *20 foot high hedge*, where no one  
>could see what was going on inside and prevent horrible things from 
>happening. 
>Especially since Dumbledore was "reading the signs" regarding 
>Voldemort's attempts to regain power.

I think Dumbledore was fooled (and he* was* fooled, he did not plan 
the Graveyard Scene) by the `no apparition in and out of Hogwarts' 
rule. The maze was patrolled by Moody,(who he hadn't spotted as 
Crouch Jr,) Professor McGonagall, Professor Flitwick and Hagrid. The 
hazards within were known (he thought). With loyal wizards 
patrolling the entrances and exits, no one could get in the maze to 
harm Harry. A rejigged Portkey never occurred to him


DISHWASHER is not actually a `Dumbledore is omniscient' theory, 
or `Voldemort is omniscient', or anybody is omniscient  [except, of 
course, JKR - the REAL puppet master - but that is Metathinking par 
excellence]. 

It simply (ok, complicatedly) argues that there is evidence that 
both Voldemort and Dumbledore are making long term strategic plans, 
(including the famous Flawed Potion) and that the several references 
within the book to `spies' or `sources' mean that both sides are 
using a network of spies (e.g. Snape), informers (e.g. Pettigrew), 
and undercover agents (e.g. Quirrelmort and Moody/Crouch Jr.). 

Marina again:
>Once Dumbledore knew that Wormtail was alive, he knew there was, at
>the very least, a very high chance that Sirius was innocent. And MD,
>if I recall correctly, posits that Dumbledore knew about Wormtail by
>the time he sent Snape to the Shrieking Shack. Given what Sirius had
>suffered in the previous 13 years, the probability of his innocence
>was certainly high enough to merit consideration of his rights.

Dishwasher argues that Dumbledore was not certain of Black's 
innocence until the interview with him at Hogwarts. By which time, 
realistically, it was too late. Fudge was already on site; 
Dumbledore had seen Fudge drag Hagrid off to `protective custody' 
only last year (CoS), despite the flimsy evidence and Dumbledore's 
firm *insistence* that Hagrid was innocent. The evidence against 
Black is much stronger. Even if Pettigrew had been present, 
confessing all in front of Fudge, there is NO evidence Fudge would 
have believed it – look how Fudge treats Barty Crouch's reported 
evidence in GoF.

The Dishwasher argument is that a proved innocent Black is Harry's 
legal guardian (PoA), entitled to insist Harry is removed from the 
Dursley's abusive `care'. Unfortunately, Harry is `protected' at the 
Dursley's (GoF Ch.33, p. 570 UK hardback). You could argue that 
Sirius would be certain to make the right decision where Harry's 
safety is at stake, but what Dumbledore knows is the canon point 
(PoA Ch. 19) that Black has been entrusted with the safety of a 
Potter before, and he blew it


What Dumbledore does is to decide that Black's `right' to 
exoneration has to be put to one side; possibly permanently, in 
favour of Harry's right to life. However, he does act to protect 
Black's right to liberty and life (and, since Black stays out of 
Azkaban, his right to pursue happiness)by helping him escape, and 
later concealing his whereabouts (GoF).

If you go through the books you'll see that in the 'orchestrated by 
Dumbledore' events Harry has always chosen *himself* to risk his 
life. The one where he has no choice is the Graveyard...



And now I must get back to filling sandbags for the flood defenses, 
or Cindy will kill me...

Pip!Squeak