Conspiracies and re-assessments

[Barry Arrowsmith]

No: HPFGUIDX 111642


Regular readers of this board will be familiar with my take on the HP  
saga - that it's more a mystery tale in form and structure than  
anything else. That we are constantly being challenged with ambiguous  
characters performing ambiguous actions, usually in situations where we  
have limited or incomplete information. And that we should see it as  
our bounden duty to resolve the apparent inconsistencies and to present  
a neat and tidy explanation to what the hell is going on.

Naturally, our ideas and theories change as more information becomes  
available; this may be from each new volume as it's published or the  
words of JKR herself in interview or from her website. Best of all, a  
fresh slant on an old problem may be provided by another member  
thinking outside the box.

There are various factions who don't necessarily agree with this  
viewpoint, of course. Some see HP as a 'rites of passage' type story  
pure and simple - all  is subordinate to the inevitable apotheosis of a  
maltreated Harry; that all/most of the other characters are merely  
subsidiary devices/obstacles on the arduous road to his ineluctable  
triumph. Not I.

IMO the other characters and their shenanigins are much more  
interesting than Harry. The conflict is the thing; the conflict that  
started well before Harry was born, the conflict that took, among  
others, his parents; the conflict being waged between two small  
committed groups to determine the future of uncounted others. Given the  
circumstances and personae the conflict is limited in scope; there are  
no great armies assaulting strongholds, no set-piece battles. It's a  
low-intensity war, a war fought in the shadows,  and as in all wars of  
this type conspiracy and betrayal are key stratagems.

And make no mistake, conspiracy and betrayal is at the heart of HP;  
it's what makes it tick; it's the skeleton that is fleshed out with all  
the other bits and pieces. Godric's Hollow; Snape leaving Voldy; the  
plan to acquire the Stone; Tom's diary; the escape of Sirius (though  
some have doubts about that one); Crouch!Moody; the dismissal of DD  
(twice); the silence of the Ministry re: Voldy's return; Dear Dolly's  
attempts to nail Harry;  the Dementor attack in Little Whinging - all,  
and more, at one level or another can be classed as the result of  
conspiracy and/or betrayal.

I quite often get castigated for thinking along these lines - "Not  
everything is a conspiracy" True, but I  tend to specifically target  
those bits that *could* be explained by such thinking. "Sometimes a  
cigar is only a cigar." (The latter are fine words from someone who  
built a career on seeing what he wanted to see and ignoring  
inconvenient facts.) These days I rarely bother responding to posts  
containing this phrase; usually (though admittedly not always) it's an  
indication that the poster has been challenged with an idea that  
they're not comfortable with but is unable find contrary canon with  
which to counter it.

An unwillingness to even consider the merits of a theory that has an  
arguable canonical base (even though it may eventually turn out to be  
wrong) shows a deplorable lack of intellectual curiosity IMO. What's  
the point of entering a discussion with pre-formed,  
never-to-be-modified-under-any-circumstances-I-don't-care-what-can-be- 
derived-from-canon conclusions clutched firmly to the bosom?

Posters propose theories and they  expect them to be dissected,  
challenged, rejected or modified. Dismissal with nothing but a trite  
phrase is not an honest option; it's a flaunting of personal prejudices  
in an attempt to by-pass discussion - and discussion is what this site  
is supposed to be about.

Consider - how often in HP have things been just what they seem to be?  
Always? Sometimes? Never? How often has someone/something been revealed  
as other than what we were first led to believe? Quirrell, Scabbers,  
Sirius, Lupin, Crouch!Moody, James - all have been presented as flying  
false colours or as having unexpected and/or unpleasant aspects. Add  
those whose actions can reasonably be construed as suspicious (Bagman,  
Fudge) and those whose actions do not comply with behaviour expected  
from information provided in canon (Dobby for example - why would he  
involve himself with Harry? House Elves are solely concerned with their  
families unless specifically ordered to do otherwise) and one can be  
forgiven for believing that we've entered one of those Halls of Mirrors  
you find in fairgrounds.

And not only are these reassessments applicable within a single volume,  
they can also happen more gradually over the longer term. Recurring  
characters are open to new evaluations too; do you see Harry now in the  
same way that you saw him in PS/SS? Or Snape? Or DD? I don't think so.  
They've become more complex, less black and white, more equivocal.

Harry is no longer the put-upon kid who gets the break he deserves;  
he's now a not very nice teenager who shares interesting parallels with  
the arch-villain. Not only that, he has undergone some sort of mental  
transfer from him too. First intimated in book 2, in book 5 this became  
the central plot device and I doubt that it'll stop there; Harry/Tom  
Riddle/Voldy are much more closely linked and share more similarities  
than the "Harry can do no wrong" fan club will feel comfortable with.

Snape started as the stereotypical boo!hiss chip-on-his-shoulder nasty  
teacher that can be found in every school story going back to when  
Socrates was a lad. But he's no longer a cardboard cut-out. It's pretty  
obvious that  he has a very interesting and plot sensitive past and an  
as yet  unknown but probably key future role. To even consider him as  
no more than a vindictive Harry-hating sadist stretches credulity -  as  
well as the definition of sadist.

And DD - he first appears  as the saviour/mentor/guardian figure to the  
putative hero. A nice, comfortable, traditional role. Slowly over the   
books this has been modified. He has much more important things on his  
plate than Harry. He has a society to save, a war to fight - and Harry  
has a pre-destined part to play in the outcome. And that's something DD  
has known for as long as Harry has been alive. So, is his interest in  
Harry altruistic, or is Harry a means to an end? DD's motivations are  
nicely complex -  and to a certain extent conflicting. Given the   
choice which will turn out to be more important, Harry or the entire  
WW? That is, assuming DD is around to make the choice; my bet is that  
he won't be, that someone else will have to choose.

Conspiracy  and betrayal; people or things not being as anticipated.  
Nice, knotty problems. Who to trust, why did he do that, what will  
he/she do under those circumstances, who is hiding what and why?
Expect the unexpected. That's  what HP is all about.

Kneasy