DD and the rat: Conspiracy theories compared/why theorise?

[carolynwhite2]

No: HPFGUIDX 115875


In response to my post 115794 Neri wrote(115814):

>>I can testify for myself that I was never able to follow MAGIC 
DISHWASHER without pen and paper, and frankly ESE!Lupin, ESE!Sirius 
and Agent!Peter make my head spin, despite Carolyn's explanaions and 
my best intentions.

Neri (115827):
>>[Re POA film] I find it instructive that the-medium-that-must-not-
be-named told the time-travel part in full, and in fact made it MORE 
complicated than it is in the book, and still it was, IMHO, quite 
easy to understand. BTW, the same medium discarded much of the 
animagi and prank backstory.
(snip)
>>But the conspiracy theories are so much more complicated than the 
canon version of the Shrieking Shack that I shudder to think how JKR 
is going to explain them in the middle of Book 7 dramatic climax.<<<

Carolyn:
Hmm..Neri, I think you may be being just a little disingenuous. Not 
so long ago you enthusiastically put up 106729 (Three Black Sisters), 
105599 (Bertha, Florence etc), and more recently a very extended 
analysis of the The Snape-Malfoy Connection (sorry, don't have HP 
number handy) that you were so irritated not to get discussed 
properly here that you took it to HH. None of these were simple 
theories, they certainly had conspiracy ramifications if true, and I 
found them fascinating. Methinks you are as addicted as the rest of 
us <g>.

You will remember that Kneasy wrote a fine defence of theorising back 
in the summer. I was going to quote from it, but on re-reading, find 
it would be a shame to snip any part of it. Here it is again:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/111642

However I will quote from your response [111845], since you used your 
reply, in part, to not only respond to Kneasy, but to give a lengthy 
answer to an offlist question of mine, which I should have responded 
to before. You said: 'I don't condemn theorising at all, not even 
conspiracy theorising. It's fun. The question I ask, however, is 
which kind of theories is likely to be prove right.' The criteria for 
being right you suggested were (a) that they conformed to JKR's 
style; and (b) they should simplify rather than complicate. 

I think this misses the point somewhat. Firstly, things only look 
complicated when you don't have the full picture. How many detective 
stories have you not been able to figure out, yet all the pieces fall 
into place in the final chapter - it is all so obvious in hindsight? 
She's fooled us repeatedly, and often through introducing quite un-
guessable plot developments. 

For instance, ok we were introduced to the concept of Polyjuice in 
CoS, but then we were supposed to guess that this *dear friend of 
Dumbledore's*, this *friend and TRUSTED teacher of Harry's* was going 
to have been using it for a year and turn out to be as thoroughly 
killer ESE! as any fevered Lupin or Sirius theory ?? Well, I didn't 
guess, and I bet you didn't, and anyway it is a bit clunky as a 
solution, isn't it? Bit like pulling a rabbit out of a hat..
I really don't see much difference between her doing that and 
producing ESE!Lupin - Harry is not that close to him, and the 
character profile she has built is extremely ambiguous. 

I don't particularly buy ESE!Sirius myself, but I am increasingly 
converted to the idea of his moral cowardice and stupidity the more I 
think over the whole SK incident, and consider Peter's character, and 
his relationship with the rest of the marauders, Lily and Dumbledore. 
This kind of subtle let down is totally her style, IMO.

On MD, well, it's not *that* complicated is it? <g> Well, ok, it 
needs concentration, but anyway what's wrong with having to take a 
lot of notes and work out what MDDT are saying? JKR spent five years 
working out this plot, and has got umpteen boxes of stuff filled with 
background to these books, and in-depth characterisations for every 
key player. MDDT are just returning the compliment and trying to 
figure out her reasoning. 

OOP largely proved MD was correct, in the sense that Dumbledore was 
revealed to have had a plan, and be the leader of a spy network, all 
with complex missions which we are only given hints about. Snape's 
role as a loyal right-hand man (up to a point!) is also largely 
confirmed, as is MD's assessment of Voldie's planning style.

I note that you ended post 111845 on this note: 'I'm not saying, 
however, that all this should prevent us from making the wildest 
speculations and theories. It's a lot of fun, and it's the kind of 
fun that doesn't last forever...*I'm* going to make the most of it 
while I still can.'

Somehow, this sounds *exactly* like what Kneasy is saying...and is a 
POV, I can endorse with enthusiasm. 

Boyd [115846]:
>>>Personally, I continue to be torn on these questions. While my 
heart longs for the beguiling excitement of Agent!Peter or any of the 
various ESE!'s, my head tells me that JKR has done little to set up 
her readers for many role-reversals within the Marauders. A simple 
reading doesn't force one to ruminate on who is truly ESE or whether 
Peter might be a double for DD. It is entirely possible that in a non-
MD world, everything is just as it seems:

>>>Here's another question: if the plot leaves us capable of filling 
in so many possible theories on each character, then how good has 
JKR's writing been, really? And I think the answer comes down to, 
what kind of books are these really, mysteries or tales of morality 
like most children's books? If they are mysteries, then JKR's spare 
writing style with its minimalist character descriptions and ever-
present ambiguity is simply *perfect*. Of course, there'll be no 
bangy ending to the series if they're just mysteries.

>>However, if these are also a giant morality tale then she is 
hurtling her readers toward an ending that truly has meaning, but how 
can she hope to build much of a crescendo when all of her 
instruments/characters are so imperfect/amorphous? 

(snip)Perhaps she wrote the characters a bit more ambiguous than she 
intended; perhaps we are all supposed to *know* by now
that DD is playing at MD and that Peter is a double-agent. Let's hope 
not!<<<

Carolyn:
Oh Boyd, this is much more tragic .. this from the man who so 
recently offered us on another list the DAMN, CRAZED TOME theory of 
how Dumbledore is really trying to eliminate magic from the world 
(which I realised when writing the recent post might run quite well 
with the MD's most recent incarnation [81010] incidentally!).

Why can't mysteries have bangy endings BTW? 

Whatever, your point is well made about whether she intended to be so 
ambiguous. Another aspect is whether, 10-15 years into the project 
her views have changed somewhat on how she intended the books and 
characters to be interpreted. It's all very well for her to say she 
is going to write the story that she always intended, but it is a 
fact that she really can't be quite the same person as she was on 
that fateful train journey from Manchester. Fame, fan response, re-
marriage, more children, money, a massively changed global political 
climate; she wouldn't be human if it hadn't given her pause for 
thought on some issues. As a British PM, Harold Macmillan famously 
said when asked what could drive a government off-course - 'events, 
dear boy, events.'

I think it's an interesting question whether any of this might cause 
her to make the books more emphatically a children's morality tale 
than perhaps she'd imagined when she first devised the plot. She 
could keep all the elements of the story as planned, but fine tune 
its telling in many different ways.

Carolyn