Login  
 
 
Go Back   Chamber of Secrets > Forum Archives > Harry Potter Archives > Divination Studies

'There will be still much to discuss after Deathly Hallows....'



 
 
Thread Tools
  #61  
Old February 24th, 2007, 10:14 am
Melaszka's Avatar
Melaszka  Female.gif Melaszka is offline
HighFunctioning Sociopath
 
Joined: 4535 days
Location: England
Age: 50
Posts: 3,294
Re: 'There will be still much to discuss after Deathly Hallows....'

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wimsey View Post
Good story telling explains itself in the end. That is, after all, the point of story telling: not to spin fantastic plots or turn neat phrases, but to speak some "truth" as the author perceives it.
Hasn't most mainstream lit crit since Barthes (or even since Leavis) rejected the idea of a god-like authorial voice imparting a "truth" to the reader? Doesn't most modern criticism emphasise the role of the reader in constructing the moral or message, rather than the author? hasn't the post-modernist movement in literature once again elevated clever plotting, narrative experimentation and language to more than just side issues?

And didn't Hardy write most of his greatest works, rather like the Lost scriptwriters, in sensationalist serial form, making it up as he went along, ensuring there were enough cliffhangers and plot twists to keep the audience intrigued, oftenw ithout any clear diea of exactly where the story was goign until he finished.


Sponsored Links
  #62  
Old February 24th, 2007, 3:04 pm
capella_black's Avatar
capella_black  Female.gif capella_black is offline
Fifth Year
 
Joined: 4497 days
Age: 35
Posts: 793
Re: 'There will be still much to discuss after Deathly Hallows....'

And I discovered yesterday, while following up on something totally unrelated, that characteristic elements of the "magical realism" genre include:
  • Contains fantastical elements.
  • The fantastic elements may be intrinsically plausible but are never explained.
  • Characters accept rather than question the logic of the magical element.
  • Uses symbols and imagery extensively.
  • Incorporates legend or folklore.
  • Open-ended conclusion leaves the reader to determine whether the magical and/or the mundane rendering of the plot is more truthful or in accord with the world as it is.
  • Owns differing properties of magic and realism at the same time, while incorporating the two together often seamlessly.
So there's even precedence within the genre for my proposal.


__________________


I met J. K. Rowling!



She said you should read my fanfics:
Sirius Black and the Drapery of DoomThe Werewolf Prank (by capella_black and Arithmancer)
Regulus Kills Again (One-shot)Lily Evans and the Golden Lyre

Pottermore: CatSnitch Black walnut with phoenix feather core, eleven inches, unyielding
  #63  
Old February 24th, 2007, 3:48 pm
Moriath's Avatar
Moriath  Female.gif Moriath is offline
MODLY CREW
 
Joined: 4883 days
Location: Neverwhere
Posts: 7,036
Re: 'There will be still much to discuss after Deathly Hallows....'

Quote:
Originally Posted by capella_black View Post
And I discovered yesterday, while following up on something totally unrelated, that characteristic elements of the "magical realism" genre include:
  • Contains fantastical elements.
  • The fantastic elements may be intrinsically plausible but are never explained.
  • Characters accept rather than question the logic of the magical element.
  • Uses symbols and imagery extensively.
  • Incorporates legend or folklore.
  • Open-ended conclusion leaves the reader to determine whether the magical and/or the mundane rendering of the plot is more truthful or in accord with the world as it is.
  • Owns differing properties of magic and realism at the same time, while incorporating the two together often seamlessly.
So there's even precedence within the genre for my proposal.
But JKR does not write in the genre of magic realism, as far as I know. She created a secondary world that is connected with a seemingly real world. That's fantasy. In HP we are constantly reminded of the otherness of the wizarding world. That's why I think that there won't be an open ending in the conventional sense. There will be questions left unanswered, simply because the Potterverse is so very complex, but I do not think that the reader will be left with a major question. Up until now, HP is too conservative for an open ending.


  #64  
Old February 24th, 2007, 4:37 pm
beth83's Avatar
beth83  Female.gif beth83 is offline
Fifth Year
 
Joined: 5057 days
Location: England
Age: 35
Posts: 782
Re: 'There will be still much to discuss after Deathly Hallows....'

if she were to round off every little detail the book whould be impossible to hold! jo will complete the plot and will tell us about the major characters, but not every single one that was ever mentioned.


