Levels and contradictions in JKR's writing

[delwynmarch]

No: HPFGUIDX 138340

Lupinlore wrote:
"Where you stand on the question of Snape seems to relate very
strongly to where you stand on two other questions: 1)On how many
levels do you believe JKR is intentionally writing, and 2)Your
tolerance for contradictions in the plot and themes of the HP saga."

(snip)

"Personally, I am somewhat at sea on this question.  I think Sienna is
right that the outcome of many subplots, particularly those involving
shipping, support the idea that JKR is writing a more straightforward
and "obvious" story than many fans have expected or believed.  This is
further supported by many of her interview statements, particularly
her most recent comments where she says (and this is an extreme
paraphrase): "It's a childrens' book and people need to just get over
it."  On the other hand, the outcome of one kind of plot doesn't
necessarily herald the outcome of another, and the ultimate proof will
be in the seventh book.  I confess I am among those who is hoping that
things are somewhat more multi-leveled than they appear, but I may
well be one of those to whom she is talking when she says it's just a
childrens' book and I need to accept that and go on."

Del replies:
Personally, I put the blame squarely on JKR's shoulders :-) She's the
one who got us used to intricate subplots and marvelous twists. So she
can't really expect us now to take things at face value, can she ;-) ?

However, I think your distinction between romantic subplots and other
kinds of subplots is very important. The romantic subplots have all
been pretty straightforward, throughout the series. Sure we got a few
surprises, like Krum/Hermione, or the discovery that Lily didn't
always like James. But those are all minor. So it is possible that JKR
was genuinely surprised that so many readers would look for deeper
levels, because she never wrote any deeper levels *on that matter*.

However, things are much more complicated where the other types of
plot are concerned, IMO. JKR can't deny that all her books have had a
very strong "detective book" side. Deeper levels and misleading clues
are the rule in that kind of book, and she's played the game
wonderfully so far, hitting us on the head in every book. So there's
no way she can expect us *not* to look deeper, not to theorise, about
the non-romantic subplots.

And the Snape subplot, by JKR's own admission ("Who would want Snape
to love them?", paraphrase) is a definitely non-romantic subplot. So
IMO it's totally fair game for the readers to apply the detective
magnifying glass to his case.

*Especially* since JKR told us that HBP and Book 7 are like two parts
of the same book! What did she expect us to think, when she said that
:-) ? Don't we *know* that in every single other book, the detective
subplot was utterly misleading by the time we got to the middle of the
book? In every single other book, by the middle of the book, we were
all completely wrong about the identity of the villain, we had a
completely wrong understanding of the situation, and so did Harry. So
it is completely logical IMO that so many readers should not take the
end of HBP at face value: that's how we've been trained to think, by
JKR Herself :-)

Lupinlore wrote:
"You can either try to solve these holes and contradictions in a way
that supports your position or you can simply take the position that
the saga will have numerous holes and contradictions regardless of how
it comes out.

Personally I have a tendency to try and "correct" plot holes and
thematic inconsistency, or at least criticize them.  I am beginning to
believe, however, that the second position is the one that will be
proven correct."

Del replies:
I agree with you. However, I do not think that this should stop anyone
from speculating and trying to solve the plot holes.

We are living something that has never happened on such a scale
before. We have read 6 books in a series of 7. The last book won't be
out for at least 2 years. And we have this wonderful tool, the Net,
that allows us to discuss ideas and possibilities with thousands of
other fans, almost live. I think it would be horrible to let a belief,
no matter how justified, that we are theorising in empty space and
that things will be much more straightforward in the end, prevent us
from using those 2 years to the fullest.

Once Book 7 is out, much of the speculation will be over. It will be
too late then to stretch our minds, to boost our imagination, to craft
those wonderfully intrincate theories, the way we can now.

So personally I say "let's have a blast!", even if I believe that
things will probably be much simpler than I hope them to be, in the end.

Lupinlore wrote:
"Sienna makes a marvelous and telling point in her early comments
about Voldemort.  We have had an emphasis on the importance of choice
and JKR's statements about how no one is born evil. But in Voldemort
we have a character who seems, from all evidence and appearances, to
be genetically evil, a corrupt product of a degenerate and inbred
family.  Furthermore Dumbledore, the very character who is associated
with statements about the power of choice and the importance of trust,
seems to relate to him from the very first as a dangerous and deeply
flawed child, a child who is in some way corrupt in his very essence.
 In other words, we have a powerful and glaring contradiction woven
into the basic fabric of the narrative, in which choice and trust is
emphasized but the main villain is a monster from birth, the son of a
poisoned bloodline."

Del replies:
One possibility I see is that JKR meant that, if Tom had been raised
in better conditions, he might not have turned evil. It's something
I've read several times about psychopaths: they are a deadly
combination of an inborn screwed-up nature, a horrific nurture, and
the wrong opportunity. So maybe JKR meant that, as far as his nature
only was concerned, Tom wasn't evil, and that it's the additional
factors of his being raised in a Muggle orphanage (where his powers
were unchecked by other wizards and where he had access to many kids
to terrorise), and his being taught additional magic at Hogwarts (with
all the opportunities it gave him to access the wrong kind of
knowledge and power), that combined with his nature to create the
truly evil LV. 

But it's also true that I don't see Tom as having ever had a real
choice between Good and Evil, mainly because I don't think he ever
*truly* understood those concepts, in his heart. So where he is
concerned, the almighty concept of choice does seem to become quite
irrelevant. However, I don't think this is really a problem in the
Potterverse, because the way I see it, LV was never a true person. He
was always a plot device. He was never really human, since he never
loved, so he's not really *someone*, he's more someTHING: the
embodiment of Evil. So, well, he simply doesn't matter. JKR has shown
that she is ruthless: she killed Cedric just to show that LV doesn't
care about human life. She killed Sirius because it was necessary for
Harry's growing-up, or something. I think that she similarly
"sacrificed" Tom Riddle. In the end, he's just a plot device, just
like Cedric and Sirius were. A plot device in the grand scheme of
things, which is The Life of Harry Potter.

And seen in that light, then Snape killing DD at the end of HBP makes
total sense: both were plot devices, and she had to deal with them in
a way that furthered Harry's quest. So exit the Wise Mentor, right
after he's told Harry just enough to give him an idea of what to do
next, but before he does too much of Harry's heroic job. And Snape can
finally be revealed for the nasty traitor that he always was, now that
his usefulness as Harry's tormentor at Hogwarts is over, and that DD
is dead.

I know it sounds quite cynical, but it does make sense if you consider
that every character in HP (except Harry) is to some degree a plot
device. Some are more than others (like poor Cedric), but all of them
matter mostly inasmuch as they relate to Harry. Sirius existed and was
killed "because" of Harry, DD was killed "because" of Harry, Snape is
evil "because" of Harry, and LV is the necessary archnemesis to Harry
(see footnote). That's also why, I think, secondary characters that we
have come to care about, like Neville, get dropped as soon as they are
not useful anymore as plot devices. We might care about them, but if
they are not useful as plot devices, then they don't get any screentime. 

It's not DD who is Puppetmaster, it's JKR.

Del

Note: when I say "because of Harry", I don't mean that Harry killed
them or made them be evil, nothing like that. I just mean that they
had to exist and be that way so that Harry's story could unfold. For
example, Snape became a DE because he chose to. But Snape's character
exists in the first place only because he is necessary for Harry's story.