Something Smells Fishy...
Jun. 25th, 2006 11:41 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
beatriceeagleI come to thee, O dedicated HP fans, bearing theories. Yes, I say, theories, not predictions. Only a little bit of this is an actual prediction. So there will be no accusing me of character-hate, if you please. (Please, oh please, hear me out before you flame!) I warn you, it is long.
Without further ado, I bring you...
Something Smells Fishy: the Art of the Red Herring
(Yes, I named it.)
Theory under the cut.
At the time of this writing, there are two topics in the Harry Potter fandom which seem to be more hotly debated than the rest: shipping and Snape's loyalties. While the former is always fun and interesting in its own right, I wish to discuss the latter, because I believe it to be much more vital to the actual outcome of the series.
I base most of the conclusions I draw in this theory on theme and style. I believe that both of them are things that the Harry Potter books stick to without fail, and thus I believe that they are solid bases for theories.
So, when setting out to decide Snape's loyalties, I thought of those two things. First, I focused on theme.
There are several major themes that run through the Harry Potter books: choices, tolerance, the difference between what's right and what's easy, etc. But the theme which seemed to apply most to this particular case was the theme of moral ambiguity. Sirius told us that "the world isn't divided into good people and Death Eaters." (Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, pg. 302, American ed.) Again and again, we've seen J.K. Rowling try to tell us that you don't have to be a good person to be on the right side, nor do you have to be evil to be on the wrong side. We've had people like Umbridge, who are plainly sadistic, horrible people, but who aren't siding with Voldemort. There's Percy, a Gryffindor and a Weasley, who we know loves his family, but who sided with the Ministry because of his love of power. But Percy's not evil and doesn't want Voldemort to win.
So I thought of the implications it would have if Snape truly sided with Voldemort. Snape is a truly nasty, horrible person. He's a Slytherin. But he was our shining example of a horrible person, of a Slytherin, who was not only not supporting Voldemort, but was actively supporting Harry. If he's betrayed them, it says, "All Slytherins are Death Eaters, mean people can't do good things, there's no grey area for this." And that goes against everything that the books have said before.
So the themes of the books imply -- no, shout out loud -- that Snape didn't betray the Order. But what about the style?
Well, here's the thing. J.K. Rowling loves red herrings. She's used them over and over. In fact, there is a red herring in every single book -- with the notable exception of the sixth.
Interesting, isn't it? Actually, two of those red herrings -- the one in SS/PS and the one in GoF -- involved Snape as the distraction. Rowling likes to play off of our expectations. Time and again, we've been led to believe that the person we dislike is the villain, and it's turned out that the person we liked is the real culprit. She did it with Snape and Quirrel. She did it with Draco and Tom Riddle, through Ginny. She did it with Sirius and Wormtail. She did it with Karkaroff, Snape, Ludo Bagman, and Barty Crouch Jr., through Moody. It's just one more manifestation of that moral ambiguity theme.
So, stylistically, it also makes sense that Snape didn't betray the Order. But that's not all that Rowling's red herrings imply. They imply that Snape didn't betray the Order -- but someone else will. We're supposed to think that Snape betrayed them, so that we don't think there's another betrayal coming.
If this is true, then who would betray the Order? Who would betray Harry?
Well, for a betrayal to be effective, believable, and plot-driving, three things have to apply to the betrayer:
1. They have to be unexpected. There has to be some shock value. That's another reason Snape didn't work.
2. The average, once- or twice-through reader has to know them and be emotionally invested in them. We have to feel betrayed. We have to care that they've done something bad. This is another reason Snape's betrayal seems off.
3. We can't know a lot about them -- they can't be too main of a character. If we know too much about them, it will seem implausible that they'd willingly betray Harry. We know so much about Ron and Hermione, for instance, that a betrayal from them would seem almost forced.
The obvious problem is that criteria 2 and 3 seem to almost contradict each other; the average reader has to be emotionally involved with the character, but the character can't be very important. Since the critera are so limiting, I was left with quite a short list when I thought through all the characters.