__________________
Pottermore: RoseStorm
Wand: Rowen and unicorn hair, 11 1/2 inches, slightly yielding. I also have a barn owl who I have rather unimaginatively named Barney!
Proud COS and Pottermore Hufflepuff!
  #65  
Old February 24th, 2007, 7:45 pm
Wimsey's Avatar
Wimsey  Male.gif Wimsey is offline
Curse Breaker
 
Joined: 5069 days
Location: What day is it?
Posts: 7,036
Re: 'There will be still much to discuss after Deathly Hallows....'

Quote:
Originally Posted by capella_black View Post
Or that the cognitive engagement required to find the greater meaning is a necessary precursor to the full understanding of the greater meaning.
It is true that no explanation is guaranteed to work. Richard Nixon's famous line (you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time) does not cut both ways: you might be able to inform all of the people some of the time (but I doubt it!); howeer, you cannot inform all of the people at any time, and you certainly cannot inform all of the people all of the time. No matter how clear JKR (or any other author) is, there will always be some people too thick or too disinterested to follow.

That being said, if a story is well told, then the casual reader will understand what it meant, as well as understanding the resolutions of plot and narrative themes.

Again, given that JKR aspires to be remembered among the literary greats (your quotes do not contradict that in the slightest, by the way: yes, she did not expect to do that, but that only means that she was realistic; none of the Beatles ever expected to be ranked alongside Elvis, either), she needs her story to be as resolved as resoundingly as those literary greats resolved their stories.


Quote:
Originally Posted by capella_black View Post
It's a bit like a game of Quidditch: no one comes out and hands over the snitch at a pre-appointed time, the game only ends when the Seeker finds it, however long that might take.
I would agree, but that does not fit your prior statements: just as in a sports game, there should be no question about how it ended.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Melaszka View Post
Hasn't most mainstream lit crit since Barthes (or even since Leavis) rejected the idea of a god-like authorial voice imparting a "truth" to the reader? Doesn't most modern criticism emphasise the role of the reader in constructing the moral or message, rather than the author?
According to my friends who study literature, NO. My undestanding (I am a scientist, so I know this second hand: a lot of it from having dated a lit. student long ago!) that this is a common miscontruction of what Barthes and others have said. (I frequently make similar corrections to people who think that "scientists" often believe in creationism or that global warming is a hoax.....)

Insofar as I understand these theories of modern literature (which, we should note, are diverse: many schools emphatically reject this theory), they aim much more to engage the reader than did older literature, and there is greater attempt to present multiple sides in a balanced manner: villification of particular points of view (as done in Harry Potter) is considered a bit simplistic and blunt. Certainly, it lacks subtlety! However, the goal is not to make the reader think that both sides are correct: instead, it is to make the reader understand why both views exist, and thus why it is easy to go "wrong." So, if you develop a Nazi, you do not make the person just plain evil: you show why this person is as he/she is and try to make it clear to the reader that this could be him/her. This is very different from the old school: "It's wrong because I say it is!"

Of course, there are a few authors who actively deconstruct their own works as they write. This has produced some brilliant devils-advocate types of stories. However, it more often produces a confused morass! It's a very difficult thing to do. Regardless, Rowling really is not trying this at all: we are not left feeling too much sympathy for the Tory point of view beyond the fact that a classist Tory is one who has made an easy choice. Anyone who reads these books and then is surprised that she's a big supporter of things like Amnesty International and causes that break down class-barriers within the UK really needs to re-read the books!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Madron View Post
But JKR does not write in the genre of magic realism, as far as I know. She created a secondary world that is connected with a seemingly real world. That's fantasy.
Yes and no. JKR certainly is not engaging in magical realism: that is much more a basis for a plot-oriented ("was it just a dream or not?") story. There can be exceptions: Pan's Labyrinth is a brilliant one, in which we get a story about how, no matter how hard we try, we are not where we choose to be. In a multiprotagonist tale, the primary protagonist (Ofelia) tries to choose to live in a world of magic: however, no matter how hard she pretends, she really is not.

That being said, HP really is not proper fantasy. It is a novel set in a fantastic setting: however, it is about the how choices affect Harry Potter and how his choices affect the world around him. Yes, there is magic: but by no means is the story about magic, anymore than "All's Quiet on the Western Front" was about weapons.

