What Iffing for Book 7 (was: Have I just transfigured out the Horcrux!Locket?)

[cubfanbudwoman]

No: HPFGUIDX 137904

Saraquel:
> > Or is it one of the objects in DDs office – remember that sleight 
> > of hand that Voldemort made as he was leaving, which Harry 
> > interpreted as an attempt to go for his wand? Wouldn't the office 
> > of his enemy be a great place to hide his Horcrux, - very 
> > significant to Voldemort?

jujube:
> What actual proof do we have from canon that any sort of spell was
> done in DD's office that day? Apart from the fact that to assume so
> contradicts the rest of the series to date, it's also important to
> remember that DD could see invisible signs of magic where they were.

SSSusan:
On this issue, I don't think Saraquel is saying she *has* proof.  I 
think the whole point is... What ABOUT this movement that Harry 
noticed?  Why was it mentioned?  COULD it mean something?  What MIGHT 
it mean?  "What ifs" and "I wonders" are a part of reading, when one 
has "Sneaky Jo" in mind.


Saraquel:
> > Just had another thought, re Valky's idea that Lily was intended 
> > to be a living Horcrux. She was in Gryffindor, Head Girl, 
> > brilliant student – a living example of the perfect Gryffindor. 
> > Anyway Horcrux!Lily has always been a bit of a left-field theory, 
> > but I really do like it!

jujube:
> But there is a method to JKR's madness. The founder-related items
> are actual, discrete, items which were literal possessions of the 4
> founders. Why would one of them not fit the mold?

SSSusan:
I'll grant you that it may well be *likely* that it will play out 
as "literal possessions of the 4 founders."  And I don't particularly 
care for Horcrux!Lily myself [nor Horcrux!Harry for that matter].  
But the point, as I see it, is, WHAT IF DD was wrong?  Mention *was* 
made in HBP that DD has made mistakes... and that he himself said 
(paraphrasing) that when they happen, since he is so 
talented/brilliant, the mistakes tend to be, correspondingly, 
doozies.  

So *what if* DD was wrong about the Horcruxes?  We're given an "in" 
to the possibility that he could be wrong, both from the above-
mentioned remark about mistakes and from the fact that DD didn't seem 
to notice that the locket was a fake.  So with these two juicy 
tidbits, "I wonder..." comes up for a lot of members here.  For many, 
THAT'S the fun of the game – trying to out-guess Jo, trying to get 
there ahead of the actual revelations.  

While it may be that this is *not* a place where DD will turn out to 
be wrong, and while it may be that DD didn't notice the fake locket 
just because there wasn't time to have done so, it's also possible 
that these are indications (hints, if you will) that we should 
consider whether DD is right about the Horcruxes.


jujube:
> I understand that details can be interpreted in many ways (the way
> JKR has so very carefully constructed Snape's character being her
> most brilliant example). But IMO there is a big difference between
> using details from the canon to buttress an argument and taking one
> detail, out of context, and spinning a huge story about it. Maybe
> I'm wrong and confused because I thought that this list was for
> discussing canon and to me that theories about what happens are
> firmly grounded in patterns, details, descriptions, and events of
> what has gone before.

SSSusan:
Well, the BEST theories (in terms of likelihood of being proven out) 
certainly *will* take into account details, patterns & events which 
have come before.  But not everything has been predictable based upon 
past details, patterns & events.  So for some members of HPfGU, it 
may be understandably fun to consider "outlandish" possibilities, 
possibilities for "IF Jo is tricking us here...."  To me, there is 
nothing wrong with that!  Other members are free to disagree, to 
ignore or to gently ask for canon support.  But as long as the 
theorizer is building upon canon, basing his/her position on a 
segment of canon, it seems fair game to me.


jujube:
> It is only my opinion, but it is a pretty unshakable one: we are not
> going to have any more long expository passages in book 7. There is
> no space in the story for any more backstory or convoluted ways to
> get from Point A to Point B. JKR's work (despite a Flint here or
> there on the secondary details, which are not crucial to the story
> arc) is tightly plotted, woven together, and most importantly, 
> highly and precisely logical. IMO not to recognize that, and not to 
> play the game she has set forth for us within the constraints she 
> has so very carefully constructed, is to seriously undervalue what 
> she has done.

SSSusan:
Oh, I for one certainly hope you're wrong in this. ;-)  Jo's barely 
begun to write Book 7.  Certainly she's said very little, in terms of 
specifics, about how Book 7 will play out, except that she *has* 
indicated lots of loose ends will be tied up.  I think exposition 
*will* be a part of it.  I think backstory *will* come in – and not 
just on Snape joining/leaving the DEs and on Godric's Hollow.  I 
think there will be more on Peter Pettigrew and how he got where he 
got in VW I and in VW II.  I think there will be more about DD, as 
JKR has indicated consideration of his family background would be 
fruitful.  I hope there will be revelation about the missing 24 
hours.  We're yet to discover just *why* there's something important 
about which Hogwarts staff members are/were married.  And on & on.

Whether or not one considers Jo to have been highly & precisely 
logical in her plotting, I do not believe one can argue that a more 
fanciful or outlandish theory has to be written off!  Who would have 
guessed about Crouch!Moody?  As it was written, as it turned out, it 
was logical in retrospect.  It fit, it worked, it came together.  But 
before we had GoF in our hands, how many considered this a 
possibility for how it might play out?  Probably no one!  How do we 
know, now, what things are REALLY "far out?"  

I do not think JKR has set this up as a game with specific 
constraints!  Now & again she will give us information in an 
interview or at her site which helps us see where we might be going 
too far afield, but other than that, which of us can actually say 
what is off limits for a theory?  

Each of us is certainly free to say, "Nope, not buying THAT" or to 
delete with a scoff.  But I think it's fun to see just what kinds of 
possibilities HPfGUers can come up with, even if they seem fanciful 
or unlikely to others.  And I just don't see how that undermines what 
JKR has done.  On the contrary, I believe it is a compliment to her.

Siriusly Snapey Susan