Silly Taglines and the Perils of Theorising

[annemehr]

> Carolyn:

> [...]Coincidentally, this evening I had an email from someone 
> else, who, although she isn't a member of this group, I know will not 
> mind me quoting it here, as it is relevant:
> 
> 'I really *cannot* take all the Deep Thought and convoluted 
> theorizing, especially since every time JKR weighs in on the topic, 
> she mocks the theories mercilessly. These really *are* children's 
> books; everything always turns out simpler than we think it is, and 
> adolescent angst from the adult perspective is way tiresome.'

Annemehr:
Hmmm...<gathers thoughts>
Well, *some* of those convoluted theories depend on stretching the
plain meaning of the text beyond credibility, I think.  I wonder if
JKR ever feels, while reading some of these, whether it is possible
for her to phrase a passage in such a way that people don't
immediately find a way for it to mean exactly the opposite.

Of course, this is the result of the great plot reversals: Quirrell
was the bad guy, not Snape; Sirius was good and Scabbers was bad;
Moody was really a DE in disguise.  We look for that now.  Still, JKR
did not sneak any of this by us by seemingly writing the opposite of
what she meant, did she?  It's more like she let us assume things and
then caught those of us who fell for it.  All the words that came
before the reversals still have their plain meanings; only now we can
see where we jumped to conclusions about what else they implied.

Also, of course, only a certain few characters can be not what they
seem.  For the story to be coherent at all, and not end up completely
surreal, most of them will have to turn out to have been basically who
Harry thought they were. The question, then, is which is which? 
Similar logic applies to plot lines -- only so many can have that
sudden, unexpected twist.

Carolyn's correspondent:
> 
> 'Second, while we were geeking out online speculating on the reason 
> for the delay in Book 5, Herself was out having a life. She dated, 
> found a man, got married and had a baby. And did we learn our lesson? 
> Hell, no. We're obsessing about Snape and James and hyphens, and JKR 
> is getting laid. [Now] The woman is pregnant again.'

Annemehr:
He he! The nerve of the woman! After all, she's only 39!  Seriously,
though, didn't we know all this at the time, more or less?


Carolyn:

> However, up to a point, I agree with Anne that there seems to have 
> been a sea-change in the nature of speculation this time round, 
> compared to the feverish anticipation pre-OOP. I have just read part 
> of the archives for this group, and it was really rather nice to 
> revisit that fantastic excitement and realise I was definitely not 
> alone at the time. My impression now though is that the level of 
> expectation is much more under control, and this is not just because 
> we are only two books from The End.
> 
> There seem to be three main causes:
> 
> - the plot options are closing down much faster than they need to due 
> to the way JKR is choosing to use her website

Annemehr:
That is a shame.  I myself have wished she'd lay off the spoilers and
just let the books speak for themselves.  I can see answering the Mark
Evans question, maybe -- it forestalls having people spend all of book
6 wondering what happened to him -- but otherwise, I agree with you. 
She'd have plenty to upload dealing with questions of clarity ("Why
didn't Harry see Thestrals before?") and including some of the
background details that don't fit into the books (although then you
have to decide if they're fodder for theories or not).

After all, it is the nature of plot options to close down, anyway. 
They opened up wide in PoA, which is why it is the favorite book of so
many.  The possibilities were endless.  GoF gave us more info to work
with, but didn't really close off any avenues of speculation.  Now,
though, the plot has to begin to be particular. As the story follows
one path, the others become impossible. Sirius is dead: every theory
concerning his future is nullified.  And naturally, for many people
the course of the plot will leave out their favorite theoriies.

Carolyn:
> - something of a consensus is emerging about where she is going with 
> the story (few bangs; big moral, maybe even religious theme as the 
> answer to it all)

Annemehr:
Aw, I was hoping for both.  Not that I particularly like morality
plays, but I'd be perfectly happy if Harry succeeded at least partly
because he did something very good. Nor would I be surprised, as he
has done so in every book so far (except OoP, where he tried to do
something good, but failed because he didn't realise good intentions
are not enough).  Even in GoF, I think his stroppily refusing to lie
down and die was a very good thing.  It's the way JKR writes, and the
kind of book she seems to like, as well.

I still expect certain bangs: exactly what is the scar, what about
Lily and her eyes, Neville's role, etc.

Carolyn:
> - a niggling worry that she just might not be a good enough writer to 
> deliver what are supposed to be two even deeper, more complex books

Annemehr:
I've also been niggled.  Still, there's the idea that she's known how
she's ending it since before the first book was published, and
believed in it herself.  As long as she can get from here to there
without hitting any more major plot holes... at the moment I'm not
worried.

Do the next two books need to be deeper and more complex, or just keep
up the standard?  To me, OoP was very deep, in that it took me months
to work out what I think is its purpose.  I admit, my foremost hope is
for a satisfying payoff which illuminates what came before.  It's too
much to ask for the answer to Life, the Universe and Everything. ;)

That brings up an interesting question, though: how deep is deep for a
good book?  What are the deepest books people have read?  And how
disastrous is it to raise deep questions in a story that you as an
author can't answer?  (FWIW, I think not at all, just as long as you
don't dash off some lame excuse for an answer.)

Carolyn:
> All this could make for a somewhat dull outlook IMO, but the thing 
> that keeps many of us dyed-in-the-wool theorists going is that there 
> still seem to be so many layers of meaning that can be extracted from 
> the plot and the characters. Even more intriguingly (and amusingly), 
> that JKR may have had no intention of putting this complexity there, 
> and be pretty irritated that such theories can be supported 
> convincingly from canon [so far].

Yes, there is still plenty of room for theorising.  We're just daunted
a bit by the fact that some of our old theories have been shot down,
and some of our new ones have been denied by JKR herself outside the
books (in chats and on her site).

My personal theory about how JKR writes is that she received a decent
grounding in the classics & folklore through her education which
mixture sort of leavened in her mind (with the help of a bit of
research) and came out in the books.  I think there is plenty that got
from her mind and beliefs into the books without her direct intention,
but simply from who she happens to be.  And it is perfectly valid for
us to try to dig it out!

[My newest fledgeling book theory is not a plotline per se, but on
what ancient magic is -- it germinated as I was typing a post for the
Hogs Head. In short, ancient magic is released by vulnerability. It is
probably related to uncontrolled magic that a child does when
threatened, and may involve self defence and by extension, defense of
the innocent. It is "ancient" because, naturally, it is the first type
of magic the first witches and wizards could do, and how they found
out that they were, in fact, magical beings. Controlled magic, with
wands, came later, and has nearly eclipsed the more primitive (yet
very powerful) ancient variety.

And, of course, it figures prominently in Harry's defeat of Voldemort.]

Annemehr