(I think that it was Terry Pratchett who ridiculed JKR for saying that she did not set out to write a fantasy, or that it did not even occur to her immediately that she was; however, I think that I understand Rowling's point because whereas most fantasy writers focus first on plot, then on story, and finally on characters Rowling clearly focused first on story, then on characters and then on plot last: the plot here clearly is something that emerges from the characters and the story, rather than being the main focus from the word go.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Madron View Post
There will be questions left unanswered, simply because the Potterverse is so very complex, but I do not think that the reader will be left with a major question. Up until now, HP is too conservative for an open ending.
I would state it the other way around: there will not be an open-ending because Potterverse actually is simple. That is, one or two things result in many, many outcomes. All of the stories conclude with one or two explanations that explain dozens of things. Dumbledore lauds Barty Crouch Jr. for this in GoF: a very simple plan was able to accomplish numerous things. That was the brilliance of it within Potterverse, but it also was the brilliance of the plot as a literary tool.

(Again, simple and complex refer to the number of things involved: how "easy" or "hard" any of these things are is not a property of the simplicity or complexity of a system; something requiring one difficult thing is simple whereas something requiring multiple easy things is complex.).

Of course, you might simply be looking at it oppositely of how I am. In Potterverse, outcomes are complex and causes are simple: one cause, many outcomes. So, if that is what you meant by complex, then, yes, you are correct: the complexity of outcomes means that there will be no need for an open-ending: two or three big reveals by Rowling will explain all of the important outstanding details.


__________________
(It doubles for The Hobbit, too!)
If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there.” - A. P. Chekhov, Gurlyand's Reminiscences, and who knew why the Dog was long before the Shack!

Last edited by Wimsey; February 24th, 2007 at 8:07 pm.
  #66  
Old February 24th, 2007, 8:39 pm
Quickquill  Female.gif Quickquill is offline
Second Year
 
Joined: 4301 days
Location: Beersheva, Israel
Posts: 231
Re: 'There will be still much to discuss after Deathly Hallows....'

Considering that People are still discussing the first 6 books in these forums and chat rooms, I don't see why we shouldn't continue to find subjects for discussion even after the last book comes out. People still discuss and review the works of Tolkien, Shakespeare, and Lewis Carrol to this day, so why not Rowling as well?

There are some subjects that people love so much they just don't want to let go of them. Look at the Star Trek phenomenum. The original show lasted 3 years, but the fans didn't let it die. They continued writing books, articles, screenplays etc. based on the original series; and eventually the networks came out with new Star Trek based TV shows. These shows also generated literary efforts on the part of fans, and a whole generation of Sci-Fi writers cut their milk teeth on Star Trek.

I know JKR isn't interested in having others continue her stories, but she's probably flattered by the fact that she's inspired so many people to write literary critcism and fan fiction. If she insires only a fraction of the numbers inspired by Star Trek to become writers, she will still have a tremendous impact.



Last edited by Quickquill; February 24th, 2007 at 8:49 pm. Reason: spelling
  #67  
Old February 25th, 2007, 4:59 am
portage  Male.gif portage is offline
First Year
 
Joined: 4315 days
Posts: 85
Re: 'There will be still much to discuss after Deathly Hallows....'

yes i belive that there will to many thing unsolved when the seris ends at book 7.we will never know what job harrys mom and das had. we will never know what job harry gets or what job hermione or ron gets or what will happen to hogwarts in the end. there is to many things left unsloved to end it all in book 7 .there is noway you could end it all in my book .if you tried the book might be to thick to put in one and haft to be in at least eight more books just to finsh the 7 book. and the movie mifht be at least 10 hours long if you tried to put all of the unsolved in it. so you see it would make more sense to write some more to end it then to leave the readers hanging in the wind


  #68  
Old February 25th, 2007, 10:06 am
Melaszka's Avatar
Melaszka  Female.gif Melaszka is offline
HighFunctioning Sociopath
 
Joined: 4535 days
Location: England
Age: 50
Posts: 3,294
Re: 'There will be still much to discuss after Deathly Hallows....'

