FAQ poll answered... (with spoilers for said FAQ poll)

[Barry Arrowsmith]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" <nrenka at y...> wrote:
> --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "Barry Arrowsmith" 
> <arrowsmithbt at b...> wrote:
> 
> 
> My dear Kneasy, to a certain extent loose ends are in the eye of the 
> beholder.  The fandom has an irrepressible urge to nitpick the most 
> straightforward explanations and answers for what they *really* 
> mean.  For instance, it's clear that Dumbledore hasn't told us 
> everything; however, it's not clear that everything he has told us is 
> therefore to be questioned and is radically incomplete.  And do I 
> need to get into the level of complication that the maintained 
> vampire theory poses?
> 

Explanations?
Are you referring to those offered by posters or those not offered by JKR?
'Cos she hasn't explained anything much, or not yet anyway. And any
'explanation' submitted by a poster can't be considered as valid until
it receives authorial confirmation.

What DD has or hasn't told us  is a prime case in point; if he wasn't
such an evasive, prevaricating, manipulative old bastard the questions
wouldn't be there in the first place. While not an enthusiast of the
there-must-be-a-vampire-and-it's-Snapey persuasion, I do see where 
they're coming from. FBaWTFT is very definitely an adjunct to canon and
we have already been introduced to one important beastie mentioned in 
passing in the intro but not listed in the alphabetical index that still 
needs much explication (House Elves). So why not the other glaring 
ommision that also gets passing references? 
 
What does depress me is that JKR's site (and comments made elsewhere) 
seem to contain a sub-text that the resolution will be much simpler than 
we assume - or is that just my imagination again? 

> Nora:
> I am indeed in the crowd that postulates that the most important 
> loose ends will be neatly knotted up--if we as readers are willing to 
> accept that in fiction, particularly fiction of this sort, the 
> explanations that we get as to How This Stuff Went Down are really 
> quite authoritative, by the end.  I must admit I don't see much point 
> in arguing (to give a hypothetic) that there's a possession loose end 
> if the ultimate explanation is that a failed AK murder attempt 
> resulted in the connection.
> 

Kneasy:
"the most important loose ends" -  that's not satisfactory. We've been
presented with what amounts to a new universe with its own history -
deliberately so. The amount of unpublished back-story and supporting
notes is reputedly considerable; outlines of families, individual histories,
the development of groups like the DEs etc., etc. Now with all that it'd be
unconscionable if titillating snippets have been strewn at random without 
corresponding clarification to come. 

I've a list of loose ends as long as my arm, starting with the how and why
of Snape, passing through paired wands, prophecies, bloodlines, grandparents,
the Founders, the Hat, Hagrid's throw-away line "why You-Know-Who 
never tried to get 'em on his side before", lots of questions why so-and-so
did/didn't do this/that in those circumstances - it stretches across the floor
and down the hall - and includes the GH event. That one is a doozy - 
because what we've seen and heard in Harry's flashbacks does not allow for
a simple AKing unless the author cheats. But since Jo is an admitted fan of 
Aggie Christie then that can't be ruled out. 

Now I'm hoping it will tied up in a neat bow, but I have to admit that my 
confidence levels are dropping. "Fiction of this sort" you say. Offhand I
can't come up with a reasonably close parallel; seven volumes stuffed full
of detail and twists on the stereotypical norm. Unfortunately Jo doesn't
have a track record we can refer to. It might be seven books but it's only
one unfinished story. And I'm starting to get concerned. I hope it's unjustified.  

> Non disputandum est de gustibus, of course.

Indeed.
Though since Jo has forcefully stated that she writes only to please herself,
"Non assumpsit" might be more appropriate.