Spy novel? maybe (was Lupin's secrets )

[naamagatus]

No: HPFGUIDX 118625


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" <delwynmarch at y...> wrote:
> 
> Naama wrote :
> "When I said 'adequete', I meant that the basic knowledge we have of a
>  character (mostly on the good/evil divide) is true. That doesn't mean
>  we know every thing, or even every interesting thing about the 
> character. The question is, whether the additional information we get
>  will be, in some way, an extrapolation of what we already know, or
> that it will undermine, subvert what we knew (thought we knew, in this
> case). 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. "
> 
> Del replies :
> I would tend to agree, if it weren't for huge counter-examples like
> Riddle, and even more importantly, Peter Pettigrew. I think that with
> those two examples (among others), JKR has amply demonstrated that we
> simply cannot trust anyone.
> 
> Peter was James', Sirius' and Remus' *intimate* friend. they had known
> him for years, they had gone through loads and loads of things with
> him, James trusted him with his very life and the life of his family,
> Sirius and Remus more readily suspected each other of betrayal than
> suspecting Peter. Even DD, with all his Legilimency and knowing
> people's characters, doesn't seem to have ever suspected Peter.
> Apparently, Peter was the last person on Earth anyone would have
> suspected of turning to LV. And yet he did. Not only that, but he
> managed to keep this betrayal hidden for an entire year !
> 
> I personally think that JKR set a very definite pattern of "Don't
> trust anyone !" throughout her books.


How exactly are you making a pattern out of one case? I think I have shown that the large 
majority of the HP characters are, more or less, as they appear to be. Very few - one or 
two - we are told have taken the path of deception, and have succeeded. If I was making an 
absolut kind of statement - people are always trustworthy or people never manage to hide 
who they really are - then one counter example would indeed prove me wrong. But I'm not 
saying that. I am saying that *in general* characters prove to be who they seem to be. 
You say that because Peter fooled his friends we must therefore not trust anyone. Why? If in 
RL, out of the hundreds of people you meet, one proves false - is it wise (or healthy) to 
conclude that you mustn't trust anyone and everyone? The same goes for the books. In five 
books dealing with an evil overlord and his machinations there are only two characters who 
are successfuly duplicitous - the evil overlord himself, and one other. Against the 
background of so many other WYSIWYG (in basic orientaions) characters, surely if we speak of 
pattern then it is that we should trust people? 

> 
> In PS/SS, Harry discovers that he's not at all who he thought he was.
> He then discovers that he shouldn't take people at face value :
> Hermione and Neville, for example, both clearly show him that there's
> more to them than he first thought. 

Look - I'm making a case against ESE!Lupin, puppetmaster!DD and the like theories. Sure 
characters develop and may surprise us somewhat, in minor ways. That's not my point. ESE!
Lupin, for instance, requires that Harry and the reader are totally mistaken about the 
character's basic personality. Though Harry found out that he is a wizard, did it change his 
perception of what sort of a person he is? 

>And of course, there's the whole
> Snape vs. Quirrel affair.
> 
> In CoS, Tom Riddle goes from perfect student and school hero to
> machiavelic monster. Ginny goes from annoying and very minor side
> character to crucial plot element. Same with Moaning Myrtle. Harry's
> funny little gift, Parseltongue, becomes absolutely central to the
> whole book.
> 
> In PoA, Sirius and Peter both change from apparently being very
> definitely on one side of the good/evil line to actually being on the
> other side. Remus is revealed to be infinitely more than just a poor,
> chronically ill and sympathetic teacher.
> 
> By the end of PoA, JKR has clearly taught us the "Don't trust anyone
> !" lesson. She then devises a test for us in GoF, in the character of
> Crouch!Moody, and we all (?) walked right into the trap. We hadn't
> learned our lesson.

I don't understand how Ginny becoming an important plot element, Moaning Myrtle's changing 
role, Harry's gift or parseltongue and Remus revealed as a werewolf have any relevancy to 
the question of trustworthiness. I think you are mixing here several types of plot twists 
and surprises - and only the Sirius/Peter thing is relevant to the *type* of plot twist I'm 
talking about - that involving a complete reversal of the reader's understaning of a 
certain character (especially in terms of good/evil). 


Naama