Further thoughts

[Lyn J. Mangiameli]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" <arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:

> None of which I'd consider particularly significant in terms of "what
> it's all about". Snape's double/triple dealing has been the object of
> heated discussion ever since I joined an HP board - and *still* there
> is no agreement as to which side he's on. The mere mechanics of
> his operations may be interesting but they don't definitively tell us
> good or bad, nor is it a revelation that both sides think he's working 
> for them. Added to which, I don't really trust *ANYTHING* DD has told 
> Harry about Snape. IMO what he says is shaded or emphasised in ways 
> that will get Harry to think or react in the way DD wants him to.
> It's manipulation pure and simple, and one usually finds a few weasel
> words like "I wouldn't be surprised if.."  in there. 
> But Harry never hears those.

Lyn now;
Yes! A careful reading of DD's words throughout the series repeatedly reveals ambiguous 
and speculating qualifiers to his comments. And you are most right, Harry almost 
invariably misses those.
> 
> The Lupin explanation falls into the same class of plot business as Hagrid 
> and the Giants - but with less detail. Again, unless he comes across with
> something more than "the werewolves are on Voldy's side" it's no more 
> than background filler, explaining the absence of a major character
> without adding anything to the main story threads. 

Lyn now: 
I agree, unless a set up for something significant to come, the entire Lupin presence was 
superfluous and almost egregious given other truly interesting storyline (like another 
DADA class) that could have filled the space. 
> 
> > and we found out how Voldemort had survived the rebound of the 
> > killing curse. 
> > 
> 
> Kneasy:
> Sort of - but it's messy and there are holes all over the place. This is
> partly why I don't like this hersclix stuff; it's the subject of what seems 
> to be special pleading in the plot construction. Or possibly there's
> more to it all than has yet been revealed, in which case what we
> think we know doesn't mean much.
> 
> If,  as DD speculates, the soul fragments are not connected or aware
> of each other, why would the soul-part in a destroyed Voldy not do the
> decent thing and slip to 'the other side'? That part in the Diary didn't 
> hang around - and it wasn't even attacked by 'magic' but by Basilisk 
> venom. Why didn't the other soul fragments ensure it's survival? On the
> other hand Voldy at GH is assumed by most to have been zapped by an 
> AK - and you can't get a more magical death than that. Yet that fragment
> is still around.
> Why the difference - except for exingencies of plot?

Lyn now:
In working on trying to connect the rest of the series to the HXs of this book, the level of 
inconsistency makes me truly question if JKR had a conception of HXs from the beginning 
(though for the integrity of the series, one must assume so). I think one the most telling 
statements the JKR has made is the LV lies.  I take that as her attempt to cover for how 
there are some glaring inconsistencies that can only be "reconciled" if we don't take prior 
LV statements as accurate reflections of the facts. With the exception of LV trying to get 
Harry to give him the Stone in the first book, there really doesn't appear that LV has had 
much need or reason to lie to Harry or his Death Eaters. 

In working on reconciling earlier information with the new information on HXs, I am trying 
to weave a coherent fabric, but I don't have much confidence in its integrity.  
> 
> There's ambiguity in just what Harry and DD have been doing - are they in 
> the business of destroying Horseclicks or the soul fragments within them?
> If it's Hxs that's one thing - they are after all just protective devices, but what 
> happens to the fragment when the protection is stripped away? Does it hang
> around like a bad smell, seek a refuge, try to join another bit or vanish
> through the Veil? Or is it destroyed? We don't know - the protective devices -
> in one case a body, in the other the Diary, are destroyed, yet the fate of the 
> soul-fragments differ.

Lyn now:
A wonderful observation, which is the most serious hurdle I have been facing in trying to 
develop a GUT of HXs. This, to me, must be satisfactorily explained by Rowling to have the 
series have integrity, and I am growing skeptical, based on the cohesiveness of the 
immortality theme to this point,  that Rowling is going to pull it off.  I'll be delighted if she 
does, and find it truly sad if she doesn't. 
> 
> In one passage DD implies that they can be destroyed:-
> "However, a withered hand does not  seem an unreasonable exchange for
> a seventh of Voldemorts's soul." 
> Yet a soul is supposed to be eternal, the one part of an individual that will 
> last forever. 

Lyn now:
That of course could be part of the explanation that JKR could use as the difference 
between the GH soul and the HXs. The former is eternal but remains bound to its original 
life force in the living world by the presence of the soul fragments. The soul fragments are 
not eternal, having been seperated from the life force of the "mother ship" soul, and 
cannot exist independent from it except by aquiring the life force of another (e.g., Ginny). 
Likely a bunch of gobblitygook, but its the sort of things it seems it would take to have 
this come close to hanging together.  
> 
> Maybe DD meant something different, maybe he's been collecting the
> fragments - a WW version of stamp-collecting. "Swap you a hand for one 
> seventh of your soul."

Lyn
Don't think so.
> 
> Whatever. But of the 3 fragments tackled so far (GH, Diary, ring) when their
> abode/hiding place/protection is destroyed two vanish and one doesn't.
> Why? Does one part of a soul differ from another? I doubt it, the implication
> is that the seven parts are more or less of equal size and quality. Anyway, for
> the bits to differ qualitatively Voldy would have to be able to decide/determine
> which section of his soul got ripped off whenever he decided to construct 
> another HX.

Lyn now:
As above, I think one can posit differences, but they begin to seem contrived. I do think 
that it is specific components of the soul that are fragmented. Diary Riddle would suggest 
that it is based on a section of his life, but I suspect Rowling might come up with 
something like the fragment is of the greatest remaining humanity at that time.

> Like I say, it's messy. 

Lyn Now,
Yes, I don't like it for its, at least presently apparent, inelegance. I have been expecting the 
series to be revealed as more elegant in its construction as it concludes, rather than less. 
A shame if it doesn't. Though I still retain some hope, I have less of it with each 
subsequent book.

> And it's unlikely to be cleared up until we know exactly what happened at
> GH, maybe not even then.
> But in the meantime it's getting more and more like Agatha Christie - and 
> that ain't a compliment.

Lyn,
Yep, my feelings exactly.
> 
> > 
> > It was reconfirmed that Voldemort is misleading in his monologues 
> > and we should be very careful about believing anything he says. 

Lyn Now:
Yah, but I'm going to keep plugging away on my GUT of HXs if for no other reason than to 
show just how much she needs for "him" to have "lied."
> >