Black and white and read all over.

[cubfanbudwoman]

No: HPFGUIDX 116872


Kneasy:
> 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.

SSSusan:
I don't think you'll be wasting your time, Kneasy, but I admit to 
wondering whether the *degree* of complexity at the end will be 
enough to please those who love it so.  JKR *has* used complex twists-
-the TT in PoA, Crouch!Moody in GoF, for instance--and there's room 
for plenty more.  But my personal opinion is that the whole series 
won't hinge on a hugely complex theory that's close to impossible for 
a 10-year-old to follow.  

As I've stated a million times before, I don't think she's *gearing* 
these books to 10-year-olds, but I do think that she has them in mind 
to a point.  I've also argued for ages for a series ending which will 
prove to be "elegantly simple"--doesn't have to be fluffy, mind you, 
just elegantly simple.  

 
Kneasy:
> 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.
 
SSSusan:
I'm not much GOOD at doing the wild imaginings, but I think it's fun 
to read the posts of others who are good at it.  I had fun trying to 
figure out if Fudge could be ESE! in a way different from the 
obvious...but I'm not wedded to it, and I'm open to a more 
straightforward reading of him.  And I'll still enjoy reading many of 
the alternative readings of a character.


Kneasy:
> 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.)

SSSusan:
Why, thank you. :-)  I *have* changed my views on him a bit.  At the 
start I was openly a huge fan of Rickman!Snape and a pretty big 
basher of canon!Snape.  While there are still areas where I'll bring 
a club and do a bit of bashing [e.g., Snape's presumed realization 
that Harry's role is so important to defeating Voldy that NEEDS to 
learn, yet his not going the extra mile to, while still being a prick 
if he wants to be, working to be sure Harry does learn], I have 
backed off a bit in many areas and will speak to his strengths.

Anyway, I don't tend to get my hackles up *too* much re: any given 
character [with the possible exceptions of Harry, Lupin & Molly].  
BUT sometimes the *vehemence* of an argument for/against a character 
can get me riled up -- the unwillingness to consider an alternative 
view or to acknowledge the importance of context or to acknowledge 
how a single revelation could put someone in a very different light 
and require a change in judgment of him/her.  


Kneasy:
> 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?


SSSusan:
I tend to think more as Nora does on this, in terms of the Harry-
centralness of it all, but about theory... it's not that I'm not 
interested in theory; it's that I'm also interested in character and 
analysis.  In fact, I am one of those who is, simply, easily 
entertained!  Give me theories, give me character analysis, give 
me "what if" wonderings, give me interpretation, ... and I'm a happy 
camper.  I'm content to think about it all.  Well, not it ALL, there 
are topics I don't care one whit to read about [with apologies to 
others who do care deeply]:  the specifics of what the centaurs did 
to DJU, whether it was Daedalus Diggle or someone else who bowed to 
Harry in the street, whether DD is TT!Ron, etc.  But what I'm not 
interested in does *not* all belong in one "class" of posts -- either 
theories or character analysis.  At that point, it's just personal 
interest or lack thereof. 

Siriusly Snapey Susan