Inaugural address and Mandy Croyance on Assumption

[Amanda]

No: HPFGUIDX 97677

First of all, let me introduce myself. 
I am a new member by the nom de plume of Mandy Croyance. I have been 
an avid Harry Potter fanatic for over a year now and my lunacy shows 
no sign of dissipating. I am a budding fanfiction author. However, 
do not look for any works by me yet as I am in the process of 
stringing together an epic worthy of the genre and it is nowhere 
near done. I fall into the category of `Mature Teenagers who might 
also enjoy the site', but I promise although this would be 
considered my juvenilia, nothing I have to say will be juvenile. So, 
without further ado: my first piece (which is not a proper essay by 
any standards and therefore does not deserve a proper title).


Why do we always believe what we are told? Could it be because Harry 
typically believes the word of those he `trusts' and as he is the 
protagonist we are inclined to identify with him? Not to mention 
that it is far easier to do so as that is subconscious than 
consciously search for evidence that proves otherwise. 

The truth is that the characters, like normal people, are not always 
correct. The too are subject to inherit bias and misinformation. 
Some simply lie. 

We know Hagrid was wrong when he says that there wasn't a bad wizard 
that didn't come from Slytherin. Peter was a Gryffindor. Therefore 
why do we still hold onto the belief that all Death Eaters were once 
Slytherin? Their behavior dramatically argues otherwise (Bellatrix 
LeStrange's unfailing loyalty for example). Why would Voldemort 
solely choose Slytherin anyhow? That would limit his options as 
different types of people think in different ways and thus would 
prove useful resources. Even if they were all Slytherins, how do we 
know our perception of Slytherins is correct? Never having spent any 
great degree of time in their presence, our characters only know the 
outward attitudes of a small portion of the members in their year.

Throughout the third book we are led to believe Sirius Black is a 
dangerous murder who is out to finish destroying the Potter family 
by killing Harry. Obviously this is nearly the opposite of true. 
However, not even Dumbledore really knows the full extent of the 
situation and Remus most certainly does not know at all. Similarly 
in the fourth book it is not true that Professor Moody is a rough, 
but good and helpful ex-Auror. At least not the Moody we were led to 
believe was Moody. In fact through his actions most readers came to 
like him very much before the revelation that he was Barty Crouch 
Jr.: Death Eater extraordinaire. What is to stop Rowling from doing 
other such things?

J.K. Rowling is a right connoisseur of the Red Herring. If we have 
learned anything it is that things are rarely as they seem. We must 
also realize that what characters think of situations and each other 
is also no necessarily true. 

I'm not suggesting that Voldemort is actually good and Dumbledore is 
evil or anything so radical, but how do we know all of our 
information is valid and from a viable source? How do we know Crabbe 
and Goyle are idiots? How do we know that OotP is the first place 
we've encountered Tonks? And perhaps Slytherin has been misquoted 
somewhere along the line. We can't say without a shadow of a doubt 
that such things have been proven or disproved. 

Out side of the box is where we need to roam. If Hagrid was wrong 
about `all dark wizards' then perhaps he was wrong about something 
else. Dumbledore's own judgment was called into question and 
generally proven faulty in the fifth book. We can no longer assume 
that because Harry Potter agrees with something we should nor can we 
afford to buy into an ideology just because it is supported by the 
protagonists. 

Who knows? Maybe we really are rooting for the wrong side.



Mandy Croyance

"Some say one must put things into perspective. I encourage taking 
things out of it." – Mandy Croyance (I love quoting myself)