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

[olivierfouquet2000]

 > To a certain extent loose ends are in the eye of
> the beholder.  
>
>Nora
>  
> 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.
> 
> Pippin

Olivier
I believe your points are not entirely contradictory. Many theories (Vampire!Snape, 
MemoryCharmed!Neville, Imperioed!Arthur...) account for many loose ends in a 
satisfactory way, simplify canon and would make a nice story. However, it is still true that 
what one particular reader considers a loose end may not be so loose to another one, and 
more crucially to JKR. 

Some readers would be most disappointed if no further reason were given for Dumbledore 
leaving Harry with the Dursleys. Therefore they think that there MUST be a reason. While I 
can understand their disappointment, I think their logic is flawed. Likewise, you Pippin 
might be disappointed (I don't know if you would) if there were a ton more bat-like 
references to Snape and yet he turned out not to be a vampire. It is still entirely possible 
that those references were just metaphoric.

Now, from a purely probabilistic point of view, I think 99% of even the satisfactory theories 
will be proven false (or at least left hanging, that is not proven right). In two books, you 
can after all confirm a rather small set of theories. So I would expect many readers to feel 
JKR has left loose ends all other the place. Only, I side with Nora in the idea that the only 
things she would have left are avid HP!theorists looking for a new hooby.

Olivier