Straightforward readings? (was Re: Truth vs. what meets Harry's eye )

[hickengruendler]

No: HPFGUIDX 140702

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" <bob.oliver at c...> 
wrote:
>  I 
> think that DDM is the one that is the most deeply problematic and 
> unbelievable, relying as it does on contrived solutions that smack 
of 
> the worst kind of comic book plotting.  

Hickengruendler:

Like Mad-Eye Moody turning out to be Barty Crouch junior under 
Polyjuice Potion, who was supposed to be dead, but instead his mother 
was buried in his place and Crouch junior was being kept prisoner in 
his father's house? ;-) 
 
> 
> Lupinlore:
 
> 
> Unfortunately, although I still say that HBP is, within its own 
> bounds, a good and entertaining book, it did, particularly in the 
way 
> it related to past developments, constitute an exercise in cheating 
> on JKR's part.  I was among those who thought that JKR made several 
> fairly serious mistakes with OOTP, but I was hopeful that she would 
> try to deal with them honestly.  Instead, HBP struck me as being 
> rather reactive.  

Hickengruendler:

I can't agree with you, at least not completely. IMO, most examples 
you are mentioning, like Luna and Neville being reduced to cameo 
status and also less mentioning of house unity, are not signs of JKR 
being reactive, it are simply signs of a style she used since the 
very first book. Characters and themes, who have a particularly part 
in the plot of a certain book, are developed in this book, and if 
they aren't important in the following book, than they are simply not 
mentioned as often or not developed at all. If you reread book 1 and 
2, and look at Neville's pagetime, than you will find, that the 
difference is as big, if not bigger, than between book 5 and 6. It 
book 1, where he had a semi-important part, he appeared nearly as 
often as Hermione, in book 2 he hardly isn't mentioned at all. This 
has IMO nothing to do with JKR deciding to take back things or reduce 
characters she introduced in previous books, it's simply that she is 
a plot-driven writer and ignores characters/themes, that are not 
important for the plot of this particular book. That's nothing she 
decided to do after OotP. I think we won't know until book 7 how 
important some of the themes and characters really are. In another 
post, you for example mentioned the reduced part of the Dursleys, and 
I want to point out, that JKR said long before HBP was released, that 
book six is the book where they have the least part, and that they 
become more involved in book 7 again. And even after HBP, she said 
that there's more to Petunia and what she overheard. I also have to 
admit, that although I read a lot of different views regarding OotP, 
I can't remember any critic that mentioned, that they disliked the 
broadening of Harry's cosmos. In fact, at least from the reviews I 
read, it was nearly universally seen as the best point of OotP, 
therefore I really don't know why JKR should take it back.
  
There are a few points where I agree with you, Dumbledore saying that 
he hoped the Dursleys would raise Harry like a son, *is* IMO a 
response to the critic regarding Dumbledore's final speech in book 5. 
And I'm not sure about the romance and if it was a response to the 
fandom. On the one hand, it was unexpected for me, but on the other 
hand, I see not much difference between the HBP scenes and the scenes 
with the snogging couples in the rose bushes during the Yule Ball or 
with Roger Davies and his girlfriend in OotP. It's just that Harry 
and his friends where the ones, who got the action this time. But in 
the whole, I think JKR did, what she did since the very beginning.

Hickengruendler