[the_old_crowd] Re: Spoiling the fun

[elfundeb]

  Kneasy, in a particularly thought-provoking post, wrote:
 Recently Jo has revealed stuff that tends to restrict the fun and
games; snippets of information or very broad hints as to what is or
isn't a fruitful line of enquiry. At base we don't really need to
know just how mistaken our ideas are until the series is completed.
The final wash-up would seem to be the most apposite time for
comparing notes and totting up one's final score. To have
potentially entertaining speculations rip't untimely from the womb
for no good or obvious reason is a bit disheartening for an habitual
theoriser.
 Debbie:
Very true. But I still hold out hope that there are some profitable avenues 
of speculation left to explore. "Harry Potter and the Search for the Missing 
Whoresluts" without more would be a very dull book. Please, let her still 
have a couple of tricks up her sleeve.
  Kneasy:
As the series has neared its conclusion a narrowing of possibilities
was inevitable. Theories have lost supporters as their likelihood
diminished, though a remarkable number have never been totally
eliminated. There's still a chance for example, that Trevor could
have his moment of glory, though it is an increasingly long shot. And
may it remain extant for as long as possible, however feebly. Why
reject possibilities unless it's unavoidable? The more options there
are, the more interesting the board is likely to be IMO.
 Debbie:
Actually, there are many many theories yet to be eliminated. JKR has what I 
find to be a very irritating penchant for throwing out an issue or theme and 
taking it nowhere. But if there's very little in the latest canon that 
develops a particular theme, it will seem a waste of energy and bandwith for 
old-timers to go back over that ground.
 I get the sense that some of the revelations are intended to let us know 
that she doesn't have time to develop a particular theme. All that stuff 
about the prophecy and Neville, for example. Wouldn't it be better for the 
readers to parse the text to determine what she meant? Or does she want to 
control what we *think* about the text? If so, the joke's on her, because 
the books are in our hands now and we can read them however we please.

Ginger:
Someone on TOL, (Potioncat?) brought up that there are Potter fans
who have not read the interviews. Imagine! <shakes head> 
 Debbie:
Interviews? JKR does interviews? Seriously, I've never read an interview 
just to read it. I have no idea what JKR says unless someone draws my 
attention to it, and when I do check an interview it's to looks for 
something particular that I'm interested in.
 Carolyn:
You don't believe in ESE!Lupin? Shame on you, after all Pippin has
said. Character objections or plot objections? I think she's bang to 
rights on his character.. not quite bought that he's a DE though, not
necessary IMO, for him to have dunnit, or dun some thing.
 Debbie:
Well, I don't believe ESE!Lupin either, but IMO the brilliance of a theory 
like ESE!Lupin or MD doesn't lie in its correctness, but rather in the way 
its plausibility draws upon and illuminates the character of the suspect. 
Pippin is a masterful prosecutor who uses the suspect's character to develop 
a few shreds of evidence, themselves inconclusory, into a story a jury might 
be persuaded to believe. Defense counsel such as myself can mount a good 
defense on the facts, but cannot erase the impression that the suspect's 
character could lead him to do what Pippin accuses him of.
 Carolyn:
Toadkeeper I (35612) - isn't actually an acronym, but revolves around
the idea that Trevor is the keeper of Frank and Alice's souls. There 
were a few difficulties with it:
 Debbie:
Yes, the devil messed with the details of this theory, but if you put 
Toadkeeper I side-by-side with the Horcrunchies you'll find that the idea 
was astonishingly close to the mark.
 hg:
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."
 Debbie:
Percy (or rather, the category he represents) is both one of the great 
disappointments of the series and a stepping-off point for our inspirations. 
JKR created many more characters than she could reasonably develop, and many 
of them are much more interesting than Harry, whose development into the One 
Hero has been utterly predictable. 
 For JKR to quell speculation into Percy's motives (to take an example) with 
a "Percy is just a git" would be doubly disappointing. Wouldn't it be better 
to leave that avenue open, and allow the readers to ponder what he 
represents -- and to speculate about his possible redemption? And the other 
disappointment is a nagging feeling I've always had that JKR just doesn't 
"get" characters like Percy, and that lacking appreciation for his inner 
struggles, assumes that the overly sensitive deserve to be driven away with 
mean-spirited jokes, and then blamed when they do leave. 
 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.
 Heh. I did the same thing when I first joined, but discovered that it was 
the most outlandish theories that gave me the most pleasure, even when my 
contribution is simply to debunk them. The Red Queen was right, you know.
 Debbie
whose schizoid approach to over-the-top theorizing is perhaps best 
represented by Alternative Universe Fourth Man, in which Avery 
simultaneously was and was not Fourth Man (will happily dig up the post 
number on request)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]