[HPforGrownups] Conspiracies and re-assessments

[caesian]

No: HPFGUIDX 111816

On Aug 30, 2004, at 3:34 PM, Barry Arrowsmith wrote:
>
>  Regular readers of this board will be familiar with my take on the HP 
>  saga - that it's more a mystery tale in form and structure than 
>  anything else. That we are constantly being challenged with ambiguous 
>  characters performing ambiguous actions, usually in situations where 
> we 
>  have limited or incomplete information. And that we should see it as 
>  our bounden duty to resolve the apparent inconsistencies and to 
> present 
>  a neat and tidy explanation to what the hell is going on.

Caesian:
What!?  Really, this view, coming from Kneasy, is shocking.  "Neat and 
tidy"?!  This is like Lupin turning out to be ESE!  Snape handing out 
sweets!  My reading comprehension must be slipping.  I distinctly 
remember more of an *unrepentent and bloody* leaning in prior posts.

I'll take issue and bite here - the series has not been following the 
mystery genre, so well characterized by tidy endings.  My money is on 
the glaring lack of resolution for many apparent inconsistencies and 
ambiguous actions.  Snape?  Neat and tidy?  Not even if he is seen 
snogging Lily Potter and writing poetry about it - he'd rather die than 
be neat and tidy.  Perish the thought.  Will the life and death of 
Sirius Black ever be unambiguous?

Kneasy:
> I quite often get castigated for thinking along these lines - "Not 
>  everything is a conspiracy" True, but I  tend to specifically target 
>  those bits that *could* be explained by such thinking. <snip>

Caesian:
I too take a dim view of those who underestimate conspiracy as a [the?] 
basic state of human affairs.  Anyone who has ever left two 8-year old 
kids in a room with cookies (or two Bushes in a room with Saudis) has a 
conspiracy to contend with.  Human nature.

However, everything is most certainly NOT up-for-grabs in the 
Potterverse, if we hold to some basic rules of reading comprehension.

Kneasy continues:
>  An unwillingness to even consider the merits of a theory that has an 
>  arguable canonical base (even though it may eventually turn out to be 
>  wrong) shows a deplorable lack of intellectual curiosity IMO. What's 
>  the point of entering a discussion with pre-formed, 
>  never-to-be-modified-under-any-circumstances-I-don't-care-what-can-be-
>  derived-from-canon conclusions clutched firmly to the bosom?

Caesian:
It is a simple matter and enjoyable of scholarship to offer arguments 
based on Canon.  Many a time has such a theory as "Mundungus (or Ginny) 
is Crookshanks" been slain by the expedient Canon reference (all 3 
appear in the same room at the same time in OotP).  The great thing 
about these false theories is that, like hydra, it takes many a noble 
poster to subdue the beast - we all feel like heroes once in a while 
standing over the carcass of "Percy Imperius" and its ilk.

However, there is another, less-explicit level of reading 
comprehension.  Derived from canon, yes, but as much from the spirit 
and repeated patterns presented as specific scenes or dialogue.

What, based on this gestalt, is never-to-be-modified?

First of all, the author is adhering to basic rules of morality and 
fair play.  She does not lie to us, or withhold vital clues.  It is 
very, very unlikely - based on existing Canon - that trusted and 
sympathetic adults in Harry's life (such as Dumbledore, Lupin or Lily 
and James Potter) - will be revealed as evil incarnate.

While it is true that many of these possibilities cannot be excluded 
based on rational extension from the letter of the canon, such an 
outcome would not be consistent with the spirit of the existing text.  
The published books have a strong moral tone ("it is our choices...", 
"what is right vs. what is easy...").  Further, the plot has followed a 
pattern that excludes major reversals for "good" characters: thus far, 
no Major character, presented from the outset as sympathetic or trusted 
by Harry, has been reversed.  GoF Moody does not count, because he was 
an imposter.  Quirrell, Riddle, Pettigrew, Fudge, Bagman et al. are 
marginalized characters that have minimal direct interaction with 
Harry.  Ron's snit-fit in GoF was not a major betrayal.  Percy is 
acting like a git, not a spawn of Voldemort.  Good characters are not 
Lily-white, unambiguous (boring) folk.  But their flaws are not 
equivalent to horrible betrayal.

Second, in each book, characters that are perceived by Harry as suspect 
or hostile are revealed to be at least ambiguous - and often much more 
positive - than at their initial presentation.  Major characters in 
this pattern include Hermione (not a swot), Snape (not trying to kill 
Harry), Sirius Black (ditto) and Malfoy (not Heir-of-Slytherin).  Minor 
characters who enjoy a positive re-appraisal include Dobby, Krum, 
Fleur, Barty Crouch Sr, Zacharias Smith, Dean Thomas, Luna Lovegood, 
Neville, and (even) Trelawney.  In fact, the vast majority of minor 
characters enjoy a moment in the sun, even if they can be less than 
perfect.  Harry, and the reader though his experience, are repeatedly 
chastened for holding less-than-Dumbledore attitudes towards others.

Kneasy:
> And make no mistake, conspiracy and betrayal is at the heart of HP; 
>  it's what makes it tick; it's the skeleton that is fleshed out with 
> all 
>  the other bits and pieces.

Caesian:
I would say, rather, that the danger of false assumptions is at the 
heart of HP.  The pattern established by Canon is to never assume with 
absolute certainty the worst of an ambiguous character, nor assume the 
best about someone you don't know.  Sirius Black should have been 
trusted (or at least given a chance to defend himself).  Percy should 
not extend blanket trust to Ministry Officials.

Will the ultimate reality of the Potterverse be that no one can be 
trusted?  The spirit of the Canon, thus far, seems to be directly 
opposed to this view.  Dumbledore trusts when others do not, and this, 
based on Harry's experience so far, is the path to truth.  Dumbledore's 
one, grievous error thus far was his failure to fully confide in and 
trust Harry.

Therefore, the never-to-be-modified rules of speculation about the 
Potterverse (for what THAT is worth) are thus:

Do not assume you can fully understand based on limited information
Consider the source
Do not be too hasty in your judgment of others
Be willing to forgive or give a second chance
Don't hold your breath for neat and tidy - people will not always fit 
neatly into your stereotype
Those who profess to like you, or take your side at one time, are not 
necessarily your best friends
Sometimes you need to disagree with those you care for
Good people can make mistakes
Those who don't like you are not necessarily bad people

And that's as neat and tidy as I can make it,
Caesian



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]