Truth or consequences

[Barry Arrowsmith]

Truth.
It can be slippery stuff.
We're all familiar with "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the 
truth" oath or affirmation in a courtroom, though that's rarely what 
the jury gets to hear, what with one counsel or the other doing their 
damnedest to skew any testimony to favour their side and most witnesses 
being directed to stick to answering those questions asked and not to 
volunteer anything else. Add the inevitable differences between 
objective fact and an observers perception of what  happened and .... 
well, it does make you wonder sometimes.

There's an apocryphal tale, repeated I think in Simon Singh's "Fermat's 
Last Theorem" (highly recommended) about standards of truth -
Three lecturers are travelling on a train to Scotland and as they cross 
the border a thick fog descends. A while later there's a clear spot, 
they look out of the window and see a sheep in a field - and the sheep 
is black.
"Oh, look!" says the sociologist, "The sheep in Scotland are black."
"You can't say that," says the biologist, "only that *some* sheep in 
Scotland are black."
In the corner the mathematician raises his eyes to heaven. "All that 
can be said is that in Scotland there is at least one field, containing 
at least one sheep, at least one side of which is black."

Not many of us adhere to those stringent standards, or not when 
discussing HP anyway. Indeed, it could be counter-productive, what with 
Jo hell-bent on confusing and confounding us to the bitter end. Mostly 
the fans fall into the incomplete truths of the first two lecturers, 
either accepting any statement in canon at face value (very foolish IMO 
- if there are any of that ilk on toc, I've got this gold brick you 
might like to purchase - strictly cash) or those that suspect that what 
you see is not always what you get - we haven't been told everything 
that's relevant and there're probably loopholes around somewhere.

Let's look at a few examples.
"There wasn't a single witch or wizard who went bad who wasn't in 
Slytherin."
Nice straightforward statement. See any ambiguity? No, nor me. But do 
you believe it? Is it the truth? This sort of thing has been the cause 
of many a fan getting their knickers in a twist. They don't like it; it 
implies that Slytherin House is the fount and begetter of all evil; 
that belonging to Slytherin is roughly equal to a species of original 
sin. Yet when Hagrid makes this blanket  condemnation he also believes 
that Sirius, a Gryffindor, went bad and betrayed James and Lily. Some 
of the more devious amongst us may interpret this as a clue "Ah! Sirius 
wasn't Slytherin so he never went bad! He wuz framed. It was Peter."

Yep. Except. We had no idea what House many of the previous generation 
belonged to, and Sirius's affiliation wasn't clarified (and then in a 
web-chat) until after he'd snuffed it. Seems a bit late to be a clue - 
for Sirius, anyway, though not for the current target of opprobrium, 
Peter. Because many believe that Peter was in Gryffindor too. 
Admittedly, this is not 100% certain; the question (same webcast) 
didn't mention Peter's name (or 'The Marauders') though it probably 
meant to. Pity. It'd be nice to have it cleared up, 'cos if he was a 
Gryff and Hagrid is accurate, then Peter is not what he appears to be 
either. But if Gryff!Peter is clean it's highly probable that Sirius is 
dirty. Hum.  Either case would invalidate Hagrid's contention. The 
least likely scenario (IMO) is that both are Gryff, both are clean and 
Hagrid is right. Conversely, the likeliest permutation is that both are 
Gryff, one of 'em is dirty and Hagrid is wrong. With one simple 
statement and a snippet of information Jo has us chasing our tails. It 
really is most provoking.

Another -
"I do believe he worked so hard to protect you this year because it 
would make him and your father quits. Then he could go back to hating 
your father's memory in peace...."
The Snape-ophobics just love this one. Generally they stretch it 
further by claiming it's confirmation that Snape hates Harry too. Can't 
see how. Doesn't say that at all. Poor old Severus. Much maligned. He's 
an old softy really.

Mind you, this statement by DD doesn't look as definitive as Hagrid's. 
Oh no. That "I do believe.." looks a bit dodgy to me, an on-the-spot 
spurious rationalisation that would be acceptable to Harry. Especially 
as later in the series it becomes evident that Sevvy considers himself 
very much the injured party in the 'Prank' and doesn't think he owes 
anybody anything. In fact he wants revenge - lots of it, preferably 
served up with garnishes of Azkaban, Dementors in vacuum mode and a 
bucket or two of blood. (If indeed it's the 'Prank' that DD's talking 
about - is there any proof that he is? Might not be, there are 
suspicions that Snapey was somehow involved in the lead-up to Godric's 
Hollow - and if he was then the whole thing is up for grabs.) No, the 
odds are that if Sevvy is doing it for anyone, he's not doing it for 
James, he's doing it for DD - or for himself. Yep, the old seeking 
vengeance on Voldy for a personal affront and seeing Harry as the best 
way to get it theory.

There's been a fair amount of discussion over the years as to DD's 
veracity. Many accept him as the epitome of truth and justice, that 
what he says can be relied on without question. Not I. He's a conniving 
manipulative cold-hearted duplicitous old axe-grinder as far as I'm 
concerned. He's got to be, otherwise that plan will never come to 
fruition. And in the traditional end of book explication (OoP) he more 
or less admits it:-
"I cared more about your happiness than your knowing the truth ..." and 
on it goes in nauseous self-justification. He seems to have missed the 
fact that Harry hasn't actually been happy anyway; just the opposite 
for most of the time. What is this "truth" that he's on about anyway? 
That Voldy killed Harry's parents? No - that's in book one. That Voldy 
transferred powers? See book two. That so-called friends aren't always 
what they seem? Book three. That Voldy wants Harry  dead? See most of 
the series. No, this ineffable truth that he whitters on about seems to 
be that damn Prophecy, which he interprets as meaning that either Voldy 
kills Harry or vice versa. Bloody brilliant. I'd guessed that as the 
eventual climax halfway through chap. 1, book 1, as did anyone who 
doesn't get a nose-bleed spelling 'c-a-t' - and if Harry hadn't reached 
the same conclusion yonks back then there must be troll blood somewhere 
in the family. One might almost say that it's too obvious to be true. 
Hmm. Do you think...? Nah. Can't be.

Of course since we only see  what Harry sees (except for a couple of 
chapters) then we must have been fed the same load of old tripe as 
Harry. This is not conducive to confident theorising. However, we may 
well have been offered the same garden path to scamper up, but lots of 
fan speculation is opposed to the conclusions that young Potter has 
reached. Snape, Peter, Sirius, Lupin, James, DD, even Voldy and Lily 
have been subjects for contrary analysis. And why? Because many don't 
believe that what they've read is the whole truth and nothing but the 
truth. Naughty, suspicious fans!

No doubt you'll be able to dig out a few more examples of shaky truths; 
I was going to do it myself, but there's this stonking curry that's 
sending out zephyrs of siren scents. And I'm bloody starving.

Kneasy