Spoiling the fun

[hg_skmg]

> Kneasy:
It may be something restricted to
the  low circles I inhabit, but there seems to be a growing
apprehension that the plot structure isn't as robust as it might be, 
that inconvenient inconsistencies are becoming evident and 
that hurried on- the-hoof canon revisions/explications are the
order of the day. One  would hope that the books would be able to
speak for themselves ....  but.... one begins to wonder.

hg:
It seems plenty of us are beginning to wonder the same thing.  I 
don't think it's arising simply from the interviews -- there seem to 
be "by the ways" cropping up in the texts themselves.  

Percy being a git and the wrappers being just wrappers were enormous 
disappointments for me, and thanks to all posters here who point out 
that there is still hope for those of us who twist and concoct and 
find deep meaning in the distinction between "his" and "the."  

Jen:
> We can still have fun, damn the interviews. I'm bummed about the 
> Longbottoms, RAB. The worst for me came several weeks ago when I 
> happened upon a post saying the mystery of Lily's eyes was already 
> solved when Harry used those eyes to get the memory from Slughorn. 
> Say what?!? Thank god no one asked JKR about the eyes in the TLC/MN 
> interview. I'm still holding out hope for more there. 
> 
> There's still good stuff there to pick over, once Snape gets his 
> fandom due. 

hg:
After the release of HBP and before that stinking interview, I 
dragged out my anagrams again.  I was really onto something, too, 
with Bobbins' Apothecary.  ("Go to Bobbins' Drugs!  Well me!") Gosh, 
that made me mad.  
The mystery of Lily's eyes was -- what?  Hypnotic power?  Come now.  
Slughorn is Harry's great-grandfather, isn't that it?  (At least, 
isn't that more fun?)  

 
Jen: 
> Remember what you used to say Kneasy, about spinning theories and 
> intellectual stimulation? That it's fun and engaging? I never quite 
> got that when I first started on the board, everything was supposed 
> to be *serious* and important in my mind then. But now I get it, 
> after a couple of years of being told my theories have holes, or my 
> speculation is wildly innaccurate, or just being completely 
ignored. 
> If I can't be right, and won't, at the very least I can still give 
> my mind a whirl and have some fun while doing it. 

hg:
Jen, this is the reason I was glad for the invite to TOC.  Really, 
ultimately, I'll carry on if it the end isn't as thrilling as we all 
conceived it could be, because the process of discovering how she's 
arriving at those conclusions is satisfying, isn't it?  And that 
process is most satisfying when nit-pickers unite rather than one-
upping.  I'll read and consider any idea, even go back to reread the 
passages, because HOW a poster arrived at such a conclusion continues 
to inspire me.  So many of the theories may turn out to be wrong, but 
it's amazing that there's arguable evidence for them -- and it can 
only enrich our reading of the texts themselves to think about them, 
in my opinion.

hg.