Trust (was Re: The names in the Goblet/Re: Conspiracy Theories)

[Barry Arrowsmith]

No: HPFGUIDX 96852

I've culled these clips from recent posts because they seem to be 
differing aspects of the same theme, namely: Who can you trust to tell 
you the truth?


 >>
  Kneasy:
  *Gasp* Trust Dumbledore? You must be joking!
 >>

 >
caesian: (snipped)
  Does that undermine the argument of your post? Trustable but secretive 
Dumbledore?
  *Gasp* (- I'm sorry, I couldn't resist but I do know you have a sense 
of humor.) That's certainly possible.
 >

Kneasy:
I may sort of trust what he does (obviously with the best of intentions 
- and we all know what road is paved with good intentions), but I don't 
automatically trust what he says. Like all good  war leaders he works 
"on a need to know" basis. Whether the need to know is for Harry and 
internal to the plot or external and aimed at the reader is a very good 
question indeed.

 >
Jen: (snipped)
I don't know if this is the exact interview you were thinking of Neri, 
but this is from the COS DVD transcript with Steve Kloves & JKR:

  Q: Hermione is a character that you have said is one of your 
favorites. Has that made her easier to write?

  JKR: Absolutely right, I find that all the time in the book, if you 
need to tell your readers something just put it in her. There are only 
two characters that you can put it convincingly into their dialogue. 
One is Hermione, the other is Dumbledore. In both cases you accept, 
it's plausible that they have, well Dumbledore knows
  pretty much everything anyway, but that Hermione has read it 
somewhere. So, she's handy.

  Jen again: So, it doesn't exactly say that Hermione & Dumbledore tell 
the *truth* all the time, but I infer from JKR's comment about
  Dumbledore that he comes the closest to telling us JKR's view of the 
WW.

  Personally, I think Hermione & Dumbledore tell the truth *as they see 
it* which leaves the possibility open for them to be wrong at times.
 >



Kneasy:
Even  though we sometimes act otherwise neither DD nor Hermione have 
any choice in what they say. They're JKR's mouthpieces. Vast numbers of 
words have been expended on why this character did/didn't do this or 
that and great fun it is too.
Theories abound, nits are picked and with glad cries we leap into the 
fray with contrary opinions. Yippee! The cut and thrust of  quotes, the 
grapeshot of canon, the smoke drifting across the battlefield as 
another hypothesis goes down in flames. Lovely! Sound and fury and 
signifying nothing.

It might be more accurate to say that Hermione and DD tell the truth as 
JKR wants us to see it, which leaves the possibility open for us to be 
wrong at times.

 >
  Neri: (snipped)
  (I guess Kneasy's response would be:
  "*Gasp* Trust JKR? You must be joking!")
 >

Kneasy:
Exactly. But trust JKR to do what?

There are many LotR fans on site and quite often comparisons are made 
between that and  HP, either in characterisation or plotline. 
Personally I think HP is better; in the former we are given so much 
backstory that the main thrust of the tale is "Will they do it?" - we 
know the 'how' and the 'why' from very early on. In HP this is not the 
case, the hows and the whys are grudgingly doled out one meagre morsel 
at a time, suddenly giving us new perspectives on events that we had 
thought were cut and dried. And still the 'will they' is up for grabs; 
most expect and hope that evil will be defeated, but by whom? And will 
they survive the encounter?

We learn things at the same time that Harry does, we see events through 
Harry's eyes and that, IMO is extremely significant when the concept of 
trust raises it's wry visage. Who does Harry trust and why? And is  he 
mistaken, misled, confused and fully appraised of all relevant details? 
Nope. Or maybe Yes. Or maybe maybe. This is deliberate on JKR's part, 
others may disagree but I think that any involved reader is meant to be 
not just sympathetic to  the hero but to be as confused as Harry is. Of 
course we have the opportunity to  stop and think, to  put the book  
down and wonder "What the hell does that mean?" and by doing so we 
multiply the confusion a hundredfold with our theories, analyses and 
interpretations. Splendid! We are playing the game.

In past interviews JKR has  often talked of the enjoyment she gets from 
inserting clues and red herrings into the plot. Clues are one thing;  
red herrings tells us something else entirely - a wish to deliberately 
mislead the reader and perhaps Harry too. Good oh! This is meat and 
drink to those brought up on a diet of classic who-dunnits. Strangely, 
despite JKR's words there are those that consider the canon to be fixed 
and immutable in the sense that an idea or concept, once thought or 
spoken in text becomes a rigid, inflexible condition of the 
Potterverse. Hence the recent bun-fight over 'Unforgivables'. Other  
examples may occur to you.

Not that I think that JKR will cheat. Oh, no; but  to misdirect, 
bamboozle and get us to fool ourselves is not what I would consider 
cheating. No matter what the final outcome, when we look back the clues 
and pointers will have been there. The fact that we passed them by is a 
tribute to our own gullibility as much as to JKR's skill.


 >
Geoff: (snipped)
  The point I am reiterating in this ramble is that, as I have said 
previously, I wonder whether Jo Rowling has her story planned to the 
level of intricacy that we seem to believe. Whether every second word 
needs to be analysed? Why was the passive tense used there? Why a
  conditional clause here? With all the combined thinking power we can 
field, it is possible that we are putting in more nuances and 
subtleties than JKR has in fact considered. She has a set plan in her 
mind and has presumably constructed the plot to lead us to that point; 
she may not have thought of some of the variant interpretations which 
we, in our little corner of the hothouse behind the cacti, have managed 
to produce to satisfy our take of the story.
 >

Kneasy:
It's a bit late now, Geoff! 90,000 posts, a large proportion of which 
seemingly *want* just that level of intricacy, subtlety and nuance. 
Mind you, this does worry me in a way; just a bit. Can any  author live 
up to the massed expectations of the fervid and fertile fantasies of 
fandom? It seems incredible to believe so, but the fact that apparently 
no-one has untied the central knot of the plot is a cause for optimism.

The defining attraction (to me, you speak for yourselves) of HP is that 
it is unfinished. Yes, it is a good book, but there are a lot of good  
books and this is the only one available where the  author is tempting 
us, almost taunting us to guess the ending. I can, with supreme 
confidence and unfettered ignorance, graft my wishes onto the existing 
stock. Right this minute any fan can write their own resolution. 
They'll be wrong, but who cares?

We  can determine the fate of any character, decide if they are good or 
nasty, devise reward or punishment as appropriate. (Will Draco become 
Bella's toyboy? Why not? It is a good death.) Endless opportunities to  
stretch our imaginations to encompass almost anything. At this moment 
every fan owns the final chapter of HP, or rather of *an* HP. You can 
consider it to be fan-fiction before the fact, but my word! it's 
compulsive.

Others don't see it that way. They get a bit concerned that weirdos can 
imagine Trevor turned inside out and used as a body-rub or that deluges 
of gore will flood the playing fields, poison the squid and turn the 
Merpeople into instant vampires.  Do I really think it will happen? No, 
but what finale on film that would make!

The more cynical would consider it as a reversion back to childhood, a 
game of 'let's pretend' and perhaps they'd be right. But serious it 
isn't.

Trust me.

Kneasy




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]