Draco, Snape and Others: Castles in the air?

[nkafkafi]

No: HPFGUIDX 124762


> > Neri (previously):
> > I tend to agree, in general, and I wrote similar things in the 
> > past.  And yet, if Snape and Neville are that simple, why don't we 
> > have even a single theory that explains all their mysteries in a 
> > simple way? You might say that we lack the information to decide 
> > which theory is true, but you would expect that at least we'd have 
> > several candidate theories that offer satisfying explanations to 
> > all the different mysteries. And yet, none of the Snape theories or 
> > Neville theories that I know actually rings true. Some sound like 
> > they might be  approximations, but none that actually supplies 
> > explanations to all the questions and makes you feel that "this 
> > just night be it". So why is that, if Snape and Neville are indeed 
> > so simple and predictable?


> Nora: 
> Because there are still missing pieces. :)
> 

Neri:
As I wrote above, this doesn't seem like a very satisfactory
explanation. Suppose you have a puzzle picture with half the pieces
missing. Say they are even missing from the edges so you can't
estimate how many pieces you're still missing. But still, if the
picture is simple, say a smiley face, you'd have a very good idea of
what it is. There might be an argument if it is a smiley like this :-)
or like this ;-) but, well, you get the picture. If we still see very
different possibilities with the pieces we already have, it suggests
that either the picture is NOT that simple, or JKR is going to dump a
whole bucket of new pieces on us in only two books, which would be
kind of cheating, no?

> Nora: 
> I can imagine any number of the Snapetheories suddenly clicking very, 
> very nicely into place, with certain holes being filled.  But as 
> there are things that we know we don't know, there are also things 
> that we don't know that we don't know, and those often exert a 
> surprising amount of influence on the story and can only be bagged 
> and tagged in the retrospective.
> 

Neri:
I'm not that sure. Can you point out a single Snapetheory that would
"click into place" with three more hypothetical pieces X, Y and Z
(substitute whatever you want)? There are some theories that sound
like they might be close, but in order to "click" they have to account
not only for the big mysteries, like how does Snape spies on Voldy,
but also for all kinds of small things, like the DADA story, the
"sudden movement", the "lapdog" mention and the "people who carry
their heart on their sleeves" speech. If Snape was that simple, you'd
perhaps think that we would've already had a theory that accounts for
many of those small things when not too many hypothetical puzzle
pieces are added. 

> Nora:
> To be honest, I don't think Neville's past is a mystery requiring 
> theory to the degree that Snape's is.  OotP just might have given it 
> to us rather straightforwardly--it's Neville's psychological growth 
> over the burden of legacy, rather than convoluted memory charms or 
> the like.
> 

Neri:
So, will you be satisfied if all the foreshadowing about memory charms
(from which we had more in OotP) will simply come to naught? And Uncle
Algie who gave Neville both the Mimbulus mimbeltonia and Trevor (who
is still around after five years, and toads don't generally live
longer than rats do). And Neville can't sleep at night after that tea
with Crouch!Moody, and someone sent the Lestranges after the
Longbottoms, and Neville could have been The One (at least we might
get some information about this soon). I mean, wouldn't it feel like
cheating if JKR will just supply standard boring explanations to all
these things? 


Neri obviously has read too much Elkins lately.