Will there be an ESE!character in Book 7?

[nrenka]

No: HPFGUIDX 147389

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" 
<horridporrid03 at y...> wrote:

<snip>

> But if we take HBP as part one of a two parter I think it's safer 
> to put both Snape and Draco as the red herring since they've been 
> so neatly handed to us as the villains.  Or maybe Snape as the red 
> herring and Draco as the secondary mystery.  Either way, the real 
> villain has yet to be revealed.  (DUN-DUN-*DAAHH*!)

What I love about this argument is that its signal strength and 
weakness are the exact same thing: the continuation of a pattern.  I 
snipped the chart above which argues in every book, there's a red 
herring and then an ultimate reversal.  Ergo, Snape at the end of HBP 
is a total red herring, and there's a reversal, with some ESE!ness to 
be revealed.

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.)

JKR's given us the signs that book 7 is going to break the standard 
framework of the school year wide open to accomodate the Quest Model, 
which plays by very different rules.  And there's also a possible 
artistic consideration; unbroken patterns tend to make for weak 
literature.  It's often a tactic to construct what seems like such a 
nice consistent model, for the BANG when it breaks.

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.

-Nora wonders if the FEATHERBOAS are disappointed yet, either