Will there be an ESE!character in Book 7?

[lucianam73]

No: HPFGUIDX 147417

nrenka wrote:
 
>(snipped)
> 
> I don't believe in the necessity of ESE!ness, to get that one out of 
> the way.  We've done the 'unknown and unsuspected traitor within the 
> Order' thing the first time around, and if Dumbledore has made a 
> mistake in trusting Snape it's an entirely different setup, 
> thematically and mechanically.
> 
> That said, I don't find the 'red herrings' in OotP or HBP to be like 
> the red herrings in the earlier books.  The first four feel very 
> different than the past two, partly because of their self-contained 
> nature and their more standard framework behind the plot (the school 
> structure).  Things seem to change pretty profoundly when Voldemort 
> comes onto the scene.  (Coincidentally, it's probably not surprising 
> that many of the very upset fans this time around claim to have begun 
> their disillusionment after OotP.)
> (snipped)

lucianam:

Funny, when I logged in today I was thinking of posting a new message
 but after I read Nora's post, I figured it'd work better as a reply
to it.

I find it interesting that, in spite of each book's individuality,
Harry Potter can only be read as a series; in vulgar words, Harry
Potter is more like Desperate Housewives than Everybody Loves Raymond
(now that was tasteful :)  ). 

There's no guarantee the same 'Red Herring/Unsuspected Bad Guy
Unmasked in the End' pattern will happen again in Book 7,
Book 7 being not just another brick in the wall but the actual end of
the series.  It is possible that its role will be that of conveying
the end of the Harry Potter series/Big Plot ONLY, and not to work as
an individual plot also as the other books have. Perhaps book 7 won't
be even long enough to fullfil both roles. But:

> nrenka said:

> Personally, I don't understand why people are wanting to shove all of 
> the BANG over onto book 7.  It seems a perpetual delaying tactic to 
> dispute the solving of mysteries that one would rather see continued, 
> or thought the solution had holes.  Alas, holes to us are often not 
> holes to another reader.
> 
> I'll give half odds on some revision/BANG, but half odds on book 7 
> dealing with the ramifications of the very real and devastating BANG-
> y events of book 6, rather than it reconning or profoundly respinning 
> them.  It's a good option to keep open, at least.


lucianam:

Well that would be a solution. Not to mention JKR might have left
already structured, semi-ready solutions througout the previous books
and all she has to do in Book 7 is deliver a couple of sentences to
close them.

So about the series again... From what JKR's always said about having
figured out the HP story's ending before she started writing the
books, don't we all expect Book 7 to provide a satisfactory view of
the Big Plot's development and outcome?

That's where ESE! comes in, I suppose, in spite of any reasoning
concerning book size or possible  hopes that the end of the Big Plot
will be 'a surprise in the sense that it will be a different surprise'
from the ones we've seen in each separate book. I wonder if ANY 
outcome will be satisfactory to readers and, why not, to JKR herself,
if the old 'Nooo! It can't be yoooouuuu!!!' thing is not envolved.  If
she had written one or two of the other books without such a pattern
(and why didn't she, I ask), I would have no problem imagining Book 7
withoutits unmasking of an unknown villain, and what's more serious, I
wouldn't suspect that if it does happen, JKR will be forced to make it
a thousand times more horrible than before. Book 7 will be the Last
Harry Potter Book. We've already seen stuff such as Snape Kill
Dumbledore. So trivial little villains would be disappointing. That's
why I buy ESE!Lupin, btw. If she pulls another Unmasking of a bad guy,
it's got to be something big, big, big.

lucianam