What do we lose?

[Barry Arrowsmith]

--- In the_old_crowd at yahoogroups.com, "davewitley" <dfrankiswork at ...> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure if people are saying that the problem is that we've 
> changed, or the books have.
> snip
> 
> The real loss, IMO, is not interest in Harry Potter, but *shared* 
> interest in *something*.  What's to discuss?  With whom?
> 

You touch on important factors, I think.

Time was when I could post that Jo had given us a large playground
with elastic borders to romp around in. Almost anything was possible.
And those that many consider to be the most entertaining posters  in
years past took full advantage of their opportunities. The weird, the
wonderful, the gob-smackingly different, the products of devious 
imaginations in full overdrive made logging on something to anticipate
every morning. But over quite a short time-span the boundaries have 
been tightened, possibilities have been discounted, what was an elastic
envelope to be stretched has come to feel more like a tether - and mostly
through Jo's comments and hints external from the books. 

It's as if we had been transported to the top of a mighty tower from
where we could see the kingdoms of the world - only to be shoved into 
a second-storey room with one small barred window that overlooks
the backyard. Claustrophobia is starting to set in. 

What made the boards so much fun was the diversity, subject matter
and viewpoints both - and resulting mostly from how little we knew
as opposed to surmised. Back then getting even the vaguest hint from 
herself was damn near impossible, and when one surfaced it was pawed
over, stuffed under the microscope, litmus paper shoved down its ear, 
twisted inside-out, back-to-front, upside-down and *still* we weren't 
certain what it meant (if anything).

But since she relaunched her site and ventured into webcasts and Q&A
sessions it's all changed. (Don't get me started on some of those interviews.
I don't respond well to exchanges apparently targeted at dim 14 year olds.)
At the time there were those who saw it (the revamped website) as an
unwelcome development (not I, though I've since changed my mind),
even suggesting that the boards had become so wild and wooly, so 
imaginative and outrageous, that the planned climax would verge on the 
mundane by comparison and Jo had decided to do something about it.

Dunno about that, possible I suppose, n million fertile brains do stand
a chance of out-plotting a lone neophyte author, after all. But so what?
Most of the posted stuff, while fiercely defended by adherents, wasn't
considered as much more than an entertaining guessing game, with
the guesses (sorry, that should read: 'carefully constructed theories 
deduced after detailed and logical analysis, doubters of which were
in dire need of blinker-removal') as no more than hostage-to-fortune
sitting-ducks that would come a cropper when the next book was 
published. That in itself was one of the most enjoyable parts of the 
exercise. Come release day, "who's gonna get it in the neck this time?"
shortly followed by shame-faced admissions of fallibility on the boards.
Great fun. The slaughter of the innocents when GoF came out kept
me giggling for weeks.

All this depended on us not knowing. But as menu items have been
scored out (Droobles, various bloodline relationships, Vampire!Snape,
ESEs without number, plus other stuff ad almost infinitem) there seems
to be pretty thin fare left to chew over. Personally, I get tired repeating
myself (after about the fourth time that is; up until then it's counted as
subliminal messaging) and frankly  I don't relish logging on to see the 
same old same old recycled yet again. How long has it been since a new
major theory was launched? Bloody ages. OK, partly it's because most
of the good ones have been snapped up long since, but I submit that
Jo, having reduced the number of options available, must bear some 
responsibility.

Not forgetting the other thing, the unkindest cut of all.
As Carolyn observes in her post today we hoped, even had some reason
to expect, that this was aimed at a wider market than the pre-pubescent
and post adolescent, that the books would have subtleties and sub-themes
that real grown-ups would find complex enough to be toothsome. IMO 
OoP made that doubtful and HBP pushed such hopes over the border
into the realms of self-deluding optimism. Some imagined that as the
denoument approached and the plot-lines became more defined, there
would be a balancing complexity in character development.

Has Harry's character developed? Nope. He's the same stroppy, snotty,
I-know-best teenager he's always been. Has any character opened out
significantly? Nope. Oh, there're possibilities if one delves into motivation
(though don't expect anything radical, is my bet) but overall the actual 
characters have simplified, become less interesting. Sure, a lot of us are
pinning our hopes on ole Sevvy for a surprise or two, but IMO one character
can't carry a seven-volume series. Besides, from comments made Jo doesn't
like Snapey much, or rather what he seems to represent, so even those 
hopes will probably be blighted.

So in answer to "what do we lose?" 
Our illusions, probably.
And the sheer unmitigated fun of letting your imagination loose and pushing
the envelope to outrageous limits without someone butting in with "Jo says...".
Still, there's always La Whiplash.

Kneasy