The characters I came up with that fit the criteria were Tonks, McGonagall, Luna, and Fred and George. When deciding from among them, I tried to think of why a character would decide to betray Harry.
Let me first make one thing clear: when I talk about betrayal, I'm talking about conscious betrayal, betrayal in which there's some choice involved. I don't mean Imperius. If someone were to betray Harry under the Imperius, all bets are off; it could be anyone.
So why would someone betray him? Given our list of characters to choose from, it seems highly unlikely that it would be because the person hated Harry, or because they supported Voldemort. That would be very hard to believe, so I'm discounting it for the same reason that I discounted main characters.
But people might betray Harry if they were threatened. In fact, this seems to be the only plausible motive. And this is where I turned once again to themes.
Closer to the start of this essay, I listed some of the major themes of the Harry Potter books. Tolerance and moral ambiguity don't really apply to motive, but choices and the choice between what's right and what's easy do. A choice to betray because of a threat is still a choice; moreover, it's an easy choice instead of a right one.
So I looked at my list of suspects under the light of those themes. I decided to start with McGonagall.
In OotP, McGonagall is faced with a choice. She can go out in front of multiple Ministry of Magic employees at severe personal risk to defend Hagrid, or she can stay and say nothing. She chose to defend him. That was not an easy action, but it was the right thing to do. In GoF, she readily went with Dumbledore to a room where she knew madman was hiding in order to save Harry, and she didn't hesitate; had she hesitated, she wouldn't have been there, because Dumbledore would have left her behind. That couldn't have been easy, but it was right. If it came down to McGonagall's life or Harry's, McGonagall would save Harry's life. We've seen before that she's willing to sacrifice herself to keep Voldemort from coming to power. Voldemort might bargain with her for the lives of students, but it seems she wouldn't agree to that; this is a cause she's truly dedicated to.
Next, I took on Tonks. Tonks is tricky because we have very little to go on; she's unknown, even compared to the others on the list. We've seen Tonks put her life on the line for the Order, in the Department of Mysteries. She was injured in that particular battle. I think it could also be argued that she was right in pursuing Remus, when it might have been easy to let him go, but that's a topic for an entire essay. Nothing we've seen from her suggests that she takes the easy road. I believe that readers are also less emotionally invested in her than with the others on the list, making them better choices. So I'm going to say she probably won't be the betrayer.
Now, I was left with Luna and Fred and George. As characters, the three seem to serve a similar purpose; they're all comic relief. They've also all been elevated to a point of importance that is really too high for a character whose only role is comic relief.
Here's the thing, though. Luna always does what she believes to be right. It would be easy to conform and not be made fun of, but Luna does the right thing by standing by what she believes in. It's probably not easy to have the kind of faith in people that Luna has, but it is right. In the Department of Mysteries, when Ginny's ankle was broken and Ron had been turned into a blibbering idiot by Death Eaters, it would have been easy to leave them and run for herself, especially when there were Death Eaters right on their tail. But Luna did the right thing, and led them away, even though they probably slowed her down considerably. Luna has never shown any inclination towards easiness over what's right.
Which left me with Fred and George. Just so you know, I didn't go through these people in this order when I was researching them; they're this way in the essay mostly for dramatic effect. Fred and George were actually the second suspects who I researched.
Fred and George. Here's the thing. In books like this, it's the little things that give people away. Fred and George only got a few OWLs each, even though they're obviously very intelligent? Why? Because they were lazy about it. That was easy. But it wasn't right. You know what else is easy? Testing merchandise on unsuspecting first years. But is it right? Not in a million years.
Sometimes, it's the big things that give you away.
"We don't care about the dumb Order!" shouted Fred.
"It's our dad dying we're talking about!" yelled George.
"Your father knew what he was getting into, and he won't thank you for messing things up for the Order!" said Sirius angrily in his turn. "This is how it is -- this is why you're not ing the Order -- you don't understand -- there are things worth dying for!"
-Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, pg. 477
Oh, how easy to forget about the Order, how easy to blow your cover -- and how very not right.
I'm not saying Fred and George are bad people. I'm not saying they're not trying their best, I'm not even saying that they'll see what they're doing as wrong. I guess what I'm saying is this. If Voldemort gave Fred and George a choice between spying on and betraying Harry and the Order or seeing Ginny, or their mother, or their father, or their whole family die -- which do you think they'd choose?
So that's my theory. A theory, mind you, something I think could happen, not what I think definitely will.
I'm begging for feedback, people, so comment!
Without further ado, I bring you...
Something Smells Fishy: the Art of the Red Herring
(Yes, I named it.)
Theory under the cut.
At the time of this writing, there are two topics in the Harry Potter fandom which seem to be more hotly debated than the rest: shipping and Snape's loyalties. While the former is always fun and interesting in its own right, I wish to discuss the latter, because I believe it to be much more vital to the actual outcome of the series.
I base most of the conclusions I draw in this theory on theme and style. I believe that both of them are things that the Harry Potter books stick to without fail, and thus I believe that they are solid bases for theories.
So, when setting out to decide Snape's loyalties, I thought of those two things. First, I focused on theme.
There are several major themes that run through the Harry Potter books: choices, tolerance, the difference between what's right and what's easy, etc. But the theme which seemed to apply most to this particular case was the theme of moral ambiguity. Sirius told us that "the world isn't divided into good people and Death Eaters." (Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, pg. 302, American ed.) Again and again, we've seen J.K. Rowling try to tell us that you don't have to be a good person to be on the right side, nor do you have to be evil to be on the wrong side. We've had people like Umbridge, who are plainly sadistic, horrible people, but who aren't siding with Voldemort. There's Percy, a Gryffindor and a Weasley, who we know loves his family, but who sided with the Ministry because of his love of power. But Percy's not evil and doesn't want Voldemort to win.
So I thought of the implications it would have if Snape truly sided with Voldemort. Snape is a truly nasty, horrible person. He's a Slytherin. But he was our shining example of a horrible person, of a Slytherin, who was not only not supporting Voldemort, but was actively supporting Harry. If he's betrayed them, it says, "All Slytherins are Death Eaters, mean people can't do good things, there's no grey area for this." And that goes against everything that the books have said before.
So the themes of the books imply -- no, shout out loud -- that Snape didn't betray the Order. But what about the style?
Well, here's the thing. J.K. Rowling loves red herrings. She's used them over and over. In fact, there is a red herring in every single book -- with the notable exception of the sixth.
Interesting, isn't it? Actually, two of those red herrings -- the one in SS/PS and the one in GoF -- involved Snape as the distraction. Rowling likes to play off of our expectations. Time and again, we've been led to believe that the person we dislike is the villain, and it's turned out that the person we liked is the real culprit. She did it with Snape and Quirrel. She did it with Draco and Tom Riddle, through Ginny. She did it with Sirius and Wormtail. She did it with Karkaroff, Snape, Ludo Bagman, and Barty Crouch Jr., through Moody. It's just one more manifestation of that moral ambiguity theme.
So, stylistically, it also makes sense that Snape didn't betray the Order. But that's not all that Rowling's red herrings imply. They imply that Snape didn't betray the Order -- but someone else will. We're supposed to think that Snape betrayed them, so that we don't think there's another betrayal coming.
If this is true, then who would betray the Order? Who would betray Harry?
Well, for a betrayal to be effective, believable, and plot-driving, three things have to apply to the betrayer:
1. They have to be unexpected. There has to be some shock value. That's another reason Snape didn't work.
2. The average, once- or twice-through reader has to know them and be emotionally invested in them. We have to feel betrayed. We have to care that they've done something bad. This is another reason Snape's betrayal seems off.
3. We can't know a lot about them -- they can't be too main of a character. If we know too much about them, it will seem implausible that they'd willingly betray Harry. We know so much about Ron and Hermione, for instance, that a betrayal from them would seem almost forced.
