Vampire complications? was Re: FAQ poll answered...

[pippin_999]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" <nrenka at y...> 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?


Pippin:
Level of complication? My dear Nora, the maintained vampire theory
poses no complication to the canon at all -- it simplifies as all good
explanations should. It only becomes complicated if you insist on 
an explanation congruent with  the reader's "natural" assumptions.

Like -- if there is any startling about a character it will be
revealed by the end of the book in which he is introduced --do I 
need to catalogue all the ways in which this has proved false?

Or -- JKR doesn't give partial answers without indicating that she's 
holding something back. I believe the  Snape doesn't have a daughter 
answer has made even die-hard faith-niks question that one. 

Pippin