Spy novel? maybe (was Lupin's secrets )

[naamagatus]

No: HPFGUIDX 118575


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" <carolynwhite2 at a...> wrote:
> 
> 
> 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 ?

But I'm not talking about the central mystery. I am talking about the minor mysteries - the 
more whodunnit type of mysteries that form the nexus of each book. Obviously, if we didn't 
have these local mysteries, each individual book would be much less interesting - but they 
have little to do with the central mystery of the relationship between Voldemort and Harry. 
And this mystery is not at all of the whodunnit type. It goes deeper, and is more closely 
related to theme (love? power of good? power of evil? etc.) than to plot. At least, that's 
my understanding of the series' structure.

<snip> 
> 
> 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.

On the contrary, I didn't mean that spy novels are only about plot. I think the spy novel 
genre (like any genre) can be used to explore various themes and deeper questions. *Such as* 
the opaqueness of one human being to another; the question of whether it is possible to know 
a person truly, whether there even *is* such a thing a stable self (i.e., a set of stable 
personality traits). 

In saying that JKR isn't writing a spy novel, I'm not belittling the genre. Just that, if 
she isn't, then it doesn't make sense, *thematically*, for her to dwell so much on such 
issues - as required for ESE!Lupin, PuppetMaster!DD theories.

> 
> 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.

The question is not whether there are spies and traitors. We know there are - Pettigrew and 
Snape are both double agents (well, Snape probably).  But how important are these aspects of 
the struggle against Voldemort within the story? Is there much weight in the story to 
inherent suspicion of anybody and everybody as possible spies/traitors? This connects back 
to my original point, that JKR is not writing a spy novel. Although these aspects exist in 
the story, they are not it's focus. 

> 
> 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)

Never chilled me for a moment, either of these comments, sorry. As for DD trying to second-
guess Voldemort - I really don't see what that has to do with puppetmaster!DD, which, as I 
understand it, involves DD manipulating practically everybody around him (friends, 
colleagues and Harry) in order to achieve the desirable goal. 

Also, I don't get how what you say here replies to my comment that JKR doesn't deal with the 
question of whether we can ever really know somebody?
> 
> 
> 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. 

I have no problem with it at all. It's *JKR* who has a problem with it is my point. 

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

Not at all. It's not about my preferences - it's about what I understand to be contained in 
the text itself: Characters are generally stable; the story is not focused on questioning 
the possiblity of true perception of others, etc. 

> 
> 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.

But what types of misleading does JKR use? If you actually look at the story, as I tried to 
show, case by case, in my previous post, she doesn't tend to mislead through presenting us 
with a character that is of quality x, and then showing us that he is really of quality y. 
Durselys, Malfoys, Snape are presented from the very beginning as nasty, and continue being 
nasty the whole way through. Ron, Hermione, Neville (and Harry), Weasleys - nice, and 
continue being nice, and so on and so on. Other than Tom Riddle (and possibly Quirrel - 
although he was possessed by Voldemort, so Harry and we have never really met the real 
Quirrel) who has JKR mislead us about in this way? 

> 
> 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.

Of course it won't. But why does the mustard have to be cut via a strained, incredibly 
intricate and fiddly plot twist?

Naama