[HPforGrownups] Re: Conspiracies and re-assessments

[caesian]

No: HPFGUIDX 111932

On Sep 2, 2004, at 9:40 AM, arrowsmithbt wrote:
>  Caesian wrote previously:
> 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.
>
> <snipped>
Caesian responds:
I do believe we will continue to gain insight into complex characters, 
especially Snape, Harry's father, probably his mother, and current 
minor mysteries (e.g. Ludo Bagman).  Tom Riddle may be explained more, 
and I agree it could be interesting.  The intensity of Harry's 
empathetic response Tom Riddle foreshadows some follow-up: he just 
stands stupidly and stares at Tom, thinking how much they seemed alike 
a moment before.

I think Riddle is an excellent example to use here, because what we 
mean by the "rationale" for a character might be a bit different.  In 
the end, none of us will ever be able to understand why Tom did what he 
did, anymore than we really think that Hitler did what he did because 
he was a frustrated artist.  Bending human behavior to the mold of 
rational motivation is, in the end, inadequate.  The books increasingly 
reflect a more mature, less tidy view of human interaction.  We will 
never understand what it is like to be Lupin.  Harry can't understand 
his father by his own standards, because despite their similarities 
they are completely different people.

But, we can gain glimpses and extrapolate, and I agree with you that 
Rowling will be generous with these insights by the end of the series.  
I do think many of us will be left with conflicted feelings about the 
lives and choices of these characters.  I also am not a sci-fi or 
fantasy reader (and I believe we share that background with JKR, unless 
you consider ancient myths Fantasy), but I expect "rationale" and 
resolution of a similar ilk to that presented in Lord of the Rings.  I 
choose this as example as many of us have read this text, as well as 
for its "Inkling" designation, etc.  There are some differences in tone 
that make me think Rowling will be slightly more personal.  The tone of 
the Potter series is not like LOTR's terrible majesty, and few 
characters in LOTR have such mundane characterization as the endless 
bickering between Ron and Hermione, for example.  I think HP has a 
great deal more humor, etc.  In spite of these available inroads, I 
believe few of them will be part of Harry's journey or ours.  We will 
be left to exercise our imagination in many cases.

And, in the end, how many of us really understand Harry's "rationale" 
right now, after 5 books?  We have a road map, and can understand in a 
rational sense why he would choose to stand and fight, why he went 
through the trapdoor, why he went into the chamber of secrets, and why 
he always goes alone.  But how many of us would have travelled the same 
road given the same choices?  If that is sufficient "rationale" then we 
agree.

>  > 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.'
>
Caesian:
OK.  I can respect that.  Although I think we have quite enough evil in 
the plot to contend with already, I agree it's going to get worse.  
But, I just don't think that it's likely that a trusted character with 
extensive prior interaction with Harry is going to intentionally harm 
him.  This is like suggesting that Molly Weasley is going to suddenly 
come after him with a meat cleaver (as much as I'd like to read that 
scene).  And I don't count Imperious as a "betrayal" - that's a 
weakness on the part of someone who hasn't the skill or natural talent 
to fight back, it's not a moral failing.  There are all sorts of 
motivations and moralities presented in the books, and I entirely agree 
that all is not rosy and right.  But, I do think that in all 
probability, the author is writing these books with the mindset of both 
young and old readers.  She /will/ allow Harry to be betrayed, and she 
will certainly show us betrayal of every variety (including a very nice 
analogy between Riddle's diary and internet chat rooms: Aesop for the 
modern age).  However, I wager that she will not betray her young 
readers by allowing someone we/Harry TRUST to be actively deceitful.  
It happens, it's realistic, I know.  But, it would destroy the illusion 
she has labored to achieve: our identification with Harry.

>  > 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.
Caesian:
Yes! Exactly.  That is why we will never be given a full or pat 
"rationale" for the decisions made by a character.

>  > 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.
Caesian:
Yes, but Harry had minimal interaction with Quirrell prior to the 
revelation of his betrayal.  It wasn't like Lupin was waiting for him 
at the mirro, he barely knew Quirrell.

Kneasy:
>  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:
This is a big possibility, I agree.  I wouldn't consider it a true 
betrayal because it is not a moral failure.

>  > Caesian:
>  >   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.
Caesian:
Yes, but were you wrong about Snape in SS?  Did you know Tom Riddle was 
the bad guy when you first met him?  Did you believe Hermione and Ron 
about Trelawney before the prophecy?  Were you wrong about Moody?  Did 
you mistrust Viktor Krum just because he's from Durmstrang?  Did you 
guess in PoA what Fudge would turn out to be by GoF?

This is what I mean by being chastened - you must admit you were wrong. 
  You believed the worst, and the guy was trying to SAVE your life.  How 
dumb do you feel now?  You trusted some phantom boy rather than your 
first true friend - how dumb was that?  You thought the powers-that-be 
were competent and would look after you and your world - alas, how 
wrong you were.  Chastened.  Now, Harry is not Lupin, he's not all 
introspective and hesitant.  I like both characters, but I won't hold 
my breath for Harry to thank Snape or apologize about the Quidditch 
thing (unless Snape's kicking the bucket right then).

I'll wager that not one in a million readers saw through all of these 
misjudgments - it is human nature to judge.  And we were chastened 
right along with Harry.  It takes wisdom to judge rightly.  I'm not 
saying Dumbledore is infallible, not at all, and he's holding alot of 
information we don't have.  But he sure is right more often than anyone 
else.  I bet he's even right about Snape.  I'm also not saying I fail 
to take Harry's side.  Harry's not wise, but he's quick and he's damn 
lucky and I like the kid even when he's a moron.  And I can't stand the 
Dursleys, Draco, Lucius, Bellatrix, etc. any more than Harry can (or 
than JKR can for that matter).  Those judgments are easy and clear, and 
seeing sadism as evil doesn't require much wisdom.  (Although, 
evidently, seeing it as a turn-off does?  Sorry, but I stumbled into a 
bad area of fan art concerning Lucius Malfoy the other day and I still 
have the willies.  If JKR succeeds in educating an entire generation of 
girls that mean does not equal sexy, I will consider putting her 
picture up on my metaphorical wall with MLK and the Dalai Lama.  But I 
digress.)

>  > 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.

Caesian:
This is brilliant!  And I agree wholeheartedly. I'll restrain myself to 
one obsequious genuflection :: curtsy ::.  Cheers.


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