Further thoughts

[Barry Arrowsmith]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Lyn J. Mangiameli" <kumayama at e...> wrote:
> 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.  
snip
> 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.
> 

I wish you success in your labours. If you can demonstrate an underlying
coherence it would be praiseworthy indeed. It'd be bloody useful, too. May
even lead to the Holy Grail of The Theory of Everything eventually.

Most of us are hoping for elegance in the completed work, a combining of
important threads to form what in retrospect appears inevitable and deducible
if only we'd kept our wits about us. So much more satisfying than disparate 
story-lines explained away as isolated happenstances with only minor or
coincidental connections to the main plot-arc. Two of the most telling
observations you may hear when a new scientific theory is proposed are:
"It can't be right - it lacks elegance," or "Of course it's right - it's beautiful."
May be unfair to judge HP by these standards but one can always hope.

I agree that while Jo probably had the main characters and plotlines blocked
out from the very start it's highly unlikely that the detailed mechanics of
getting so-and-so from here to there was faultlessly planned. And with the 
mass of detail and the inter-actions of a myriad of characters she presents
us with it'd be unrealistic to expect otherwise. IIRC she's talked of plotting
problems, some major, some minor, before now. And lets face it, if say while
writing book 5 she has second thoughts and sees a neater/more devious line
to take but is hampered by what's in previous books, then it'd be a bit of a
bugger. 

In terms of the plot it'd be expected that Tom would be an habitual liar, he's
set up to do so - a devious, power-hungry, evil little bastard who wants to
manipulate everyone around him.  He's not to be trusted and the canon
reflects this fairly. But why would the adult Voldemort lie, and about what? 
His hench-wizards follow him more or less blindly, not daring to question 
him or his aims, and those on the other side know him for what he is, what
he wants and that he'll stop at nothing to get it. Lies are pointless and 
un-necessary.  Who is going to be fooled?

Plonking down a statement like "You can't trust what Voldemort says" is a
warning flag IMO. Like you I fear that some passage(s) in print have been 
reconsidered and have been found not to be congruent with something yet 
to come - and that something is important. Oh dear, hope it doesn't screw 
up too many of the posted theories.

Kneasy