The obvious problem is that criteria 2 and 3 seem to almost contradict each other; the average reader has to be emotionally involved with the character, but the character can't be very important. Since the critera are so limiting, I was left with quite a short list when I thought through all the characters.
The characters I came up with that fit the criteria were Tonks, McGonagall, Luna, and Fred and George. When deciding from among them, I tried to think of why a character would decide to betray Harry.
Let me first make one thing clear: when I talk about betrayal, I'm talking about conscious betrayal, betrayal in which there's some choice involved. I don't mean Imperius. If someone were to betray Harry under the Imperius, all bets are off; it could be anyone.
So why would someone betray him? Given our list of characters to choose from, it seems highly unlikely that it would be because the person hated Harry, or because they supported Voldemort. That would be very hard to believe, so I'm discounting it for the same reason that I discounted main characters.
But people might betray Harry if they were threatened. In fact, this seems to be the only plausible motive. And this is where I turned once again to themes.
Closer to the start of this essay, I listed some of the major themes of the Harry Potter books. Tolerance and moral ambiguity don't really apply to motive, but choices and the choice between what's right and what's easy do. A choice to betray because of a threat is still a choice; moreover, it's an easy choice instead of a right one.
So I looked at my list of suspects under the light of those themes. I decided to start with McGonagall.
In OotP, McGonagall is faced with a choice. She can go out in front of multiple Ministry of Magic employees at severe personal risk to defend Hagrid, or she can stay and say nothing. She chose to defend him. That was not an easy action, but it was the right thing to do. In GoF, she readily went with Dumbledore to a room where she knew madman was hiding in order to save Harry, and she didn't hesitate; had she hesitated, she wouldn't have been there, because Dumbledore would have left her behind. That couldn't have been easy, but it was right. If it came down to McGonagall's life or Harry's, McGonagall would save Harry's life. We've seen before that she's willing to sacrifice herself to keep Voldemort from coming to power. Voldemort might bargain with her for the lives of students, but it seems she wouldn't agree to that; this is a cause she's truly dedicated to.
Next, I took on Tonks. Tonks is tricky because we have very little to go on; she's unknown, even compared to the others on the list. We've seen Tonks put her life on the line for the Order, in the Department of Mysteries. She was injured in that particular battle. I think it could also be argued that she was right in pursuing Remus, when it might have been easy to let him go, but that's a topic for an entire essay. Nothing we've seen from her suggests that she takes the easy road. I believe that readers are also less emotionally invested in her than with the others on the list, making them better choices. So I'm going to say she probably won't be the betrayer.
Now, I was left with Luna and Fred and George. As characters, the three seem to serve a similar purpose; they're all comic relief. They've also all been elevated to a point of importance that is really too high for a character whose only role is comic relief.
Here's the thing, though. Luna always does what she believes to be right. It would be easy to conform and not be made fun of, but Luna does the right thing by standing by what she believes in. It's probably not easy to have the kind of faith in people that Luna has, but it is right. In the Department of Mysteries, when Ginny's ankle was broken and Ron had been turned into a blibbering idiot by Death Eaters, it would have been easy to leave them and run for herself, especially when there were Death Eaters right on their tail. But Luna did the right thing, and led them away, even though they probably slowed her down considerably. Luna has never shown any inclination towards easiness over what's right.
Which left me with Fred and George. Just so you know, I didn't go through these people in this order when I was researching them; they're this way in the essay mostly for dramatic effect. Fred and George were actually the second suspects who I researched.
Fred and George. Here's the thing. In books like this, it's the little things that give people away. Fred and George only got a few OWLs each, even though they're obviously very intelligent? Why? Because they were lazy about it. That was easy. But it wasn't right. You know what else is easy? Testing merchandise on unsuspecting first years. But is it right? Not in a million years.
Sometimes, it's the big things that give you away.
