Conspiracies and re-assessments

[Jen Reese]

No: HPFGUIDX 111705

 Kneasy (snipped)
> 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.


Jen: Aren't we all guilty of having at least one opinion about the 
characters or plot that no one can convince us of otherwise? It 
wouldn't be very enjoyable to constantly see-saw back and forth over 
every little detail or characterization, to the point you can't 
determine what the story is about. Kneasy, you obviously firmly 
believe, as said in your essay, that these books are a mystery at 
heart, full of betrayl and conspiracy. I don't view that idea as the 
primary theme of the book, even though it's certainly a writing tool 
that JKR employs with good results. Me, I tend more toward the 
Hero's journey view of things, with lots of twists and turns to keep 
the reader involved and surprised. 

I can still consider other interpretations and even modify my own 
somewhat, without giving up one of my steadfast beliefs. For 
instance, I reject Guilty!Dumbledore or Puppetmaster!Dumbledore, but 
reading posts about DD's motives has forced me to think about his 
true role in the story, see his failings & manipulations. Same with 
Sirius. OTOH, I had little interest in Snape prior to joining this 
group. Even though I'm still not fascinated by the character, I've 
developed an interest in Snape as a pivotal character to the series 
rather than just Tormentor!Snape (I just noticed 'tormentor' has the 
base word of 'mentor'--that fits how I see Snape now, as a terrible 
mentor but a mentor nonetheless <g>).

> Snow:
> I really hate to agree with you when you obviously are willing, 
> wanting and waiting for a very good disagreeing rival to ruffle 
your 
> feathers. I am anything but a worthy opponent especially when I 
agree 
> with you that some posters refuse to bend to a theory or proposal 
> that their character could possibly be someone different than what 
> they have convinced themselves they definitely are. It's not as 
much 
> a "lack of intellectual curiosity" but a refusal to accept an 
> inevitability that could be JKR's, not mine. If you become so 
> transfixed to an ideal that you are not willing to see another 
> possibility, you are cheating yourself out of the enjoyment of the 
> amazing puzzlement of the whole scope. 

Jen: The downside of feeling so attached to a story is the outcome 
may be other than you hoped for. That's just the risk you take, like 
with any other relationship. I can't avoid attachment to characters 
and theories without losing some of the enjoyment of the story as 
*I* read it. But at the exact same time I can still prepare for the 
worst, so to speak, something that seems unimaginable to me know but 
could still happen.  I never considered Sirius would die in Book 5 
until Bam! it was all over. Now I don't really believe we'll see 
Guilty!Dumbledore or ESE!Lupin.....


> Kneasy (again snipped)
> 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. 

> Snow:
> This pre-destined Harry is just a part of a pre-destined overall 
> plan. Everyone had a choice but Dumbledore was ready and prepared 
for 
> the inevitable choice they made.
> Just take a look at the wands created for not only Tom 
> Riddle/Voldemort but also the eventuality of Harry. The wand 
chooses 
> the wizard, how clever of Dumbledore!  The wizard does not in this 
> case have a choice does he, but I think Dumbledore does. Too 
curious 
> indeed that Harry's wand chose to choose him after the many that 
he 
> had tried unsuccessfully. Not really that curious since the 
prophecy 
> pre-empted the decision of who should be destined for that wand. 

Jen: Dumbledore didn't exactly get a choice about hearing the 
prophecy though, did he? Things were set in motion at that point, 
but it doesn't appear Dumbeldore in any way predicted the prophecy 
or what that would mean for the WW and Harry. To me, there are so 
many times DD *didn't* have control of the situation: someone 
overhearing the prophecy, the Potters choosing Sirius as Secret 
Keeper, Sirius switching with Peter, the Diary in COS, the Dementors 
at Privet Drive, Umbridge and Fudge taking over Hogwarts.....

Personally, I don't think the prophecy is predestination. Harry 
still has a choice. Harry chose to fight Voldemort long before he 
heard about the Prophecy, way back in Book 1 when he assessed the 
ramifications of Voldemort returning for himself and chose to go 
after him: "Don't you understand? If Snape gets hold of the Stone, 
Voldemort's coming back! Haven't you heard what it's like when he 
was trying to take over? There won't be any Hogwarts to get expelled 
from...Do you think he'll leave you and your families alone if 
Gryffindor wins the house cup?" (SS, chap. 16, p. 270). Dumbledore 
definitely helped him along the way, gave him a wide berth with the 
rules, but Harry decided that night what he wanted to do.

Jen Reese