Evil Snape/ JKR and Christy

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 154485

> Pippin:
> It sounds like we have very different Christie experiences :). I 
did
> read some of them over and over, especially The Mirror Crack'd, and
> I got pretty good at spotting the villains on first reading, not 
> by analyzing the clues but by analyzing the characters. Hint: you
> can put your money on the _other_  nice young man, or the 
> ever so helpful female nanny/governess/nurse/companion. 
> 
> What I mean by a twist is a story arc that seems to point in one 
direction
> but turns out to go somewhere else. 
<SNIP of the example, go UPTHREAD to read it>

Alla:

Hehe. Yes, we do. I must clarify though - I am  loving  all murder 
mysteries including classics less and less as time goes by, NOT more.

The main thing to me is of course that I usually don't care much for 
the characters of murder mysteries and yes, even Miss Marple :)

Once you know, who done it, poof to me attraction is gone.

Attraction is not going away from Potterverse though and that is 
because it is so much more than who done it and I so hope that it 
will not be reduced to simple murder mystery.

Besides, I  more and more often ending up looking at the last page 
while I am in the middle of murder mystery. Want to know who did it 
and ooops, no reason to read a book anymore.

Thanks for your definition of twist, but does your definition means 
shocking unpredictable direction or just unpredictable?


Pippin:
> I don't see nearly the backtracking in canon that you do -- JKR had
> a plot in mind from the beginning and hasn't changed it much, IMO.
> The shift in the import of the prophecy was, IMO, planned and
> necessary in order to provide a  resolution to Book Five which 
turns 
> out to be false almost as soon as Book Six is underway, so that 
Five, Six
> and Seven become one story.

Alla:

Well, we can only guess, don't we how well she planned? I mean, I 
won't argue that she planned the major story but how much 
backtracking she does that is IMO anybody's guess.

 
> I agree that JKR is straightforward, or at least drops anvil-sized 
hints,
> about some things, and that Voldemort will be defeated by love is
> one of them. But other things are complicated. Isn't it funny that 
we
> are attracted to Snape by the complexity of his character, and yet
> expend all this bandwidth trying to reduce him to some three-letter
> formula or other? :) 

Alla:

But you see to me the funny thing is that ALL stuff that seems to 
draw us closer to resolution of the books as in important stuff, IMO 
ends uo being quite simple and to me it is not a bad thing at all.

Love is of course the best example, another thing is remember how 
JKR with absolute directness told us that important question to 
speculate about would be how Voldemort survived? Trying to push us 
to find out about Horcruxes or something like that?

Remember supercomplex theories that never materialised in canon? I 
mean, I totally remember being dismissed out of hand at when I dared 
to suggest that those theories are a little too complex and 
sometimes cigar is indeed just a cigar even in Potterverse.

It seems to me that books are moving to some kind of simple, elegant 
resolution whatever that is. But to me "simple" is the key word.

As to Snape, I can only speak for myself, but I absolutely think 
that his complexiness is greatly exaggerated. I totally attracted to 
his character ( as in Love to hate him), but to me - I just want to 
know his motives, meaning knowing the mystery of his backstory.

I am thinking that when we learn it, it is going to be 
another "that's it?"

But I am sure many people will disagree with me <g>

JMO,

Alla