Themes and theories

[davewitley]

> Pippin:

> If I understood your argument correctly, you said JKR doesn't do 
> complexity,doesn't understand the level of consistency which 
> fantasy fans expect in artificial worlds, and this extends to plot 
> and characterization, which therefore don't support the theme. 
> Was that right?

David:

3 out of 5.  Yes on complexity, a qualified yes on consistency 
(maybe 'has other concerns than' rather than 'doesn't understand'), 
yes on plot, no on characterisation, no on themes.  I do see 
chracterisation and plot supporting the themes.  In fact, I think 
this is my point: the plot is not like that of a detective or spy 
story, where plot is paramount and one may suppose that rigorous 
analysis of small clues may lead one to the unravelling of the 
mystery.  In my experience of this type of literature, 
chracterisation is necessarily flat to allow as many characters as 
possible to remain suspects for as long as possible.

It is theories based on the opposite supposition - that HP is 
*predominantly* a detective or spying novel - that I feel are going 
to be disappointed.

Pippin:

> The gist of my answer was that if ESE!Lupin is correct, there is a 
> consistent and complex plot that carries out the theme. 
> What we can see  of it now is a little bit like a drawing done on 
a 
> piece of origami and then unfolded. The lines won't match up 
> until you fold the paper correctly. 

Yes - but I have to say that I don't see ESE!Lupin as one of those 
complex speculative theories, in the main.  The main premise is so 
simple that the title says it all.  Try thinking of a name for Magic 
Dishwasher that actually tells the intelligent newbie enough to 
flesh out the rest of the theory for himself.

I think JKR's characterisation is subtle and complex, yes, so in 
that sense, yes, she 'does complexity'.  It's just that her 
characters can't plan a simple thing like world domination, or the 
protection of a valuable artefact, for toffee.

If for the moment we assume ESE!Lupin is part of the forthcoming 
revelations, I don't honestly see how it thematically addresses the 
central mysteries of the series, which I take to be 1] what really 
happened at Godric's Hollow, particularly how did Voldemort survive 
and 2] how can Harry defeat Voldemort without being morally 
compromised himself (there is a possible 3] how can Slytherin be 
truly brought back into the fold)?  A betrayal by Lupin would 
certainly be spectacular, just as Crouch!Moody was spectacular (I 
thought Nora's comments on betrayal were helpful, but I do tend to 
agree with you that a big betrayal, of which Pettigrew and Quirrell 
are foreshadowings, is very much on the cards), but I would see it 
as a foil to the resolution of these mysteries, rather than an 
integral part.

However, all this obscures that we seem to be in agreement that it 
is themes that drive plot, not vice versa.

> I didn't really deal with the inconsistent world building. I would 
> say that JKR is deliberately inconsistent about things like the 
> number of students which don't directly affect the plot but lend 
> Hogwarts a slightly surreal quality.

And, no doubt, the use of phrases such as 'Oh, maths' followed by 
successive explanations on her website, which themselves require 
subsequent emendation, is all part of her plan to disorientate the 
fandom?

David, happy to withdraw the word 'sucks' on Mike's recommendation