Neri/OT: Intro/Theorising

[nkafkafi]

> Neri (Previously):
> >I'm certain JKR follows her rules wherever it counts.< 
> 
> Carolyn:
> That is a remark worthy of Dumbledore!  

Neri:
Surely not, just a useful observation. JKR can't cover EVERY detail in
the Potterverse, so she focuses on what's important for the plot. If
you find repeated flints in a certain section of the story, this
suggests that JKR didn't put much thought into it, so it's probably
not very central to the mystery. Merely a useful deduction for a theorist.

> Carolyn:
> 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?

Neri:
What immense opportunities? I naturally considered the possible
implications of my lycanthropy research for the ESE!Lupin theory (no
theorist who has been exposed to Pippin during the last two years can
possibly ignore that) but I really don't see what ESE!Lupin gains from
the fact that the moon couldn't have been full both during the week
after Halloween and in Christmas. Do you suggest that Lupin faked the
times of his transformations? But if so, how did Hermione realize he's
a werewolf? Or is she in this together with him?

> Carolyn:
> Or, that ever-popular one, characters are basically what they appear, 
> and readers will not be mislead in their assumptions In The End. 

Neri:
"Trust everything" and "doubt everything" are equally faulty
theorizing strategies. Building a theory is basically the act of
deciding which canon details you trust and which you don't. 

> Carolyn:
> 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.
> 

Neri:
OK, I'll rephrase my previous statement a bit. Building a theory is
basically the act of deciding which canon details to sweep under the
carpet and which to set above it. This choice is inevitable. There are
much too many suspicious and uncomfortable details in the HP saga to
ever be explained in just two books.

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

Neri:
I don't see the difference between this statement and my own, unless
you mean that JKR doesn't play fair and doesn't gives us the
information we need. A notion that Faith rejects, of course.


> 
> Neri (previously):
> >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.

> (*) 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.

Neri:
Faith grew up EXTREMLY fast. Your quote above is from Kimberly's first
Faith post #35878. In her third Faith post, #35966, only four days
later, Kimberly had already described Faith as "smiling twistedly", "a
tiny bit sadistic", quoting Snape, and having edge. But I quite agree
that even these days Faith still retains a girly, goody-goody side. I
think it's simply because canon have this goody-goody side to. You
know, the side that conspiracy theories despise, and which they have
always therefore underestimated — to their cost.

But I begin to suspect you aren't familiar with my own Faith posts. If
not, you can find them in 116369, 116370, 116371 and 116373. These
posts present my view of Faith and theorizing, using an actual new
theory as a test case. If you don't mind TBAY, of course. 

> Carolyn:
> 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*.

Neri:
Far from me being that methodical. I'm only passing along several
useful tips, gathered by many theorists during hundreds of years of
harsh experience. I have no problem with you or anybody else building
fantastic castles on the slightest grain of evidence. I've been known
to do that myself more than twice. But if your goal is really to solve
JKR's mystery, not merely enjoy building fantastic castles, then
perhaps these tips might help.

And Faith most certainly has never worked hard. There has never been
any need, as she explained to me in post #116369.  
 
> Carolyn: 
> 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.'
> 

Neri:
Heh! To tell you the truth, even I rarely use that white coat in my
work. I don't even own such a coat, and if I don't want my closes
covered with mouse poop, I have to borrow one from my lab partners. As
to Faith, if you'll read my posts above you'll find that she still
wears the same schoolgirl uniforms, and occasionally a life belt. And
her maryjanes are still sporting four-inch spiked heels. 

Regarding bangs, David has been Faith's friend for much longer than I
have, and if he claims that she said that, he's surely right. I'll
only add that Faith believes what canon places before her. Since canon
most obviously includes conspiracy and bangs, I must conclude that
Faith believes in conspiracy and bangs. And so do I.

> Carolyn: 
> <snip> 
> 
> 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:
Faith asks me to write that she has always known that those wild
theories have a grain of truth in them, and she thinks all of them are
quite nice. It is just that each supposition is strained. 

> 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.
> 

Neri:
I'm sure we will both be very glad if they chose to show themselves.
And even more glad if they decide to stay.

> Carolyn:
> But, as per my remarks above, I believe you are wrong in assuming 
> that huge numbers of those theories are washed up. <snip>

Neri:
I didn't say that huge numbers are washed up. Some do, and some are in
need of serious updating and rethinking. And for some reason many of
the Captains are not enthusiastic. 

> Carolyn: 
> 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. 

Neri:
Oh, I'm currently working myself on adapting some of the Memory Charm
theories to the post-OotP canon, trying to synthesize a Book 6 theory
(Faith had already agreed to inspect it when it's ready. She
occasionally reads extracts over my shoulder, sniggering and making
snide remarks). My question is why do we see so few of the originators
of these theories doing that? 

> Carolyn: 
> 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:
Faith doesn't have a lot to say about ANYTHING, unless we sincerely
ask her for her opinion and really listen to her. If we won't, she
doesn't give a damn. Why should she? It is not her, but you and I who
cling to our rickety theories in the middle of the bay with Hurricane
Jo looming on the horizon. If you believe the analysis above will save
you from drowning coming July 16th, cling hard to it. But perhaps I
should warn you that Faith was reading it over my shoulder, and right
now she's in the other room having an uncontrollable laughing fit. She
can be quite annoying, that way.

> Carolyn:
> <snip>
> 
> 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.

Neri:
Perhaps this is the case, and perhaps it isn't. But it seems to me
that you are saying to JKR: "I liked it very much so far, but could I
have a Le Carre style resolution, please?" You'll feel disappointed if
JKR won't supply it. Perhaps you prefer not even considering the
possibility that she won't. Nothing wrong with this position, of
course. It is your constitutional right to want a certain resolution
and not to like other resolutions. It is just that when you are
sailing your theory into the hurricane, constitutional rights are not
of much help.



Neri wonders who is the personification of conspiracy theories, and
how he/she would get along with Faith <shudder>