[HPforGrownups] PRESSURE COOKERs often develop cracks

[GulPlum]

No: HPFGUIDX 45418

At 02:21 16/10/02 +0000, Melody wrote:

>I guess my big problem with a basic, childlike read of this series is
>that JKR loves, craves, *thrives* on the thrill of throwing her
>readers off track.

Hey, I thought we weren't using metathinking in this thread. However, if 
you want to go down that road... :-)

There's a huge difference between a surface reading and a naive (or 
childlike) reading. A surface reading does not imply lack of complexity; it 
does, however, recognise that any rigorously internal reading of a text 
implies that the clues to its understanding are there, but just need to be 
found. All one needs is the key to find and understand them. Hence for 
example, the knowledge that Scabbers is not just a rat gives a new reading 
to all of his scenes. Some things, however, must be as they appear as 
otherwise the author is simply cheating. The difficulty lies in knowing the 
difference.

To take a non-Potter example of another literary work which has an 
officially-designated Canon: the Bible. It is possible to interpret it in 
hundreds of different ways (indeed, differences of interpretation have 
caused a great deal of bloodshed and even wars, and peripherally, some of 
those interpretations undermine the authority which decreed Canon in the 
first place), and some will insist that the key to its *true* 
interpretation is faith. Faith can be neither proved or disproved by the 
text itself, although it can be generated or strengthened by it. However, I 
would suggest that the proverbial bushman who is exposed to the text 
without the tradition which surrounds it would not necessarily develop 
faith from the text alone - he is more likely to consider it at best a 
morality play rather than the Word of God. Many fantasy/sci-fi worlds have 
posited the possibility of an otherwise innocuous text being given 
religious significance which it did not have, when it is taken out of 
context (e.g. several Star Trek episodes and Mad Max III immediately spring 
to my mind).

In a way, it's a circular argument: It is the Word of God, because I 
believe what it says. But at the same time, I believe what it says because 
it is the Word of God. Where do premise and conclusion begin and end?

MAGIC DISHWASHER is such an act of faith. If one chooses to be persuaded by 
it, examples in the text can be found to support it; one item of faith 
which is a key element of the M.D. theory is that that there is even more 
to Snape's depth than the text to date implies or indicates.

Nobody in the PRESSURE COOKER camp is refuting that Snape has motivations 
which have not yet been revealed to us. To do otherwise would be absurd. 
Some of those depths have been hinted at and theories abound as to what 
they might be, and how Snape got to the situation he's in. As soon as JKR 
presents us with the prism through which to view Snape - the key to his 
personality - some of those theories will be proved to be true, some will 
not, and some will be left unproved either way.

A few days ago, someone asked whether MAGIC DISHWASHER could ever be 
*disproved*. I'm absolutely certain that, regardless of the outcome of the 
series - assuming MAGIC DISHWASHER is not proved to be *true* - some people 
will insist that it remains a possible reading of the text, a possible key 
to its understanding, because the ultimate vision of Snape would not 
coincide with that presented by the M.D. folk.

PRESSURE COOKER does not attempt to be an all-encompassing theory; all it 
does is to propose an alternative reading of one of the many sequences 
which M.D. puts forward as an example of its "truth". M.D.'s conclusions 
(or rather, primary assumptions) are necessarily extrinsic to the text we 
have to date; P.C. deliberately refuses to acknowledge extrinsic 
information but does take into account the complexity inherent in the 
*complete* text to date. In particular, as I've said before, whilst M.D. 
assumes more honourable *motives* on Snape's part than the text implies and 
then applies those motives to all of Snape's appearances to date, P.C. 
assumes that the primary key to his motives is what we learn about his past 
in GoF.

Of course, the main difference between reading and understanding Potter 
canon and Biblical Canon is that the Potter canon is not yet complete, and 
its Author is available (though not very easily at present) :-) to clear up 
misunderstandings and differences of interpretation.

Moldy further said:
>It would be foolish for Dumbledore to just sit and relax waiting for
>Voldemort to resurface and then work against him...again.  That is
>what PRESSURE COOKER seems to imply to me.  Dumbledore is just
>waiting.  Busying his time.  Hey, let's plan a TriWiz tournament.  Get
>to see Madame Maxime and Karkaroff and prove I am the superior wizard
>again.  Sure, Dumbledore may not want Voldemort to come back ever
>again, but that does not remove the reality that Voldemort is
>completely capable of doing just that.  It would be foolish for
>Dumbledore not to have a game plan.

Indeed. It is quite clear that Dumbledore *does* have a game plan which has 
yet to be revealed to us, and it is clear that Snape is part of that plan. 
What is not yet clear is whether or not Harry is at present an important 
part of that plan, or whether, despite Dumbledore's evident fondness for 
Harry and his recognition of Harry's special place in the Wizarding World, 
Dumbledore considers his first and most important responsibility towards 
him to be as his Headmaster, to provide him with an education. I'm aware of 
what the M.D. acronym stands for and that one  of its primary conclusions 
(or assumptions) is that Harry IS important to Dumbledore's plan, but 
Dumbledore's attitude towards him at present does not NECESSARILY require 
his interest to go beyond supplying Harry's education, which is admittedly 
just a little special considering Harry's rather unique position.

At the end of GoF, Dumbledore sets his strategy into play: Snape is sent 
off on a mission (or to prepare for a mission); Hagrid is primed for a 
mission which involves Madame Maxine if she agrees to; the "old crowd" is 
recalled. It is also clear that Dumbledore would have preferred to include 
Fudge and the Ministry in his plan but accepts the possibility that he will 
have work around Fudge's intransigence. At no stage does Dumbledore propose 
that Harry has a place in this plan; on the contrary, Harry is pointedly 
sent off outside the Wizard World to enjoy his holidays and is even refused 
a peripheral view of the action at the Weasleys.

M.D, would have it that Harry's place in the action would be unknowing, at 
least at this stage. However, the stakes have been raised: at least two 
unknowing participants in the Voldemort-Dumbledore battle have already paid 
with their lives: Bertha and Cedric. Furthermore, Dumbledore has already 
underlined on several occasions that knowledge is power, that we should 
confront our fears. Unless, of course, we're not ready to, which is another 
lesson he's taught Harry ("you will know when you are ready" is his 
enigmatic reply to Harry's question about why Voldemort went after him as a 
baby).

By this stage, Harry knows the stakes, but Dumbledore clearly does not 
think he is ready to be an active participant and so deliberately puts him 
out of harm's way (even Voldemort has admitted he can't touch Harry when 
he's at the Dursleys'). Meta-textually, we know, because of the structure 
of the books to date (and indeed by the fact that they *are* books!), that 
Harry will become involved in the battle. But the big question is: will the 
extent of his involvement be deliberate on Dumbledore's part, or not? I am 
happy to say that I don't know. I'm also happy for the M.D. folk that they 
believe it will.

To end this post in the same tone as I began, I am delighted for them that 
they have faith. I would like to share it, but as with religious faith, no 
amount of quoted scripture will give me faith unless I am willing to accept 
their basic premise/conclusion circular argument. At present, I do not.

--
GulPlum AKA Richard, who wonders if he's over-doing the religious parallels 
just a little... :-)