[HPforGrownups] Conspiracy Theories

[Janet Anderson]

No: HPFGUIDX 96821

Jim Ferer said:

>Therefore, good people are evil, evil people are misunderstood, and
>everyone has a hidden agenda.

I completely agree that there's an awful lot of that going around.  I also 
see very little evidence in canon that good people are evil (as opposed to 
evil people pretending to be good or, in one instance, pretending to be a 
specific good person) and even less that evil people are misunderstood.  (I 
don't even believe that nasty kids like Dudley and Malfoy are 
"misunderstood"; I think they're just plain nasty kids, however they got 
that way.)

>It's not a good way to look at the
>world, IMHO.

Once more I agree. But perhaps more to the point, and what I think you're 
getting at: based on my reading of the series, I don't believe it's the way 
JKR looks at the world either.

Yes, there are conspiracies -- good ones and bad ones. Dumbeldore's Army is 
a conspiracy, and so is the Order of the Phoenix.

But I also see a strong inclination on the list to espouse the following:

>The world is no damn good;
>
>Love, loyalty and friendship aren't real. Goodness isn't real. Only
>evil and selfishness are real;
>
>Don't believe in or trust anyone.
>
>IOW, Voldemort was right all along.

and I also do not believe this is what the books are about, and therefore do 
not believe any "conspiracy theory" which supports these views.  In my 
opinion, there is indeed a certain amount of "he looks really good, so he 
*must* be evil" which leads people to theorize about Dumbledore being a 
puppet master, Lupin killing Sirius, Ron betraying Harry to the Death Eaters 
(on purpose), etc.

It's perfectly true that in murder mysteries a person who looks stainlessly 
pure may well be the number one suspect. But a murder mystery doesn't have 
five books in which to develop characters and their relationships. JKR has 
used murder-mystery devices to great effect -- for example, Snape as the 
distraction from Quirrell and Scabbers hiding in plain sight.  But she's 
also developed the characters so that, in many cases, we know much more 
about them than Harry does.  And among other things, we see clearly that, 
among other things, you don't have to be perfect to be on the side of good 
-- but you *do* have to make, and stick with, the choice to *be* on that 
side.

Look at Peter Pettigrew and Snape. They are opposites: Pettigrew started out 
on the side of good, with a support network and a good life.  Snape started 
out at the bottom of the Hogwarts social structure, with no friends, and 
moved on to become a Death Eater.  But who chose to work for good, and who 
turned to evil? Who is brave, and who is a coward?  Who is loyal, and who 
betrayed all his friends and only stays with Voldemort because he has 
nowhere else to go? Who now has people who will stand beside him and support 
him (even if they don't especially like him), and who is despised even by 
the Death Eaters?

In short, I agree that JKR does not support,  in the books, the idea that 
all good must be somehow tainted, substandard, self-interested, or otherwise 
unreliable, and feel that although such theories are entertaining -- and why 
read this list if not for entertainment -- they aren't supported by canon.  
Of course, I also don't believe that Dumbledore and Ron are the same person 
or that Lily and Snape were secretly in love and Harry is their child, so 
what do I know?


Janet Anderson

_________________________________________________________________
>From must-see cities to the best beaches, plan a getaway with the Spring 
Travel Guide! http://special.msn.com/local/springtravel.armx