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wimsey View Post
According to my friends who study literature, NO. My undestanding (I am a scientist, so I know this second hand: a lot of it from having dated a lit. student long ago!) that this is a common miscontruction of what Barthes and others have said. (I frequently make similar corrections to people who think that "scientists" often believe in creationism or that global warming is a hoax.....)

Insofar as I understand these theories of modern literature (which, we should note, are diverse: many schools emphatically reject this theory), they aim much more to engage the reader than did older literature, and there is greater attempt to present multiple sides in a balanced manner: villification of particular points of view (as done in Harry Potter) is considered a bit simplistic and blunt. Certainly, it lacks subtlety! However, the goal is not to make the reader think that both sides are correct: instead, it is to make the reader understand why both views exist, and thus why it is easy to go "wrong." So, if you develop a Nazi, you do not make the person just plain evil: you show why this person is as he/she is and try to make it clear to the reader that this could be him/her. This is very different from the old school: "It's wrong because I say it is!"

Of course, there are a few authors who actively deconstruct their own works as they write. This has produced some brilliant devils-advocate types of stories. However, it more often produces a confused morass! It's a very difficult thing to do. Regardless, Rowling really is not trying this at all: we are not left feeling too much sympathy for the Tory point of view beyond the fact that a classist Tory is one who has made an easy choice. Anyone who reads these books and then is surprised that she's a big supporter of things like Amnesty International and causes that break down class-barriers within the UK really needs to re-read the books!

This is turning into a bit of a side argument, but I wasn't arguing that Rowling deconstructs her own work. I wasn't really discussing what Rowling tries to do at all, I was really taking issue with your suggestion that "good" story-telling always contains a moral "truth", put there by the author, and that any story which doesn't end with a clear moral truth is literarily inferior. That may be your view (and the view of a lot of people) but it's not the only generally accepted academic definition of "good" story-telling. I just felt you were being a bit sweeping in writing as if your personal idea of what good story-telling is were universally accepted empirical fact.

I think you're conflating post-modernist writing (where writers do attempt to give multiple viewpoints, and ,yes, I accept that JKR definitely isn't writing in this tradition) and post-Barthean literary criticism (which I would be very surprised indeed if I misunderstood in the same naive way that non-scientists think that creationism is a scientifically accepted theory, given that I have taught the subject at university level, albeit a very long time ago) - unsurprisingly, given that I referred to them in adjacent sentences, and didn't make it clear that I was writing about two separate things. But I probably was being irrelevand and pretentious.

I was nit-picking, basically. I agree that, based on what we have seen of JKR's writing so far, it is highly unlikely that she will leave the series totally open-ended and that Voldemort will escape punishment - it would be most untypical of the HP books, which do tend to have clearcut moral endings. But in the unlikely event that she does decide to make the end very ambiguous, I don't think it will necessarily be bad story-telling.


  #69  
Old February 26th, 2007, 12:07 pm
Moriath's Avatar
Moriath  Female.gif Moriath is offline
MODLY CREW
 
Joined: 4883 days
Location: Neverwhere
Posts: 7,036
Re: 'There will be still much to discuss after Deathly Hallows....'

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wimsey View Post
That being said, HP really is not proper fantasy. It is a novel set in a fantastic setting: however, it is about the how choices affect Harry Potter and how his choices affect the world around him. Yes, there is magic: but by no means is the story about magic, anymore than "All's Quiet on the Western Front" was about weapons.
I don't really see why the theme of choices prevents the series from being fantasy. Good Omens is about choices, in that the protagonist is the anti-Christ and his decisions affect the world. Aragorn in LoTR has to make decisions that affect Middle Earth and so do many other characters. The same goes for many other books written in the fantasy genre. There is hardly a book that is written to fit the genre. Writers want to tell a story and then choose a genre in which to tell said story.

Quote:
(I think that it was Terry Pratchett who ridiculed JKR for saying that she did not set out to write a fantasy, or that it did not even occur to her immediately that she was; however, I think that I understand Rowling's point because whereas most fantasy writers focus first on plot, then on story, and finally on characters Rowling clearly focused first on story, then on characters and then on plot last: the plot here clearly is something that emerges from the characters and the story, rather than being the main focus from the word go.)
I don't think this detailed distinction really matters in terms of categorising HP as fantasy. It is fantasy, whether the focus is on plot or story. I still think that HP is very conventional in many ways and that's why I do not expect an open ending. The story - and here choices come into play - needs to be wrapped up to convey the moral (and HP is full of morals). This does not mean that there won't be open questions about minor characters and certain aspects of the plot.


