Conspiracies and re-assessments

[arrowsmithbt]

No: HPFGUIDX 111898

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, caesian <caesian at y...> wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
Kneasy:
True. But the two are not incompatible
"Neat and tidy" refers to motivation; blood-stained scenery is outcome.

Caesian:
> 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:
It's motivation again. At some point JKR is going to have to give some
sort of explanation of why these characters are acting the way they are.
Personally, I don't mind what happens to any of the personae (so long
as it's not too outrageous and unbelievable), but I do want to know 
*why* they act the way they do. So far we've been given a half-assed
rationale of Tom - rejected by family, orphanage etc. Not a credible
excuse for wanting to rule the world IMO.  And I don't believe that
JKR thinks it's credible either. I'm hoping (expecting) to read a lot more
about Tom and his transformation from chip-on-shoulder teenager to Evil
Mastermind in the coming books. The mystery is why, what happened in
the back-story to them to make them behave as they do. 

Mystery comes in different flavours, there's the classic Agatha Christie
type (which is how I think you are reading my words) and there
is, say, as a crude example, the "Citizen Kane" type - the mystery being
why was his last word "Rosebud?" What led to this? It's probably my
liking for delving into characters pasts to see  what makes them tick
that explains my preference for the adults in the books rather than
the youngsters. Apart from one incident Harry is an open book(!),
not so DD, or Snape, or Sirius, or Lupin etc. It's what we don't know
about  them that interests me. Let's face it; HP attracts all  sorts.

> Caesian:
> 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.

Kneasy:
Evil incarnate? I'll probably cause a sharp intake of breath among some,
but I don't get that immersed in fantasy fiction; I read books for their
entertainment value. 'Evil incarnate' is a label, it's a mask in a Greek 
Chorus - I don't worry about it much. Seen too  many  deaths and
distress in Real Life to get worked up about it in fiction. It's a necessary
part of the plot structure - it *has* to be there - so why rail against
it when it appears? Think of it as being 'differently moralled.'

True, I doubt  DD, etc. will acquire this label, but I have hopes that
there will be a further demonstration that mis-applied 'good intentions' 
can be as destructive as outright malice. Probably by one of the younger
members of the cast. Might apply to events past, too.
  
> Caesian:
> 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...").  

Kneasy:
Hmm. Understandable, I suppose. Though I prefer books to be presented
in a morally neutral manner, leaving it up to the reader to sort out the
sheep from the goats. Some readers have expressed misgivings about
the moral tone of parts of the books; the treatment of Elves and other 
races; the way Draco and friends keep getting zapped by overwhelming 
odds at the end of each book. Not something that bothers me - in fact I 
see such stuff as exemplars showing that morals vary according to when
and where. And JKR is the one that describes the moral boundaries in 
the WW. One thing I don't do is impose my own on her world.

> Caesian:
> 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.

Kneasy:
Ah! But we haven't reached the climax yet! I have hopes, I have hopes.
Quirrell and Tom try to kill him, yet have minimal interaction? What
a strange concept of minimal interaction.

A theory of mine that you've probably erased from your mind -  that of
forced betrayal. Crouch!Moody and the Imperius curse - Harry learned
to fight against it. Nobody else in the class did; Ron seemed particularly
susceptible.... Warms the cockles of a plot-sniffers heart, that does.
Lovely possibilities! 

> Caesian:
snip
>   Harry, and the reader though his experience, are repeatedly 
> chastened for holding less-than-Dumbledore attitudes towards others.
> 
 Kneasy:
Oh, come on! Please!
Harry is so chastened at Snape saving him at the Quidditch match that 
he hates his guts.
Harry hates Draco. And Lucius. And Umbridge. And the Dursleys. And
Aunt Marge. And Kreacher. And that's as it should be. It's rational and
understandable. And Harry is not moved by anything DD says. Neither
am I.

And just what are DD's attitudes? I strongly suspect that his are
governed by knowledge and information that he's keeping to himself.
Harry  suffers 10 years of misery  at the Dursleys; DD does nothing.
Lucius damn near causes the death of Ginny and Harry - and gets a 
warning regarding his future behaviour. His only concern at the  
Dementing of Crouch!Moody is that he's lost a witness. He shows no
regret or distress after the deaths of James and Lily. 
Not rational - with the information we have at the moment.
DD has his own agenda, and we are not yet privy to it. To know all
is to understand all - and we don't.

> 
> Caesian:
> 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,

Kneasy:
I'd modify those a bit to suit a teenager who is hated so much by some
that they've been trying to kill him for years :

Totally trust no-one. Unless they're dead. Even then, be suspicious;
they may be faking.
Be very, very careful when giving second chances - if a dog bites you 
once, it's the dogs fault; if he bites you twice, it's your fault.
The road to  hell is paved with good intentions.
Friends will forgive you, enemies won't.
Turning the other cheek is fine for a kiss, but not when someone is trying
to knock your teeth out.
People who don't like you are not your friends.
You  don't get a second chance if you're  dead.