'Clue to his vulnerability' (Coming to a conclusion )

[carolynwhite2]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" <nrenka at y...> wrote:
> --- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "carolynwhite2" 
> <carolynwhite2 at a...> wrote:
> 
Nora:
(Of Elektra) All the readings which deliberately go contra their 
commentary or choose to ignore it end up with some interesting 
conclusions, but some really giant holes, or a hell of a lot of "If 
we assume..." and supposition.
<snip>
Correct me if I'm wrong, but things like "DD is the puppetmaster 
pulling the strings" are looking not merely for "this is a plausible 
reading of events," but are going the further step of saying "we 
think this may well happen in the text for everyone to see." Lack of 
overt confirmation/statement may then be taken as space to assert 
that it's a viable reading--I see that. I'm just skeptical, at the 
moment.

Carolyn:
Mm. It seems to me that you are just arguing a matter of degree. 
Personally I think that Puppetmaster!DD is more or less a given in 
the obvious sense. After all, he *has* planned for years, since way 
before Harry's birth, right back from when he encountered Tom Riddle, 
certainly from when Riddle came to ask for a job at the school. And 
he has been leading a covert spy network, often against the Ministry, 
and thinking endlessly about how best to equip Harry for the 
challenges he has to face. He thinks nothing of ruthlessly extracting 
information out of all sorts of people (Kreacher, Sluggy, Morfin, Mrs 
Cole), or of sending Harry off on similar missions.

It seems to me the debate's really about how specifically he planned 
certain incidents, or how much was a matter of luck and judgement on 
the day. And the interest is in how he sometimes gets the character 
analysis of his agents wrong - or does he? He says he thought Snape 
could get over his childhood grudges enough to teach Harry 
occlumency, but really, we're now not sure whether there was ever any 
point in teaching him occlumency in the first place. Did DD know that 
from the start, and hence not bother to check up on Snape, even if 
Lupin did pass on the message [we don't know if he did]?

Then there is the whole Peter-the-spy business, which once you take 
it apart, gets more and more incredible by the minute. Just look at 
it from the Lily angle if nothing else. She, James & DD carefully 
discuss how best to protect their family, he even offers to be their 
SK. Yet she apparently keeps her husband's and his friends' secret, 
that they are animagi, which surely she'd understand could be useful 
and relevant info for DD - not least for the work they are doing for 
the Order if nothing else? She's apparently a sensible woman who took 
no nonsense from James or Sirius. She'd think nothing of getting them 
to own up if it might help protect Harry. No, DD knew, and the 
information was factored in to his planning. It was no accident that 
Peter ended up in Hagrid's hut, or that he escaped that night.

But we may never know of course. Now DD's dead, Peter could easily 
have his predicted Gollum-moment, also die and leave us with endless 
conjecture. 

Neri:
I have two fully acronymized theories lying in ruin on the GARBAGE 
SCOW to prove I'm not a WYSIWYG person. But I do agree that for 
technical considerations at least 95% of canon must be rock solid, 
which is why Faith has by far the best prediction record in the Bay. 
The trick that Faith doesn't know is how to identify the remaining 
5%, which are of course the most interesting. 

Carolyn:
The only thing that tiresome, and increasingly blowsy woman in her 
unsuitable gymslip and silly heels can predict is what she thinks JKR 
wants us to hear. And that's about as interesting and reliable as 
Lavender Brown hanging on to Trelawny's every word. Frankly, Faith 
doesn't realise how much cooking sherry writing this series takes.

You should also know that there's a round-the-clock armed guard kept 
on the GARBAGE SCOW, by order of the Catalogue Office. All items are 
removed, cleaned, polished and labelled and will eventually be on 
permanent display to the viewing public. We have long since removed 
the criteria for 95% rock solid canon, as it got a bit boring and 
cramped everyone's style. 

Lyn (in answer to KathyW's question):
Do you really think that expressing dissatisfaction with some, maybe 
even many, aspects of an author's work means one doesn't like "the 
books at all"? Is it required to see the works exactly as the author 
envisions them (or in alignment with the majority of fans) in order 
to appreciate the story within. And might you not entertain the idea 
that one might like some books in a series, or some characters, or 
some literary contrivances, or some subplots, or some phrasing but 
find fault with others.