  #70  
Old February 26th, 2007, 12:30 pm
guad's Avatar
guad  Undisclosed.gif guad is offline
Mrs Grawp
 
Joined: 4827 days
Location: Rocking with BAS DÖSE
Posts: 3,618
Re: 'There will be still much to discuss after Deathly Hallows....'

JKR's comment about 'there will be much to discuss after DH' might have been motivated by her watching the internet boards. She is probably seeing that we fuss about a lot of topics that are minor and will not become important in book 7 (like which house Tonks was sorted in, houself rights, Victor and Hermione snogging or not, etc). I am inclined to think that her comment was more in that direction than actually hinting an open ending.

I am sure that major plotlines will have a solution, and if some major speculation lines don't appear, for me they didn't exist.

Mysteries for me that will be solved:
  • Horcruxes which and where?
  • Voldemort defeat how?
  • Major characters dead or alive?
  • Snape good or not (Dumbledores reason of trust)?
  • Ginny and Harry together or not? (most likely togehter)
  • Ron and Hermione together or not( (most likely together)
  • RAB

Things that will not be solved (among many others), unless of course they become important to the major plot.
  • Tonks House (unless it's crucial for finding a horcrux or so)
  • Victor and Hermione kissing (unless it's somehow relevant for DH)
  • Goblin rebellions (unless it's important in the war)
  • SPEW (unless it's relevant for the war)
  • What kind of potion the green in the cave was
  • etc

We must also remember that there are different level of unsolved problems:

Really unsolved problems i.e.:
  • RAB
  • Horcruxes

Unsolved problems that are only unsolved because of theories. Let me give a potentially polemic example here:
Snape. His loyalty is only a question because of theories. In strict canon, we have already the answer: bad. Of course I believe that there is more to it, but strictly speaking, it's a theory, not a question.

Another examples:
The two way mirror, the veil, etc. All these are most likely themes to reappear in DH, but it is equally possible that they are not important anymore.

So basically I think that JKR has thought out her plot, that some things we are discussing about will actually happen, and others won't be important, because we are on wrong track (see Mark Evans)


__________________

guads random creative moments: Fanart and Fanfiction

Support the True Heroes! Joins Squiddies Army!


BAS DÖSE! More META L than EVER!
  #71  
Old February 26th, 2007, 1:24 pm
ComicBookWorm's Avatar
ComicBookWorm  Female.gif ComicBookWorm is offline
The Next Great Adventurer
 
Joined: 5235 days
Location: Embedded in my sofa
Posts: 16,292
Re: 'There will be still much to discuss after Deathly Hallows....'

Quote:
Originally Posted by capella_black View Post
I would be surprised if she cared very much about other people labeling her work as literary suicide.
Of course she cares. She wants her works to be respected. She cares about how her works are perceived. But she also wants her works to be enjoyed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Melaszka View Post
Hasn't most mainstream lit crit since Barthes (or even since Leavis) rejected the idea of a god-like authorial voice imparting a "truth" to the reader? Doesn't most modern criticism emphasise the role of the reader in constructing the moral or message, rather than the author? hasn't the post-modernist movement in literature once again elevated clever plotting, narrative experimentation and language to more than just side issues?
She's just a good writer. She's not post-modernist. She's a not magic realist. She isn't a "type" since that would make her writing far too self-conscious and artificially structured. She may be aware of various trends in literary criticism, but she is more interested in being true to herself. She's just a good storyteller who pulls together all the elements: character, theme, and plot in an engaging and intelligent way.

We really don't need to look to the current vogue (whatever it may be) in literary criticism for writing guidance. Frankly, most of the branches of literary criticism are more about the critics, themselves, and how they either dissect or digest the story, than they are about the story, itself. In the real world, an author is more interested in writing a good story than meeting the strictures of a trend in critical analysis.

Other than the reality that these literary analytical trends come and go, and authors want their works to last, there is the fact that literary analysis happens after the story is constructed, with recent trends dispensing with the importance of the author, altogether. Yes, there are, indeed, people who craft their work to fit within the dictates of a particular school of literary thought, but those works are usually confined to literary magazines or specific literary circles.

