To the Extreme

[Ken Hutchinson]

No: HPFGUIDX 164966


> 
> Magpie:
> We're not talking about areas of research or science. This is not a 
> real world. 

Ken:

Of course it is not the real world. It's just a game we play with
ourselves while waiting for DH. Who can guess where the author is
going? There are no Nobel prizes, the revolution will not be
televised. A few people *might* win the respect of their peers by
outguessing the rest of us. A *few*. Science has to deal with
apparently contradictory facts and incomplete evidence. We have the
same situation here. I don't care that much about this particular
theory although I think it is imaginative and interesting. But I do
think that some non-literary techniques can be valuable at this point
in the game of guessing the conclusion.

> Magpie:
> The good reason for not considering the possibility that Merope 
> could have passed her powers to Lily is that *there is nothing in 
> canon telling me to consider it.* That's not closed mindedness, it's 
> understanding that the story consists of the words on the page and 
> that's it. 

Ken:

The words on the page say that Tom Riddle passed some of his power to
Harry. We all agree. So is it inconceivable that Merope passed (and I
agree not her powers directly) *something* to Lily's mother? I'd have
to say no, it is not inconceivable. We have canon proof that some
kinds of magical power can be passed between wizards. Perhaps only
Slytherin's heirs can do this, speculation on my part. The notion that
Merope might have passed *something magical* to Lily's mother is a
simple (but speculative, I agree) extension of that "known fact". Do
we have any evidence that these two people were ever in close
proximity. NO! The only thing we can say about that is that Merope was
in London and London is one place in England that many residents of
England will visit during their lifetimes. It is plausible that they
could have been near each other at some point.

> Magpie:
> If this idea is introduced later I'll certainly consider 
> it, but there is no "real Wizarding World" to appeal to here. Could 
> an extreme theory turn out to be true? 

Ken:

You are right. We have no way to run any experiments save thought
experiments. Albert Einstien, a reasonably accomplished physicist, was
a proponent of this method. Ultimately the only experiment that counts
is the reading of DH. That is where the "real" wizarding world lies.

> Magpie:
> 
> The trouble with this and other backwards theories is that there is 
> no literary reason in canon to begin considering the idea--even if 
> it turned out to be true a good case wasn't made for it. 

Ken:

But we've given you some. They are the barest traces of clues but they
really are in canon. They might not be clues to anything as it turns
out. They are some things that one of us noticed that look interesting.


> 
> Magpie:
> And if the turning of Muggle to Wizard via the "gifting" of one's 
> status to another were included in canon we'd have some reason to 
> consider at least something like this. JKR always introduces a 
> magical concept before it becomes important. My problem isn't that I 
> can't explain this transfer through magical theory, since magical 
> theory isn't a real field of study, it's that it's not ever in 
> canon. In fact, it rather destroys one of the main points of canon, 
> the Muggle/Wizard separation. That's a major thing to introduce into 
> your magical system.
> 

Ken:

We have seen the magical gifting from Tom to Harry so it is in canon.
The separation between Muggle and Wizard is not absolute, Lily and
Hermione are both proof of that. So there is nothing to destroy on
that front. If this notion turns out to be true it is both in canon
and introduced before it was important. So, what's your real complaint
here?


> Magpie:
> 
> Sure the theory being given here will either turn out to have 
> happened or not in DH. The same could be said for a theory that 
> Harry and Hermione are really the same person, that Snape is really 
> a woman, that Harry and Ron are really twins separated at birth and 
> born in Wisconsin. 

Ken:

I think this notion is a *little* more tightly linked to canon than
those! ;-)


> 
> Magpie:
> It does 
> frustrate me when people think that stuff they made up is canon, or 
> that being able to make a theory fit canon is the same as proving it 
> to be true. I'm not at all unhappy at people doing this kind of 
> speculating; I think the only time it causes any problems is when it 
> claims to be something else. 

Ken:

Am I making stuff up and calling it canon? Maybe others were, if you
think I was I can assure you it is only because I can't remember canon
with the laser-like accuracy that some of you can. There is no
"proving" these theories in the scientific sense. All I am saying is
that some scientific methods can be used to generate ideas. When you
are brainstorming ideas you are lucky to get one in a hundred that is
worth anything. If you don't brainstorm you won't get that one. I
agree that the ideas do have to find support in canon and I think this
one can claim *some*. I don't expect it to be confirmed in DH, but it
could be and if it were I think Rowling has laid the groundwork for
our acceptance of it. 

Ken