How we read HP books WAS :Re: Half-Blood Prince

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 183866

Alla:
> 
> I think you touched on something very important here Pippin, 
something that I am essentially in agreement with you, but let's hope
I can elaborate more. I maintain and always did that imagining 
something more that is on the page, **based on what is on the page** 
is a perfectly valid way to interpet the text and not going into 
realm of AU or fanfiction.
> 
> I snipped your example, I also want to add one of my all time
favorite examples of Yarsley (?) and somebody else (HAHA and I do not
remember name right now) working at the Ministry. I mean if one 
reader wants to say that this means nothing, that's fine, but if 
another reader like me thinks that it is  part of very well 
constructed takeover of the Ministry, I think it is an argument to be
considered as text based argument, just the argument based on the 
subtle hint, rather then spelling something out. I mean, when I read
two DE are working in the Ministry, I right away think that there is a
**reason** for them to be there, even if text does not tell me that
reason. <snip>

Carol responds:

I agree with you that we need to read between the lines. I also agree
that Yaxley's words to Voldemort in "The Dark Lord Ascending" prepare
the reader for the coup, especially the information that he has
Imperio'd Pius Thicknesse, the Head of the Department of Magical Law
Enforcement (and future puppet Minister for Magic). Having met Yaxley
and learned what he's up to (I don't think he's actually a Ministry
employee at this time, but he certainly has contacts there), we're
prepared to learn in "Magic Is Might" that he has taken over
Thicknesse's former position (so, of course, he's present with
Umbridge, the former High Inquisitor, at Mrs. Cattermole's hearing--or
rather, her inquisition). And that scene paves the way for Hermione's
accidentally revealing the secret of 12 GP to Yaxley, which I won't go
into here.

Yaxley has been introduced by name, along with Greyback and the
Carrows, in "Spinner's End" (Chekhov's gun waiting to go off). We meet
all those characters again in the tower scene when they're trying to
get Draco to kill Dumbledore. (Yaxley isn't named, but I guessed from
the planted clue that he was "the brutal-faced Death Eater," a guess
confirmed when Yaxley appears again in "The Dark Lord Ascending." The
Carrows, Yaxley, and Greyback, all DEs or quasi-DEs in the case of
Greyback, who have never been sent to Azkaban, rise to prominence in
the DEs at the expense of possibly more qualified counterparts, such
as Travers, Mulciber, Dolohov, and, of course, Lucius Malfoy
(superceded by Snape, who also has never been sent to Azkaban).

This sort of thing can be deduced from information on the page. JKR
had a reason for having Snape (in "Spinner's End") list the names of
DEs who had wormed their way out of Azkaban by, IIRC, pleading the
Imperius Curse, and had not been arrested with Malfoy in the DoM debacle. 

My point is that reading between the lines is, I agree, an important
part of understanding and interpreting a literary work, as is making
connections between various references to a character (as Harry does
for us regarding Travers, one of the DEs who attacked Mr. Lovegood and
appears again to converse with "Madam Lestrange" in the Gringotts
chapter). We can also deduce that Harry's Imperius Curses didn't
permanently harm Travers, presumably because they weren't deliberately
sustained, because Travers shows up with many other named DEs,
including Yaxley and Dolohov, at the battle of Hogwarts.

But drawing inferences is different from having to find explanations
for a letter that shouldn't be at 12 GP. Lupin's supposed knowledge
that Sectumsempra was Snape's specialty, or Ron's knowing about
Draco's Hand of Glory. One involves making connections and drawing
inferences, important skills in critical reading; the other involves
having to invent explanations for inconsistent information in the
books, sometimes within the pages of a single book. (There's also the
challenge, a legitimate and IMO, interesting one, of watching HRH
attempt to unravel various mysteries and determining just how much
they got right. Harry's explanation of Draco's excursion to Borgin and
Burke's is an interesting mixture of accurate deductions and errors.)

Carol, who would happily trace what we know and don't know about the
various DEs but realizes that such details would distract from her
argument here