Getting it wrong.

[Barry Arrowsmith]

No: HPFGUIDX 100089

Somebody's got to be wrong -  stands to reason.
But is it you, me or the others?
It's the others of course, bound to be.

You and me, we've got the HP saga sussed, right?
Of course we have. Maybe not the final showdown but the really 
important stuff - the motivations, the true characters, the whys and 
the wherefores.
We try to tell the others, but do they listen? Do they hell.
It's so sad that so many can be so misguided so often.

First up are those that might be called canon-fodder. They actually 
take the written word at face value! Can you credit it? Would you do 
that? No, didn't  think you would. The whole damn thing is predicated 
on people and situations not being what they seem, yet this happy band 
of posters blithely persist in believing that DD is  honest, 
trustworthy and quite possibly cuddly; that Snape hates Harry; that 
Voldy is just any old pantomime villain - a sort of Ming the Merciless 
of the WW, and that the Sorting Hat tells the truth. Oh dear. I fear 
that come the denouement counseling couches the length and breadth of 
the land will be block-booked by prostrate posters in search of 
succour.
Poor devils. But given time and care they may yet be returned to useful 
existences.

Then there are the theorisers.
"Ah," I hear you say, "don't we theorise?"
Yes, of course we do, but there's a big difference - we're right;  
they,  unfortunately, are wrong. Poor devils can't help it, they tried 
hard enough, but they concentrated on the wrong things, analysed the 
wrong events, drew the wrong conclusions. We'll be  magnanimous, 
'course we will; pat them on the back, "Well done, old thing. Nice try. 
Never mind, it doesn't really matter, and anyway you were nearly right, 
better luck next time."
But remember - above all, don't  gloat. It's not polite.

There's a sub-group of the Theorisers that we'll have to watch out for 
- the Guessers. They get hunches, leap  to conclusions based on 
absolutely no evidence and then rationalise their thinking afterwards. 
And sometimes their guesses are right. That can be a touch irritating, 
like a friend picking the winner of the 2.30 with a pin. Fortunately 
for all right-thinking analysers (you and me) they may well get the 
right answer, but for the wrong reasons. This more or less invalidates 
their credibility. Nobody likes a smart-arse.

Sorry about this but it's time to grit our teeth and dredge the depths 
of degradation. That noxious pit wherein dwells the ultimate nightmare. 
The surface seethes, a fetid mist roils beneath our feet, a hunched and 
deformed figure slides into view, garlanded with rose-coloured 
spectacles, dripping ichor foul with the stench of violets and 
clutching to its chest a Valentine - dear God, it's a SHIPper! Yes, I 
know, but be brave, stiff upper lip and all that. Courage Camille, this 
pain too must pass away.

I fear that  for this disease there is  no cure. They really deserve 
our sympathy even as we recoil from their poisoned emanations. All 
reasoning faculties gone they mostly converse by means of initials 
"R/H!" they cry, then slowly sink again into that hallucinogenic hell 
known as romance.  Addicts, all of them. Mainlining on an opiate that 
defies all treatment save one. Without their fix (speculation on 
putative pairings among the characters in the books) they become 
restive and eventually a mass compulsion causes them to rush like 
lemmings to swamp the board with pairings that will salve their fevered 
minds for a while. Eventually the board quietens; reason returns, but 
they will be back, they always come back.

Fortunately their predictions have little to do with the plot; they're 
a sort of optional bolt-on accessory mostly concerned with events after 
the curtain comes down on the main action. They claim that they want 
their favourite characters to live happily ever after, though some of 
the pairings suggested make me wonder if they aren't exercising a 
perverse sense of humour instead.

But no matter. We can safely leave them to their obsessions; it's 
highly unlikely that their match-making activities will result in 
predictions that could cause embarrassment to hardened analysts like 
us.

That  covers most of it, I think. What? Us? Whaddaya mean, "Us"? No, 
no, don't worry. We can't be wrong. It'll be the others - you'll see.

Kneasy