Good writing mechanics, alone, dispenses with a god-authorial voice. An author shouldn't preach to the reader, but rather, let the concepts and themes become apparent from the story and characters, themselves. However, the reader shouldn't have to work too hard to construct them, nor should those the themes and concepts remain ambiguous. It's rather pointless to put the effort into developing themes, but then make them so obscure that the message remains muddled. There are books that are deliberately open-ended, designed to provoke thought, but that has not been the structure used by JKR. She does have a message, and it is rather clear.

Furthermore, since she does intend to convey a message, authorial intent should be readily discerned, but this can be done without author intrusions (narrative breaks). There is a very common sense reason for this. An author intrusion can yank the reader right out of the story, destroying the effort the author spent building the illusion of the narrative. So, despite the fact that some forms of critical analysis dispense with authorial intent, I don't think that most authors want that to happen, since they went to all that trouble to convey what they wanted to say, in the first place.

So instead of writing: "Bigotry is bad," or launching into an intrusive diatribe, she shows us several forms of prejudice woven into the storyline. Thus making it easy for us to see her intent in portraying them. The same is true for love, sacrifice, loyalty, and personal responsibility. She uses the narrative and character exposition to relay her message. Frankly, that's what is expected of any good writer.

Therefore, I don't think that we will be left questioning the meaning of the stories or the outcome for the characters. The only hanging issues will be ones that are truly minor for the story, theme, or characters, but instead, take on great importance to obsessive fans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Madron View Post
It is fantasy, whether the focus is on plot or story. I still think that HP is very conventional in many ways and that's why I do not expect an open ending. The story - and here choices come into play - needs to be wrapped up to convey the moral (and HP is full of morals). This does not mean that there won't be open questions about minor characters and certain aspects of the plot.
That is exactly how I see the stories. It is very traditional, but that isn't necessarily bad. It's an engaging story with compelling character and a fully immersive fantasy world. That's not a bad goal to achieve, in itself. However, she does have some important themes woven into the story, as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by guad View Post
The two way mirror, the veil, etc. All these are most likely themes to reappear in DH, but it is equally possible that they are not important anymore.
For instance, the veil will probably be in the story, but we may never find out how it got there, or how it was made.


__________________

Sometimes dreams do come true

Last edited by ComicBookWorm; March 1st, 2007 at 11:30 am.
  #72  
Old February 26th, 2007, 9:01 pm
Melaszka's Avatar
Melaszka  Female.gif Melaszka is offline
HighFunctioning Sociopath
 
Joined: 4535 days
Location: England
Age: 50
Posts: 3,294
Re: 'There will be still much to discuss after Deathly Hallows....'

Quote:
Originally Posted by ComicBookWorm View Post
She's just a good writer. She's not post-modernist. She's a not magic realist. She isn't a "type" since that would make her writing far too pretentious and self-conscious.
I repeat, I wasn't claiming she was a post-modernist or that her intentions are irrelevant, or even that her ending won't be clearcut (I also think it probably will be), I was merely refuting the suggestion that novelists who don't provide clearcut endings with a moral "truth" are bad writers.

I'm not going to bother taking issue with the suggestion that post-modernist and magic realist novelists are pretentious and self-conscious, although obviously I disagree.

Quote:
Originally posted by guad
JKR's comment about 'there will be much to discuss after DH' might have been motivated by her watching the internet boards. She is probably seeing that we fuss about a lot of topics that are minor and will not become important in book 7 (like which house Tonks was sorted in, houself rights, Victor and Hermione snogging or not, etc). I am inclined to think that her comment was more in that direction than actually hinting an open ending.
Yes, I agree, and very well put.

Quote:
We must also remember that there are different level of unsolved problems:

Really unsolved problems i.e.:
RAB
Horcruxes

Unsolved problems that are only unsolved because of theories. Let me give a potentially polemic example here:
Snape. His loyalty is only a question because of theories. In strict canon, we have already the answer: bad. Of course I believe that there is more to it, but strictly speaking, it's a theory, not a question
Yes and no. If the series as a whole works in the same way as the individual books, then Snape being bad is no more strict canon than Quirrel being good is strict canon when you are in the middle of PS/SS or LV not being behind the diary is strict canon when you're in the middle of CoS.