Carolyn:
I think this is a fair summary of my view too. I don't think they are 
total rubbish, not at all or I wouldn't still be here, but on the 
other hand I now think the series is less likely to deliver on its 
early promise. When I first came across them I was struck by the very 
obvious (to me) conversation that was going on with an adult reader 
in books that were apparently aimed at children. They were not only 
pacy page-turners, but there were jokes, satire, sarcasm, sex, 
historical allusions, politics....and from the interviews, she came 
across as a feisty, clever, funny woman who'd had a bit of a tough 
time and who had thought of this brilliant, complicated, deeply-
plotted publishing idea. 

I was extremely intrigued, amused and supportive. I'm a publisher, a 
woman, and I spend a lot of time discussing structure, content and 
style with authors (tho' I'm not a fiction editor). It looked good to 
me, and even more so when I discovered HPfGU and found a lot of other 
very talented, funny people who were equally inspired by the 
ambiguity.

The gilt started to come off the gingerbread a bit for me in GOF, 
where the plot really still needs some work, but then..she wrote it 
under pressure, it's still good. In OOP I got worried, I thought 
she'd started to struggle with some themes that it was beyond her 
writing skill to deliver, and worse, that her fame had intimidated 
her editors from insisting on some much-needed tightening up in the 
first half. On HBP (and latest interviews), although it is a more 
enjoyable book superficially, I am much inclined to agree with all 
those like Lyn, Neri, Sigune, Kneasy who are annoyed with the lack of 
plotlines being addressed, the closing down of options, the heavy 
hints, the careless plot detail. She seems to have chickened out, or 
alternatively never had the fabulous vision in the first place, which 
saddens me. So, I respond rather cautiously and apologetically to 
Pippin -

Carolyn:
what exactly would the 'invested' adult reader find compelling about 
these sorts of simplistic moral messages?

Pippin:
But that's not really what I had in mind. We are, I presume, going to 
be in an excited frame of mind as we read Book Seven. Its message is 
going to make an impression on us whether it has merit or not; or at 
least that's the psychological theory.

We have been told that there is some religious content coming.
That's a bit scary, or should be, since, IMO, all religions come down
to the same thing: "You have to change your life." Now maybe she
will be so heavy-handed and sacharrine that it will break the spell,
or maybe the changes being advocated are changes I am trying
to make anyway, but there is a reasonable possibility that they are
not. Then I will have to deal with the conflict, which could certainly
be disruptive to the life I have now, one way or another.

So if I said, in advance of reading the book, that it was going to be
just childish nonsense and there was no possibility of my taking its
ideas seriously, I think I'd be whistling in the dark.

Carolyn:
Um, you've been very upfront about your emotional investment in the 
books and I must respect that. I guess all I can say is that I find 
it unlikely that JKR's writing could impact on my life to such an 
extent, whatever the message she's trying to get out, and very 
especially if it has any kind of religious content. I'm afraid I just 
don't think she is an engaging enough or powerful enough novelist to 
have the remotest chance of becoming my road to Damascus, even 
supposing I was looking.

In contrast, a good many of the commentaries/theories I have seen 
generated by the books on this and other HPfGU lists have stayed in 
my mind as interesting areas for discussion. A curious point-counter-
point to what she apparently wants to do with the books perhaps.

SHORTS..

Kathy W
As for Codswallop...I don't dare utter it. Quite by accident I 
said "Bloody wicked!" the other day and my entire family walked away 
from me. I'm pretty sure no adult anywhere ever says, "Bloody 
wicked"...but oh well...

Carolyn:
(Boggling at Yankee sensibilities somewhat)..didn't you meet your 
husband in the navy?? This is surely pretty mild by comparison?!  And 
not olde englishe at all apparently - first used in print in the 
1960s, origin unknown.

Kneasy:
'Participating' is the correct word, 'cos the place often became a 
seething mass of irrepressible youth as sword fights were re-enacted 
in the aisles, invasion by robots was re-interpreted on the balcony, 
the orchestra pit became a pirate ship..

Carolyn:
I am going to treasure this image of 10-year old Kneasy, socks round 
his ankles like Just William, staging fights with cardboard swords, 
and Violet Elithabeth Bott screamin' fit to bust in the background.. 
oh it explains a lot <g>..