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

[nkafkafi]

No: HPFGUIDX 115895



> 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>.

Neri:
If it wasn't obvious until now, I hereby declare that I'm addicted to
HP theories and conspiracy as much as any member of this list! I never
claimed otherwise, and I would have looked rather ridiculous if I
tried :-) 

> Carolyn:
> 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. 
> 

Neri:
We probably have a semantic misunderstanding here. I indeed have no
problem with conspiracy and had theorized about it myself (as you've
noticed). When I used the term "conspiracy theories" upthread I didn't
mean "any theory that contains conspiracy". I meant a group of
theories that have several common characteristics. One of these
characteristics, which is the relevant to our current discussion, is
indeed that they tend to complicate the picture a lot. I don't have a
problem with this either, I'm only saying that they aren't likely to
prove right. 

Regarding my posts that you mentioned above, I never thought to
dignify my "Three Black Sisters" and "Bertha, Florence, etc" posts
with the term "theory". They were merely some sloppy timelining and
wild speculations. The Snape-Malfoy connection is indeed a theory (if
anybody interested it is in: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Hogs_Head/message/2772 ) and it indeed
aspires to be a simplifying theory: It makes a single assumption (the
second paragraph of the post) and all the rest of the long post is
just to show that several different and seemingly unrelated mysteries
are nicely solved if we accept this single assumption. 

> Carolyn:
> 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?

Neri:
Yes, this is so with GOOD detective stories. What is typical to good
detective stories is that they give simple solutions to seemingly
complicated situations. We then get this unique feeling that "all the
pieces fall into place". If it is a BAD detective story we don't get
this feeling even in hindsight. This is because bad detective stories
complicate instead of simplify.

> Carolyn:   
> 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..

Neri:
Yes, the Crouch!Moody mystery was the greatest mystery we had in HP
until now, and as a detective story it wasn't perfect. It certainly
had some weak points. Still, it was not bad either, and it took only 9
pages (the veritaserum confession) to be fully explained. MD and the
other ESE theories will require much more than that to be explained,
and I suspect that many readers (including myself) will still find it
difficult to understand them.

> Carolyn:
> 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. 
> 

Neri:
Interestingly, I don't feel Lupin is ambiguous, and I know many other
readers who don't feel that way either. JKR also, judging by several
interviews, don't consider him ambiguous. I find Snape or even Neville
considerably more ambiguous than Lupin.

> Carolyn:
> 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.

Neri:
I won't get into this discussion because we had it many times in this
list, some of it very recently (check Kneasy and Nora's posts), but I
read Sirius' character very differently. IMO he is flawed (like most
of the other characters) but certainly not stupid or morally coward.
In any case, I suspect the characters of Sirius and even more so Peter
are too secondary to be that subtle and deep. IMO they mainly serve as
plot devices. They were never meant to be dissected that deeply, and
this is why they are sometimes inconsistent.
  
> Carolyn:
> 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 characterizations for every 
> key player. MDDT are just returning the compliment and trying to 
> figure out her reasoning. 

Neri:
There is nothing wrong with taking notes and I do it A LOT. However, I
still believe that the main plot and theme of HP were meant to be
accessible to the average reader who doesn't keep several notebooks
and files, and doesn't take notes while reading. JKR puts in a lot of
work and takes a lot of notes and rewrites many times in order to make
the end result as simple and coherent as possible. I try to return
this compliment.
 
> Carolyn: 
> 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. 

Neri:
Yes, the parts I like best in MD is he background assumptions: 
The spy war (I wouldn't call it spy "games"; it's not James Bond) and
DD's political agenda. It is the specific interpretation of Snape and
the Marauders' story that is, IMHO, problematic. And this part wasn't
prooved correct in OotP.

> Carolyn:
> 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. 
> 

Neri:
Thanks! It seems to me that you find my opinions inconsistent only
because you refuse to believe that I mean exactly what I write (too
much conspiracy theorizing perhaps ;-) ) . I can only repeat my
position again: I'm not against conspiracy theories and I'm not
against wild speculation and I'm not against taking notes and I do all
this a lot myself and it's a lot of fun. However, I ask the simple
question: which kind of theory is more likely to prove right? My
conclusions are that, besides the obvious, two additional properties
are needed: The theory should fit with JKR's style, and it should
simplify the picture rather than complicate it. MD and the other three
theories you discussed don't fit, IMO, with these two criteria, and
this is why I believe that none of them will prove right. Again, this
doesn't mean that they aren't fun. 

Neri