Spy novel? maybe (was Lupin's secrets )

[carolynwhite2]

No: HPFGUIDX 118567


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "naamagatus" <naama_gat at h...> 
wrote:
> 
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Sharon" <azriona at j...> wrote:
> > 

Naama, previously:
>> But really - this is not a spy novel, a Le Carre type of story. 
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*.<<

Naama, in response to Azriona:
>>I think you'd lose (as I said in my last) a driving force in the 
plot and the readability (the page-turner quality), but not so much 
in meaning.<<

Carolyn:
I think you've said it yourself, Naama. Losing the narrative drive in 
the books would change them completely. The central mystery that lies 
at the heart of the series is far from being a `minor element', it is 
what gives a rationale to all the characters' actions. And how can 
you derive any `meaning' from a book where you don't actually want to 
turn the pages ?

You can have compelling tales that don't depend on plot, of course. 
The intense characterisation of novels by Henry James or Virginia 
Woolf are wonderful examples of books where events scarcely matter, 
but I hardly think that is what JKR is aspiring to.

Instead, she has spent years devising a complex, intensely-plotted 
series, where the long-term motivations of many of the characters are 
currently far from clear, and may remain so even after Book 7. 

And I think you do spy novels (particularly Le Carre's) a great 
disservice if you think they are just about plot. In many ways, the 
point of many of them is that key plot resolutions can depend on the 
actions and relationships between just one or two people in the end. 
Think Smiley bringing in Karla. Just like HP, in fact.

And we have been told quite clearly what it was like during VW1 – 
Sirius tells HRH in GOF `You don't know who his supporters are, you 
don't know who's working for him and who isn't; you know he can 
control people so that they do terrible things without being able to 
stop themselves...Terror everywhere..panic..confusion..that's how it 
used to be.'

Both Harry and the readers are given to understand that almost anyone 
could turn out to have done anything, whether they intended to or not.


Naama:
>>>JKR is simply not interested in the deep question of whether you 
can ever really know somebody else. She doesn't deal with it.<<<

Carolyn:
I would suggest that Dumbledore has made the study of Voldemort his 
life's work. Certainly the scene at the MoM suggests immense 
familiarity with Tom Riddle's thoughts, and an intimate understanding 
of how he is likely to act in any given situation. All of 
Dumbledore's actions throughout the series are driven by trying to 
second-guess Voldie and stay one jump ahead of him, to ensure Harry 
lives until he is ready for the final encounter.

If you don't want to call it puppetmaster!DD, fine. But you can't 
argue by now that he doesn't have a plan. And for the warm-hearted, 
it's probably best not to dwell too long on chilling comments such as:

`Well, Nicholas and I had a little chat and agreed it's all for the 
best' (ie `we thought it best that he died now')

`He did not wish to tell me
 and I – persuaded him – to tell me the 
full story' (ie, DD somehow forced Kreacher to talk)


Naama:
>>Further, if we're talking ESE!Lupin theory, that would make half of 
Harry's father's group of best friends traitors. Again, not 
compatible with the underlying feel of the books that people, 
generally, are trustworthy.<<<

>>>First, my argument is about the *general* trustworthiness of 
people in the Potterverse.<<<

>>>My argument is that JKR tends to develop her characters
on a trajectory of their basic personality, which she mostly makes 
known to the reader early on.<<<


Carolyn:
Why is it so important that the characterisation is trustworthy? Why 
shouldn't dear Harry get a nasty shock about one or two people? 
What's the problem with this? Happens all the time in RL. 

Maybe we are talking about the children/adult reader argument again? 
Mustn't alarm the kiddies, perhaps? Again, I say, why not?

>From an adult reader's perspective, apart from agreeing with Azriona 
and many others on this list that JKR sets out to mislead us very 
deliberately, I also think it adds vastly to the entertainment. I 
don't have any problem at all with being led up the garden path, or 
failing in trying to second guess her.

I think a more interesting question is whether the popularity of the 
books will survive long-term after the mystery is resolved. Here, it 
seems to me, there is a definite requirement for complexity, depth 
and unfinished business, to keep people arguing and interpreting for 
years to come. 

A simple, heroic boy's tale of growing up to win a fight against an 
evil baddie just won't cut the mustard, IMO.

Carolyn