Mark Evans

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 85126

Carol's message signature:
Carol, who is wondering why you don't want little Mark to be
important and how you can discount his age and name, which seem to
me to be obvious clues to his significance.

Astrofiammiante responded: 
> Carol, it's not that I don't want him to be important (which I
think 
> I already pointed out), just there seem to me to be so many huge
ifs 
> and buts involved in making him important.
> 
> How he could possibly be Harry's sixth cousin twice removed, how
the 
> Ministry of Magic could have overlooked a wizard birth in an area
as 
> significant as Little Whinging, how two squibs, which seem to be 
> quite rare creatures could have met and married.


Carol:
He doesn't need to be more distant than a second cousin to have
disappeared from MoM radar (which as we've seen with Mrs. Figg isn't
very accurate), and we don't need a marriage between two squibs, only
between a squib and a muggle who then have a muggle child who in turn
fathers a muggle-born wizard. (I say "fathers" because the wizard
blood appears to be in the Evans line.) I wouldn't be surprised if
Mark also has Lily's green eyes, as others on this list have
suggested, but that's only speculation. But the last name, his age,
and Rowling's habit of dropping bits of information into the story
line to be picked up later all strongly suggest that he'll be
important to the story. His (presumed) relationship to Harry also ties
in with Harry's mother as "muggle-born" and the idea (which can't be
accurate if she and her sister really *are* muggle-born) that Petunia
might be a squib. (I don't think she is. I place the squib at least
one generation back.) So figuring out who Mark is helps to fit other
pieces together.

Astrofiammiante: 
> These things can all be explained away. But when does the point
come 
> when you put so much effort into the process of explaining them
that 
> it is simply more logical to accept the alternative - that Mark
Evans 
> could be (gasp) a red herring, or even an accident?

Carol:
I admit that Rowling is capable of accidents, if you mean flints (the
order of the spells in the first edition of GoF being the most
obvious), but I don't think she would accidentally give a minor
character Harry's mother's last name. Names, as she's said in numerous
interviews, are important to her and she chooses them carefully. Why
give this boy any name at all if he's not going to turn up again? She
could have just had Dudley and gang beat up a little muggle boy, age
and name unspecified. And why mention him at all, since he isn't
really necessary to the plot at that point? To me it's like throwing
in a reference to Scabbers' missing toe--a seemingly unimportant
detail later reinforced by PP's mother receiving his finger in a box,
all leading up to Scabbers' real identity and his silver hand.

The Mark Evans reference is surely not an accident. A red herring,
maybe. But usually a red herring has a clear purpose, for example, to
make us think that Karkaroff or even Ludo Bagman might have put
Harry's name in the goblet of fire in GoF. I can't think of any
purpose that having Dudley beat up Mark would serve. How would it
mislead us, which is what a red herring does? What mystery (other than
Harry's family background) would it involve? Rowling wouldn't just
think, "I'll give this boy Lily's last name, put him in her sister's
neighborhood, and make him the right age to go to Hogwarts next year
just to make the readers think that he might be related to Harry."
Would she? It doesn't make sense.

Astrofiammiante: 
> I have no agenda - I just disagree with you. In a perfectly
friendly 
> manner, naturally. I ask you to accept that I think that it's 
> entirely possible that we may never hear about him again, and I 
> willingly accept that you confidently expect to meet him at the
next 
> Hogwarts sorting ceremony. 

Carol: 
What, me admit that I might be wrong? ;-) Yes. Of course. And I didn't
mean to seem hostile in asking my question. It just seemed as if you
were determined to resist what seemed to me obvious clues. The lady
doth protest too much. Sad, though, that we have to wait about three
years to find out which one of us is right.

Astrofiammiante: 
> One of my favourite ideas in the whole of Harry Potter fandom is 
> mightily unpopular on sections of this list - the Perseus Evans 
> anagram, a problem that presents all the same difficulties with 
> wizarding families producing offspring that are notionally muggle-
> born and also that are possible purebloods. I'm not asking you to 
> agree with me about that - you probably think it's a crazy idea.
> 
> But wouldn't life be boring if we all agreed with each other? 
> Imagine, if you will, a kind of Ministry of Magic-approved list of 
> what mad theories each of us can sign up to? No, let chaos reign.
> 
> With all good wishes to you and little Mark ;- ))
> 
> Astrofiammante

Carol:
Thanks for the good wishes. I thought Perseus Evans might have
something to do with your resistance to Mark. But there's nothing in
the canon about that, is there? Where did the idea originate? I know
it's a way of accounting for Snape's reaction to Lily in the Pensieve
scene, but it has (from what I've seen) an air of wishful thinking and
even fanfic about it. (I also want to account for Snape's reactions
and motives in general, and for Lily's origins, but I don't think we
need an anagram to do that.)

Carol