Spy novel? maybe (was Lupin's secrets )

[Sharon]

No: HPFGUIDX 118556


Naama:
What on earth would it add to the STORY to have 
> both Pettigrew and Lupin spies for Voldemort? Or both Snape and 
Lupin 
> spies for DD? It makes sense when that's the focus of the tale - 
> espionage, the shifting perception of reality, the inability to 
fully 
> trust anyone. Surely it is clear that that is not what HP is about? 
> These issues are minor, elements JKR uses to enhance the tension 
and 
> pace of the story - but they are not what the story is *about*. 

No, HP isn't a spy novel per se.  But what I *do* see it being about 
is faith, love, and loyalty.  Whether or not someone is a spy, 
loyalty to Dumbledore or to Voldy comes very much into play, and 
therefore is central to the overall story itself.

Is one of the five books specifically about spies and traitors?  Of 
course not.  But spies and traitors are very much a part of the 
overall story.  If you removed them, you've lot a great deal of the 
meaning.


Naama:
 There is no constantly underlying question of whether people (as a 
> general rule) can be trusted - as a general rule, people are what 
> they seem. 

I disagree.  We first saw Sirius Black as a traitorous friend, a 
murderer and someone who was out to kill Harry.  We learned later 
this wasn't true.

Our first impressions of Peter was that he was a loyal, brave (if 
weak) boy who desperately loved James and Lily enough to put himself 
in harm's way.  We know that wasn't true (strictly speaking).

We saw Fudge as a capable, confident Minister of Magic who trusted 
Dumbledore's decisions and respected Harry Potter.  We know that's 
not true.

Originally, Dumbledore was a kind old man who seemed to have Harry's 
best interests at heart.  And Lupin was just a poor professor who for 
some reason couldn't find a job.

Mad-Eye Moony taught DADA in Harry's fourth year!

And the kicker?  Tom Riddle was seen as one of the people who made 
Hogwarts *safer* fifty years previously by discovering the Heir of 
Slytherin!

Misconceptions of people abound in HP.  No, you can't trust a first 
impression of anyone, because the longer you give JKR, the more 
she'll show you why your first impression just wasn't true.

Naama:
The large 
> majority of the characters she creates are adequetly known - both 
to 
> the reader and to Harry. Since that's not a real issue for her, it 
> makes no sense for the resolution of this story to involve the 
> revelation of such deep deceit [this argument, by the way, is also 
> relevant for all puppet master!DD types of theories]. 

I don't agree.  I don't think we can take anyone in these books at 
face value.  JKR has proven time and time again that her story goes 
much deeper than just "Snape hates Harry."  Instead, it is "Snape 
hates Harry *because*..."  "Voldemort hates Muggles 
*because*..."  "Lupin can't find a job *because*..."

And in each instance, the because is often far more intersting than 
the fact which preceeds it.  

Are these characters adequately known?  Not by half!  We don't know:

1. Why Peter turned.
2. Why Petunia knows about Dementors and Azkaban.
3. What Dumbledore told Petunia, exactly, and how many letters he's 
sent her.
4. What the real meaning behind the Prophecies is.
5. What important Luna and Neville have.
6. Who the HPB is.

We're not even *close* to adequate yet.  At least, not for me.

--azriona