Conspiracy Theories

[Jim Ferer]

No: HPFGUIDX 96635

Kneasy: "Depends how you define conspiracy. In the strict meaning of
the word Voldy, Malfoy et al conspired to steal the Prophecy orb,
Harry and the DA conspired to thwart Umbridge. Perfectly reasonable
activities given the plot situation. And how else would you describe
them?"

I'm using "conspiracy theory" in a particular sense that has come into
general use: specifically, that mostly unseen forces control the world
and that most of what we see and believe is falsehood.  In our world,
that extends to such things as the Freemasons, the Trilateral
Commission, world government, the Men in Black, and black helicopters.
 "Conspiracy theory" doesn't extend to the DE's conspiracy, Harry and
the DA's conspiracy, or Fred and George's countless conspiracies.  We
all spend time trying to figure out what the DE's conspiracies are.

Kneasy:"We know that DD has a plan; quite what it is hasn't been
revealed. It's his hidden agenda. Something you apparently disapprove of."

A "hidden agenda" means that someone's goals are not the ones he or
she professes, or a purpose that's against the goals of the group – in
other words, a dishonest purpose. We know Dumbledore's goals –
preserve Harry and the wizarding word by defeating Voldemort.  The
fact Dumbledore keeps secrets is not the same thing as a hidden
agenda.  I believe Dumbledore's agenda is what it appears to me and I
realize he can't disclose all his means and methods, so I do approve
of it.

I don't see Voldemort winning.  I listed negative lessons young
readers might take from the books if the ESE! theories turned out,
especially ones like ESE!Dumbledore and ESE!Lupin.  I don't think
these theories will appear as "reality" in the books, so I actually
don't fear for the youngsters who read these stories.

Kneasy:"Until there was a deliberate leak nobody expected the death of
a major character in OoP. Harry's resultant distress is not the work
of conspiracy theorists on site; it's the plot."

But that's not a conspiracy theory, it's a surprise.  There's no
element of manipulation or treachery there.  And Bellatrix, goodness
knows, could be counted on for evil, madness and sadism at all times.
 She'd be betraying Voldemort if she turned good. Don't hold your breath.

Kneasy:"Because if you don't want your kids exposed to all the
`conspiracy' theories, remember, they're not in the books, they only
exist on this site and others like it.

Agreed, and I'm not /worried/ that my kids will be exposed to them,
because I don't think they will show up in the books.  I did a bad job
making that point, because it sounded like I fear kids will be
betrayed.  They won't be. I wouldn't want any kid to find out that
Dumbledore or Lupin or Sirius or any number of characters are really
Harry's enemies.

Kneasy: " And this site is meant to be for adults, not kids. The
remedy is in your hands as a parent. And speaking as a 60 year old
adult I do not take kindly to others with `correct opinions' telling
me what to think."

Nobody's trying to, Kneasy, I'm letting out my feelings about
important thematic elements in the stories.  Because we are all adults
here, I know everybody can take it and fight back hard and fair.
Because we are adults, we can challenge each other's thinking and the
very zeitgeist of the board.  It's kind of like Valhalla, where we
fight all day, come back to life, and hoist a few at night.

CAROLYN:
Carolyn:"Jim, however strong your feelings, you cannot impose limits
on what a list of 11500 adults is allowed to discuss. The great
strength of this group is its diversity and tolerance of opinions, and
the welcome it gives to any Harry Potter theories, provided they are
expressed within the Admin rules."

Agreed. There is no notion from me of limiting anything. See above.

Carolyn:I would be very curious to see your list of 'acceptable'
topics, given what you have indicated should be off-limits. However,
if you want to continue the discussion, I think probably this thread
should be taken to the OT (or maybe Feedback ?)list."

My list of acceptable topics is actually short: Anything in the HP
universe. The book universe, on this board.  We will be, and ought to
be, free to postulate any theory, whether I like it or not.  I did not
advocate censorship in word or thought.

I wish I had expressed myself as well as Steve, Geoff, and Neri did in
explaining better than I explained myself in some points.  I
particularly like Neri's point that "JKR has never taught us to like a
certain character and then told us he/she is evil and was just
pretending all along."  

JKR won't, either.

Jim Ferer