Black and white and read all over.

[Barry Arrowsmith]

No: HPFGUIDX 116775

I'm always a little surprised (and a touch disappointed) when 
occasionally posters put up  messages saying things like "so-and-so 
went down in my estimation when they did this-or-that." Don't  these 
fans relish the foibles, human weaknesses and lack  of omniscience that 
turns characters from cardboard cut-outs into believable individuals? I 
do.

The different reactions can be used to highlight a divide in the fan 
base, I think - though there are many other ways to identify various 
factions. It's a rough and ready guide to what the different readers 
get from the series. There are those that love the characters, see them 
as individuals with (perhaps) well defined almost stereotypical roles 
with clearly demarcated behavioural boundaries - and there are those 
that love the ideas, the plot, the needs of which may cast any 
character in an unexpected light. Not always mutually exclusive, of 
course - there'll always be over-lap, but most fans tend to favour one 
more than the other.

Probably more than anything else it's the uncertainty, the "what did he 
mean by that?" the "can we take this at face value?" or "does this 
connect to a sub-plot?" that keeps me reading. I don't think that it's 
presumptuous of me to assert that there are many who would agree - 
after all it's this sort of mind-set that breeds theories, and the 
site's always been wish-bone deep in theories.

Dunno about you, but the possibility that HP is a cut-and-dried "the 
goodies are immaculately good and the baddies are irredeemably bad, 
Harry will inevitably wipe the floor with Voldy and almost everyone 
will live happily ever after" sort of tale intended for the not very 
discerning 10 year old gives me the shudders. I prefer books where the 
personae have a bit of depth,  and with the depth inevitably comes 
complexity - and I see a lot of complexity in HP. Hopefully this is 
both intentional and integral to the story. Complexity now should 
guarantee that the ending  then is not predictable. Goody. But if it's 
not intentional and integral, if it's mere flummery and window-dressing 
then it would mean that I've misunderstood the author's intentions - it 
would mean that I've been wasting my time.

But every time I  pick up the books I'm reassured; some of the plot 
shenanigins cannot be what they seem, the characters must be 
deliberately written as ambiguous, fallible, suspect or working to a 
personal agenda that may not connect directly with the apotheosis of 
Harry - or even with the triumph of Voldemort. In other words, they're 
acting in much the same way as real people.
And like real people they're not necessarily consistent, and the lack 
of consistency can mean little or much - it all depends if the 
perceived faults or errors are intended to show human fallibility or 
are clues to something else entirely.

Being human myself (stop that muttering at the back, there) it'd be 
comforting if the characters showed the all too familiar traits of 
being forgetful or contrary that I see when I look in the mirror every 
morning. (Usually with the words of the inimitable Molesworth on my 
lips "...as I gaze at yore strange, un-natural beauty...") After all, 
who's going to be happy if the cast are as straight-forward and 
clear-cut in their attitudes and behaviour as those in Pilgrim's 
Progress? Very few, I think. But I sincerely doubt that the books have 
been penned just to make me or anyone else feel cosy.  While minor 
episodes may well reflect the randomness of real life there's always a  
suspicion that there's another layer of meaning just below the surface. 
Justified or not, it's this almost unconscious suspicion that is the 
fons et origo of many of the posts we see.

Others have a different approach. They're perfectly satisfied with the 
way that the characters have been written (so far, anyway) and see no 
reason for the (as they perceive it) wild imaginings of subversive 
anarchists apparently bent on turning a much-loved character into 
something different. The fact that throughout the books we have been 
presented with radical re-assessments of quite significant characters 
and there's absolutely no reason to assume that the process has ended 
two books short of the climax, doesn't cut much ice.
Especially if it's one of their favourites under the knife being 
subjected to a little involuntary cosmetic surgery.

More or less since the site started members have expressed sympathy, 
understanding or down-right partisanship for one character or another, 
usually mirrored by an antipathy, mistrust or outright loathing for 
others. Those they approve of are forgiven or excused almost any 
transgression; those they dislike are castigated or dismissed for  the 
most petty of misdemeanors - even when it's not actually evident that 
the action under discussion actually *is* a misdemeanor.  It leads to 
words being exchanged on site.

