The secrecy motif

[kiricat4001]

No: HPFGUIDX 179704

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Carol" <justcarol67 at ...> 
wrote:

<massive snip> 
> Yeah, I know. It would be a different book altogether. But 
somehow, I
> sense that secrecy is a bad thing in JKR's universe (unless you're
> keeping secrets from the enemy). We can see in the epilogue that 
Harry
> is giving his children information that was kept from him, whether
> it's that Slytherins can be admirable or that Thestrals are 
nothing to
> fear. If we examine all the suppressed information and distortions 
of
> the truth that shape Harry's perceptions throughout the books, it
> seems that a half-truth is as good (or rather, as bad) as a lie, 
as is
> well-intentioned misinformation. Unless, of course, you're Snape
> keeping secrets from Voldemort.


Marianne:

I think you're on to something. Secrecy does seem to be something of 
a negative thing. Or, at least, it can lead to negative results. 

I'll add a few more to Carol's list.  MWPP never tell DD about being 
Animagi. Granted, they'd have been admitting to breaking the law, 
but rule bending of all sorts takes place throughout the series, and 
the good guys seem to be excused more often than not of that 
behavior.  Would DD have made use of WPP's abilities somehow in the 
first fight against Vmort?  And, staying with these guys, how 
different would it have been had the Secret Keeper switch been 
shared with one or two more people?  

I still have the feeling that DD being secretive about things (or 
selective about what he tells and who he tells it to) is also 
excused. Granted, part of that is crucial to how JKR has structured 
her plot, but sometimes I wanted to smack DD upside the head.

Marianne