"We don't care about the dumb Order!" shouted Fred.
"It's our dad dying we're talking about!" yelled George.
"Your father knew what he was getting into, and he won't thank you for messing things up for the Order!" said Sirius angrily in his turn. "This is how it is -- this is why you're not ing the Order -- you don't understand -- there are things worth dying for!"
-Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, pg. 477
Oh, how easy to forget about the Order, how easy to blow your cover -- and how very not right.
I'm not saying Fred and George are bad people. I'm not saying they're not trying their best, I'm not even saying that they'll see what they're doing as wrong. I guess what I'm saying is this. If Voldemort gave Fred and George a choice between spying on and betraying Harry and the Order or seeing Ginny, or their mother, or their father, or their whole family die -- which do you think they'd choose?
So that's my theory. A theory, mind you, something I think could happen, not what I think definitely will.
I'm begging for feedback, people, so comment!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-06-26 07:31 am (UTC)The first part of your theory is sound, for as much as I can tell. JK likes to use the red herring too much, and it's too easy to say that Snape is evil. I was favoring the theory that Snape works for neither side in the war, but just for his own preservation. But yes, I agree with you on all your points.
I'm sure you're expecting this, but I cannot agree with you about the likely betrayers being the twins. I suspect that there will be a betrayal, as you said. It has to be a shocker (just JK's style). But I think you've discounted too many possible suspects. HOw about the other members of the Order besides Tonks? Kingsley, we've seen a lot of... Mundungus is surely a candidate for taking the easy way out of things. You might even say that Mundungus has a reason to be bitter against Harry, after that episode at the end of Book 6 where Harry nearly beat him up. I'd even say you discounted Tonks too quickly. Her work and her concern for the Order was clearly compromised by her feelings toward Lupin. How about a fellow student? It wouldn't be the first time a student betrayed Harry (though not to Death Eaters).
I do agree that the twins' loyalties lie with their family, but note how they reacted when Percy turned against their family and went to the Ministry? They don't seem likely to forgive the betrayal. On the same page, I don't think they would do something so seriously [i]wrong[/i]. If not because it's not "right" then just because it would be a betrayal of their own family. Even if someone didn't agree that Harry was considered one of their own, they'd have to know that if they betrayed Harry, it would still be an act of betrayal against their family -- people who are invested in Harry's cause, health, and just his being. Harry's saved their family members' lives more than once. Their own father nearly died, doing work to stop Voldemort and further Harry's cause. The only reason they'd compromise their principles would be in their family's name, but betraying Harry wouldn't save their family. It would doom them. I very seriously doubt that the twins (though they have the soft spot for mischief) would ever do something that seriously evil.
Great theories!
no subject
Date: 2006-06-26 02:31 pm (UTC)Kingsley would be a shock, and we don't know a lot about him, but I discounted him for one reason. The average reader isn't emotionally invested in him, and it doesn't seem that he's written so that he/she is supposed to be. Kingsley is entirely absent from the sixth book, where his name is mentioned once, and is present in I think four scenes out of the monstrously long OotP. He's never given a really defining, distinctive personality. There would be no emotional reaction from the reader, and probably not even a huge one from Harry.
I also considered Mundungus, but discounted him for two reasons. One, his shock value isn't as big as a person who's traditionally been seen in a "good" light. Two, we're just not led to like him or be emotionally invested. I'm sure they're out there, but I don't think that many casual HP readers would list Dung as their favorite character, or even in their top fifteen list of favorite characters. Those are the sorts of people we're looking for.
That's why most Hogwarts students wouldn't work. So Parvati betrayed them? So what? Sure, it sucks, sure, there's a feeling of betrayal, but no one cares enough about Parvati to actually feel sad that she's done something this bad. Same goes for Lavender, Ernie McMillan, Hannah Abbot, etc.