If Book 6 were the last book, even I (reluctantly) would admit that Snape is bad and feel there is nothing more to discuss on the subject, so I think Book 7 will close down a lot of the discussion on "unsolved problems that are only unsolved because of theories". It's the possibility that JKR might be tricking us that makes us look for loopholes and ambiguity. Once there isn't a forthcoming book in which the trickery can be exposed, I think that most of us will accept that any perceived ambiguity is accidental, not significant.


  #73  
Old February 27th, 2007, 8:38 am
WeenyOwl  Female.gif WeenyOwl is offline
First Year
 
Joined: 4321 days
Location: New York's Hudson Valley
Age: 64
Posts: 43
Re: 'There will be still much to discuss after Deathly Hallows....'

"I definitely think there's a one big huge surprise revelation, and that she's been working up to it from the moment Harry walked into her head almost fully formed.

In other words, Harry was "born" to fulfill a certain destiny, and he was always going to fulfill that destiny — even before characters like Voldemort and Dumbledore and Snape were ever conceived of — and that the entire series was developed to get him from point A to point B. And I'm pretty sure point B is not death.

Anyway if my suspicions are correct, once readers begin to understand the true significance of point B, speculation on how it applies not only to Harry's world but to the real world will be effectively endless."

Oh dear... Maybe it's just the late hour & I'm being paranoid, but something about the way you put this makes me think that you're postulating that Harry's quest will end with some sort of pious, miraculous, uplifting, probably Judaeo-Christian denouement...I do so hope it won't come to that. Bad enough for us long-suffering Pagans that JKR has her characters practice the external trappings of 'magic' without a single reference to any of the religious & philosophical underpinnings of real-life witchcraft. I really, really don't want to see Harry overcoming Voldemort by becoming a born-again or the like in the final confrontation. Hope I'm misreading you here!


__________________
"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."

- Noam Chomsky, Syntactic Structures
  #74  
Old February 27th, 2007, 12:38 pm
SusanBones's Avatar
SusanBones  Female.gif SusanBones is offline
Inconceivable!
 
Joined: 5074 days
Location: in a galaxy far, far away
Posts: 4,090
Re: 'There will be still much to discuss after Deathly Hallows....'

Quote:
Originally Posted by WeenyOwl View Post
Oh dear... Maybe it's just the late hour & I'm being paranoid, but something about the way you put this makes me think that you're postulating that Harry's quest will end with some sort of pious, miraculous, uplifting, probably Judaeo-Christian denouement...I do so hope it won't come to that. Bad enough for us long-suffering Pagans that JKR has her characters practice the external trappings of 'magic' without a single reference to any of the religious & philosophical underpinnings of real-life witchcraft. I really, really don't want to see Harry overcoming Voldemort by becoming a born-again or the like in the final confrontation. Hope I'm misreading you here![/font]
I don't think that JKR will change her way of storytelling for DH. Lily sacrificed herself in an act of love to set the main story in motion. But many other things that saved Harry were unexpected magical elements. And many of these situations had an element of love to them. The fact that Voldemort couldn't touch Harry in SS/PS and OotP saved him from those situations. The wand cores being the same and making the weird priori incantatum effect helped Harry to escape his encounter with Voldemort in GoF. Phoenix tears saved him in CoS. I wouldn't be surprised if some quirky magical element came into play to enable Harry to vanquish Voldemort in DH. Somehow love will be involved, but not some sort of religious epiphany.


  #75  
Old February 27th, 2007, 2:18 pm
guad's Avatar
guad  Undisclosed.gif guad is offline
Mrs Grawp
 
Joined: 4827 days
Location: Rocking with BAS DÖSE
Posts: 3,618
Re: 'There will be still much to discuss after Deathly Hallows....'

Quote:
Originally Posted by Melaszka View Post
Once there isn't a forthcoming book in which the trickery can be exposed, I think that most of us will accept that any perceived ambiguity is accidental, not significant.
I agree. And while we have a remaining book to come, then actually pretty much all theories are potentially discussable. Only after the last book, I guess that the ambigous things left will be those who are minor to the plot.
I am positive that she will solve all major ambigous things (such as Snape, the prophecy wording, etc) quite satisfactorily and clear.


