Neri/OT: Intro/Theorising

[carolynwhite2]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nkafkafi" <nkafkafi at y...> 
wrote:

>I'm certain JKR follows her rules wherever it counts.< 

Carolyn:
That is a remark worthy of Dumbledore!  

So, for example, JKR's apparent inability to construct a consistent 
pattern for Lupin's lycanthropy (see your tragically funny post: 
123946 Full Moon - A Rant About Lycanthropy Symptoms) is a case of 
internal rules being irrelevant, despite the immense opportunities 
this opens up for doubting Lupin?

Or, that ever-popular one, characters are basically what they appear, 
and readers will not be mislead in their assumptions In The End. So, 
we sweep under the carpet little uncomfortable details like why great 
guys like James and Sirius were betrayed by one of their closest 
school friends, or why the saintly Lily didn't tell Dumbledore her 
husband was an animagus (you are telling me she didn't know?). You 
can see where memorable assertions like 'Frank Longbottom was Judge 
Dredd on acid' begin (Eric Oppen on top form...). Intelligent readers 
start to fill in the gaps in frustration.

Personally, I'm certain JKR follows her rules whenever it suits her.

Neri:
>Maybe I should clarify the nature of my relationship with Faith, 
since I suspect that for me she represents something slightly 
different than her public image.<
>She doesn't represent anti-theorizing. She represents the ruthless 
natural selection of theories.<
> also the conviction that a true and worthwhile solution does exist.<

Carolyn:
Ah..this is rather different from the original girly who 'believes 
what canon places before her..first cousins with those cute twins, 
Naive and Gullible.' Admittedly, she had to grow up rather fast, 
considering the company she kept(*), but this is a bit of a departure.

I see now you are arguing about scientific proofs, test-ability of 
evidence, trying to deduce a method in the madness (assuming 
valiantly there is one). Faith never used to work so hard, she was 
well, just that - faith that the author knew what she was doing, that 
we'd understand it all in the end and not to go around building 
fantastic castles on the slightest grain of evidence. Y'know, kind of 
*dull*.

Now tell me, does the grown-up Faith in your lab, with her shiny new 
PhD and white coat carry out research into bangs, or is she still 
into whimpers? David Frankis once amusingly pointed out on her behalf 
that 'repetitive banging is really boring', and claimed that she 
said: 'bangy doesn't give a reason to re-read..subtle character clues 
unfolding does. Seeing Moody as Crouch does. But bangy just goes from 
flat to floppy.'

That was written before OOP, a book of unpleasant subtle shocks 
rather big bangs, but which nevertheless subversively undermined many 
of the assumptions readers had been making about all sorts of 
characters and what was really going on up to that point. 

Hopefully, Faith is now beginning to realise that some of those 
apparently wild theories might have had a grain of truth in them, and 
that some really Big explanations are going to be needed to resolve 
some plot lines.


Neri:
>I noticed that some months ago you had a discussion with Annemehr 
about the perils of theorising, and why many of the most enthusiastic 
theorists of the pre-OotP era are not very active anymore. May I 
suggest that many of them fell in love with their own theories, and 
didn't handle JKR's rejection in OotP very well? Perhaps they should 
have had some training with Faith first.<

Carolyn:
Oooh, brave man! You are surrounded by many of the original authors 
here. Perhaps they will step out from the shadows and argue this on a 
case by case basis.

But, as per my remarks above, I believe you are wrong in assuming 
that huge numbers of those theories are washed up. There are some 
specific ones which were based on mis-apprehensions as to who various 
characters were - it is hard to remember now that many people thought 
Bella was *Florence* Lestrange, for instance. And there was a spate 
of some completely wild ESE assertions, just because it is possible 
to make a case out of anything. 

Other, much more carefully worked out theories have simply not been 
disproved at all. There is the vast body of Neville theory, for 
instance, which if anything is enhanced by the information in OOP. 
Just try reading the Neville Memory Charm symposium, for starters 
(extremely long series of posts). Frankly, one or other variant has 
to get pretty close, IMO. 

Then there are sub-theories, for example about McGonagall's back 
history, and whether she knew Voldie, and the fact that she must have 
taught Snape, and must know him man and boy. Maybe not ESE, but yet 
another of DD's motley crew with a tale to tell, some part of the 
jigsaw.

And then there's the chief mugwump himself. You'd expect me to say 
that, I suppose. Anyone who came out of OOP still thinking that 
Dumbledore was a nice old man, bumbling around looking for a pair of 
warm socks, and with everyone's best interests at heart frankly needs 
their head examining. Yes, I do have some questions, quite a lot in 
fact, about the Dishwasher and allied theories, but nothing makes me 
doubt the basic premise.

But, on the alleged big themes, most seditious of all are the long 
series of posts by Elkins (often) but also Pip, Porphyria, Elfundeb, 
Pippin, Eileen etc which began to take apart the contradictory 
messages of the books. They are as fresh and relevant today as when 
they were written - OOP only deepened the case. Here's a taster:

'Although JKR lambasts the conservative middle class through her 
depiction of the Dursleys, her writing itself nonetheless promulgates 
many of this group's particular social values, mores and judgements, 
particularly when it comes to their view of social classes above and 
below their own.'

'JKR is a nostalgic writer, but her nostalgia is not merely nostalgia 
per se. It is of a particularly conservative and middle class flavor, 
a flavor which tastes awfully strange when combined with the 
progressive views that she elsewhere seems to wish very badly to 
espouse. Much like orange juice and toothpaste, the combination 
leaves a bitter taste in ones mouth.'

Faith doesn't seem to have a lot to say about this kind of analysis.


Neri:
>>To make the discussion more concrete, do you mean by this that you 
are
content with the way Sirius died? That you prefer this death to remain
messy, uncomfortable and unresolved? I believe I stand here with most
other members (even those who aren't Sirius fans) when expecting for
some clarification and meaning for it.

The analogy with Le Carre might be misleading. JKR may be that deep,
but that does not necessarily mean she shares the same themes and
values. There are other ways of being deep than having a big ESE. And
anyway, JKR wrote five books already. For theorizing about what will
happen in books 6 and 7, I prefer to analyze these books then rely on
analogies with Le Carre or any other author.<<

Carolyn:
I could live with it being unresolved. It does have a certain hard 
pointlessness to it if that's how she left it, which is how things 
happen sometimes. But I do expect her to reveal some Sirius back 
history, which either explains it as an inevitability (whether he was 
murdered or it is an accident) given some past actions of his, or if 
he hasn't done anything wrong, just underlines the poignancy, that he 
got caught up in something and lost his life.

I think you mistake my Le Carre analogy. He very rarely has his plots 
depend on some big ESE revelation. My reading of the Smiley stories 
in particular is that they usually come down to some intensely 
personal battle between one or two people, which is played out 
against a big Cold War backdrop. It's the contrast between the 
blunderbuss activities of governments and international politics in 
the background, with the particular pain of betrayal/or agonising 
decisions of trust between individuals which is so telling.

Obviously JKR has created an entirely different universe, but it is a 
war environment nevertheless, and it seems to me that the messages 
about human nature are pretty constant, and that the final battle 
might be of a similar nature - just Harry and Voldy in the end.

Carolyn


(*) If anyone is intrigued by Faith's curiously malleable 
personality, and don't mind TBAY or life on board the Big Bang 
Destroyer, then take a look at 35878, 35930, 35966, 35972, 39414, 
39468.