You're right in that I probably didn't give enough consideration to Tonks, so I'll try to do it now. Like I said, her actions regarding Remus would take up an entire essay. My personal opinion is this: it wasn't her choice to be depressed. It wasn't even her choice to keep loving him. Those are mostly things decided for us, and I don't think that it's fair to condemn her for it. Moreover, I don't see how Tonks's depression hindered her usefulness to the Order. She was unhappy, but she was still dutiful. She still did what needed to be done. She was still brave. And in the end, she didn't let her depression keep her from fighting Death Eaters at Hogwarts. So no, I don't think Tonks fits the bill.
I do remember the twins' reaction to Percy. They don't take betrayal lightly, but betraying their family I believe would be unthinkable. I don't think they would see betraying Harry to save their family as betraying their family. Their own father did indeed almost die to protect the causen -- and they didn't understand that. They were willing to break the cover and secrecy of the Order to see him. And while it's all very well for us to sit safely in our homes and think through the effects of a betrayal while we don't even inhabit the same reality as the twins, I doubt it would seem so clear-cut to them.
And now I want to take on your last line. Because I don't think that, even if the twins did betray Harry, I would consider it evil. They would have been in a horrible position, and they'd have made a mistake. It's not evil, it's just a bad choice. And I think, were this to happen, that the books would make that clear.
Anyway, that's all I'm saying.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-26 07:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-26 08:16 pm (UTC)However, I disagree with at least ONE of your points. I do not think Fred and George are lazy at all. . . I just think they have a different set of priorities than most people their age.
Laziness would suggest an unwillingness to work, but they are clearly very hard workers when it comes to things they ENJOY doing, ie, the joke shop. They're practically manic when it comes to making things for their store. Think about it, Thye came up with a whole store full of merchandise, premises, catalogues, etc, in the span of about 2 years. Hardly lazy boys.
I agree that should someone attempt to make them an offer, they might be sorely tempted to save their family. Possibly. If you discount Harry being practically part of their family and them having almost as much of a protective streak about him as they do of their natural siblings.
There are several other people who could give up information. . . whether knowingly or not. . . almost anyone in Gryffindor (or their parents), Kinglsey Shacklebolt. . . hell, Petunia, Vernon or Dudley are all prime candidates for a betrayal on the first order.
Sure, a lot of this is just my Weasley love coming out, but I seriously can't see any of them willingly betraying Harry. not after everything they have been through together.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-26 08:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-26 11:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-26 11:36 pm (UTC)Yes, Harry is practically part of their family. And yes, I'm sure they do have a protective streak over him. But I can't actually think of a single example in which that protectiveness manifested itself towards Harry. In CoS, they saved him from the Dursleys, but at that point they'd only known him for a year, and it doesn't seem likely that that was done out of protectiveness. It seems to have been done partly for Ron's sake and partly for the spirit of adventure. What I'm saying here is that Mrs. Weasley considers Harry her son. That doesn't mean that Fred and George consider him on par with their siblings, especially if they've never shown any sign that he is. (If you can find a scene that contradicts this, please tell me; I'd like to know.)
Yes, there are people who could give up information. But betrayals don't really have much emotional value if you don't care about the person doing the betraying. That's why most of the Gryffindors won't work, that's why Kingsley won't work, and that's obviously why the Dursleys won't work. For the same reason that the major deaths in the series have been deaths of likeable characters who had a large role at least within the book where they died, it makes sense that a betrayal would be made by a well-liked and emotionally invested in character.
no subject
Date: 2006-06-27 11:39 am (UTC)I dislike them slightly, it's true, but... I dunno.
Their reaction to Arthur... I think that was just fear. They wanted to see him, you know?
However, I think I can see them unintentionally aiding Voldemort, like they did wth Draco. They're going to do more harm, I can tell you that.
Or was it unintentional...
Gaah, Bea, now you've got me a-conspirin'!
no subject
Date: 2006-06-27 06:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-06-28 06:40 pm (UTC)I actually really like Fred and George, and I hope this doesn't happen, but I think it could.
Yes, their products did help Malfoy, though if it helps, I think that was entirely unintentional.