__________________

guads random creative moments: Fanart and Fanfiction

Support the True Heroes! Joins Squiddies Army!


BAS DÖSE! More META L than EVER!
  #76  
Old March 1st, 2007, 1:31 am
rigdoctorbri's Avatar
rigdoctorbri  Male.gif rigdoctorbri is offline
Purveyor of Prophesy
 
Joined: 4938 days
Location: Arguing with myself
Age: 46
Posts: 2,336
Re: 'There will be still much to discuss after Deathly Hallows....'

Of course there will be things for us to discuss, including follow up movies, but she may not answer absolutely every question in this final book.

Hasn't JKR hinted that she has not completely ruled out doing other HP novels only saying "If you mean more novels, then I think it is highly unlikely." (This does not close the door tight, just means it is unlikely) If this is so, would she not like to keep certain doors open, and possibly hanging, just in case she decided to pick up somewhere in Wizarding World with another set of adventures?

Not that I think this is likely. She has other things she wants to do. A decade and a half of writing a single plotline is enough, don't you think?


__________________
Special thanks to storyteller for the Banner
Thanks to all who voted for me in the Through The Trapdoor: Fourth Challenge!

When faced with a choice between two evils, I always choose the one I have never tried before.
  #77  
Old March 1st, 2007, 2:26 am
harryhugger  Female.gif harryhugger is offline
Third Year
 
Joined: 4404 days
Location: Pigpimples School of W&W
Posts: 299
Re: 'There will be still much to discuss after Deathly Hallows....'

OK, there are like over one hundred loose ends for Jo to tie up, so does anyone really think it's possible to answer all of them in one book. No, loose ends will be the way that everyone's HP high will carry on.


__________________

^
|

Finally, my two loves come together *sigh*


Join the ASA today and help prevent spoilers!
  #78  
Old March 1st, 2007, 10:52 am
YellowRose's Avatar
YellowRose  Female.gif YellowRose is offline
Hogwarts Graduate
 
Joined: 4978 days
Location: Doing Wheelies
Age: 35
Posts: 2,259
Re: 'There will be still much to discuss after Deathly Hallows....'

Well I guess we will change from 'I think...' to 'Why did....'.


__________________
  #79  
Old April 10th, 2007, 4:21 am
dobbysfriend's Avatar
dobbysfriend  Undisclosed.gif dobbysfriend is offline
Fifth Year
 
Joined: 4672 days
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 930
Re: 'There will be still much to discuss after Deathly Hallows....'

I don't think that the last book will answer all our questions. Iif it did, what would all of us do with our spare time???


__________________

Can you guess where I am?
  #80  
Old April 10th, 2007, 2:18 pm
6_PhoenixSong_6  Female.gif 6_PhoenixSong_6 is offline
First Year
 
Joined: 4277 days
Location: Why? Are you a Stalker?
Posts: 49
Re: 'There will be still much to discuss after Deathly Hallows....'

I dont think there will be things hat are "unresolved" i just think that she might do things that we don't really expect, perhaps things that we might want happen but not expect. JKR is quite unpredictable as most people know. Like you'd think she's going to make Ron and Hermione get together but she might make it Harry and Hermione. (YAY)
And instead of HArry and Ginny (even thought they split) she might make it Neville and Ginny (although the Goblet of FIre did raise my suspisions). you just never know what to expect from this woman.


__________________
.Piece of my life.
.Against Me!.Alexisonfire.Anti-Flag.Bad Religion.Billy Idol.Bon Jovi.Bouncing Souls.Catch 22.Dropkick Murphys.The Flatliners.Frenzal Rhomb.Green Day.Horrorpops.The Living End.Less than Jake.MxPx.Paramore.Pennywise.Rancid.Reel Big Fish.Rise Against.Sex Pistols.Social Distortion.Streetlight Manifesto.Strung Out.The Vandals. And so many more of these awesome bands!!
{...Not enough room to list all I'm afraid...}
 
Go Back  Chamber of Secrets > Forum Archives > Harry Potter Archives > Divination Studies

Bookmarks


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 3:09 am.


Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Original content is Copyright © MMII - MMVIII, CoSForums.com. All Rights Reserved.
Other content (posts, images, etc) is Copyright © its respective owners.