It's great fun, this - dragging a character you don't like into a dark 
alley and giving him/her a damn good kicking. Doesn't affect the 
character at all of course, but with a bit of luck it may result in 
steam coming out of a few ears and some vigorous responses. Though it 
is a bit unexpected when it becomes evident that there're some out 
there who identify so closely with the character in question that they 
react as if it were they themselves that had been maligned. Just 
occasionally there's an exchange  so passionate, so over the top that 
it makes me wonder.... we're all interested in HP, but to be that 
obsessive... how will that fan react if it doesn't work out the way 
they expect? Just suppose, to take an example, Jo writes Sirius as ESE 
and Snape as having behaved the way he has because it was in Harry's 
best interests, would it be happily accepted by all?

A lot of fans have invested a lot of time defending or dismissing the 
him, her or it of the text. Long evenings spent poring over canon to 
refute or confirm opinions proposed by others. It's  been going on for 
years on this site alone - and do you know what is absolutely amazing? 
If you browse through the back files there are very, very few of the 
"fan of" or "anti to" posters who change their opinion of a character 
unless they are absolutely forced to do so by new canon. (Yes, SSS, I 
know you've shifted a bit on Snapey, but you're an exception.)

The habitual theorisers, irredeemable recidivists that they are, seem 
to have no problem changing their minds -  twice weekly if necessary. 
This may seem a direct contradiction to what is written above, but it 
isn't really. Those who constantly pester the membership with new or 
recycled "look at it this way.." ideas have rarely invested much time 
in the admiration or beatification of DD, or Sirius or Harry. The 
characters are a means to an end - a theory. As such they need a 
certain flexibility of opinion; next week's idea may well conflict with 
last week's offerings. "Ah well, back to the drawing board," is a 
frequent, if solitary refrain.

The theory is the thing - and any of the dramatis personae are fair 
game for a smash and grab character re-assessment, usually (almost 
invariably) in an effort to promote a new twist to the story.
No point in making DD!ESE unless it has an effect on future events or 
revelations.  Since what is being proposed is just that, a theory, it's 
rare to find theorisers taking up the cudgels and re-enacting Custer's 
Last Stand, going so far out on a limb that if Jo wanders along and 
saws it off.... "Oh, what a fall, my countrymen! There was a Caesar - 
whence comes another?"  Pippin apart, that is.

Serial theorisers are much more interested in the plot than the 
individuals depicted therein. A reasonable stance - one must assume 
that the characters are written to suit the needs of the story, not the 
other way round. Ferret out the plot-lines and the cast are revealed as 
the author's puppets. There ain't no free will in a book (unless your 
name's Fforde).

So long as they're interesting as individuals I don't give a toss which 
of the cast lives or dies. It's a matter of supreme indifference to me 
- though as I've stated above, the books as a whole, the technical 
construction of plot and sub-plot, the gestalt, does matter. Some see 
the two concepts as inter-changeable, but I don't think so. The overall 
'quality' of a book should not depend on the likeability or otherwise 
of those depicted - they're important, sure; but only in so far as 
their characterisation advances or enhances the story. If they become a 
substitute for the story then one might as well watch 'reality' TV. 
This way fluffiness lies... or a contrived resolution that doesn't 
match the tone or texture of the tale so far,  which  is more or less 
the same thing IMO. But so far we're doing OK.

Quite often those enamoured of character protest -
"But it's about Harry - aren't the books called Harry Potter and the 
Thingy of Whatsit? What  else could they be about?"
Well, there's the Thingy of Whatsit, right there in the title that you 
seem to have forgotten about. With no PS/SS, CoS, PoA, GoF or OoP to 
keep him occupied Harry would have a lot of spare time on his hands. 
It's called a plotline. None of which originate with Harry, all of 
which involve the deeds of others, all of which in some way pre-date 
his cognizance and the solving of which brings him and us closer to 
enlightenment. Harry merely reacts to events. He's a function of the 
plot, too. Another clockwork mouse wound up and released by JKR. And 
let's not forget, these single book plots are there to lead us to the 
greater plot, the one encompassing the whole series, the one that 
explains the what and why of the whole kit and caboodle.

You won't suss that out by sighing over Sirius or frowning at Snape. 
It's conceivable you might by theorising, though.
Or aren't you interested in that bit?

Kneasy