I’ve made notes about Narrative Misdirection and the ultimate folly of believing you can accurately predict Rowling’s next move here and here. Let me first clarify before moving on: I think a reasonable amount of speculation is good. It makes us better readers not only of Harry Potter, but of literature in general. I think of my recent reading of Jane Austen’s Emma. Many of the book’s surprises were ruined for me by the realization in chapter 5 or so that this was clearly the inspiration for the movie Clueless. Yet there were still surprises not paralleled in the film, and I was able to sort them out fairly early in the novel, because I’ve become so used to looking for them in Rowling’s works (Austen is Rowling’s favorite, by the way).
Speculations Rooted in Theme and Structure
But there are important things to consider when speculating. As we come up with our theories, it is important that they line up with the themes and structure already present in the novels. We can look at the books from the alchemical framework, for example, and see that characters with “red” attached to them (Rubeus Hagrid, the Weasleys, Rufeus Scrimgeour) will be important to book 7, because it represents the Red Stage of alchemy (just as Sirius was important to the “Black Stage,” book 5, and Albus (”White”) Dumbledore was important to the “White Stage,” book 6). So our speculations about book 7 must be made with this in mind.
A good look at themes would have told the reader that Rowling was not trifling with Dumbledore’s death; she takes the subject far too seriously. Yet, as I documented here, several well-constructed theories were built on the idea that Dumbledore faked his own death. Being grounded in what we already knew about Rowling’s treatment of this theme would have served many people well in their speculations.
For example – one might argue that there was already a precedent set for “faked deaths.” Pettigrew comes right to mind. Barty Crouch, Jr. is another. But now apply a key paradigm for the books: the “Dark” wizards have this fear of death, and they treat the subject rather flippantly (until it comes to facing their own, of course). The Good Guys, Dumbledore being the “epitome” of this group, take the matter very seriously, and they do not trifle with it. Many theorizers should have realized that (a) Dumbledore has been the great, wise teacher about the subject of death since book 1, and (b) Rowling was not going to associate Albus with Wormtail and Crouch, Jr. as the Death-Fakers. As such, “Faked Death” theories should have been scrapped.
Details, Details
What got so many of us mixed up? The details. You see, Rowling’s books are exceedingly detailed. I was watching Prisoner of Azkaban (which I like more every time I watch, by the way) with my wife tonight, and she made an off-handed comment about how much information must be in Rowling’s head to come up with such detailed plots (and this from a film that left out so many important details!).
You’ll go nuts trying to sort out all the details and make predictions based on them alone. This or that character was named from Greek mythology – significant to the plot, or Rowling having fun? How do you know?
And Rowling likes to play with details. Take Snape, for example. He’s described as an “overgrown bat” frequently. Snape assigned a werewolf essay to “out” Lupin. Why did Lupin then assign a vampire essay? And why does Snape like it so dark? Details like these had not a few “Snape-as-Vampire” theorists out there (I was not one of them). When Snape made his home in the new DADA classroom and darkened the whole room, lots of speculators were getting ready for the big reveal in HBP. But then we met Sanguini, saw what a real vampire looks like, and Rowling squashed the theory a few days after the book’s release.
Or how ’bout the dreaded ’shipping topic? Harry/Hermione shippers must have been pleased as punch to see the earliest trio interactions in HBP involve Hermione complimenting Harry and explaining why girls like him (as Ron got jealous). Of course, the rest of the book killed the theory, and that was yet another hypothesis squashed by Rowling in subsequent interviews.
If you’ve watched, as I have, the Dumbledore-is-not-dead crowd trying to wriggle out of Rowling’s recent statements, you’ll see one thing very clearly – they’re playing with this or that detail that doesn’t make sense to them. The “slow fall.” The “missing wand.” The “absent Fawkes.” The “closed eyes.” The exact timing of the release of Harry’s petrification. On and on. Words, words, words, but they’re all details that are not being filtered through the lens of the books’ themes and structure.
Bored with our Own Theories
Why do we get so wrapped up in our overly-detailed theories? I think we’ve gotten bored with the good ones. Those of us who try to think really hard about the books and take more than a surface reading have been theorizing about Book 7 since we turned the last page of Book 6. That’s a full year at this point. Here’s what I think happens: Let’s take “Stoppered Death” as an example. This is a theory that came out almost immediately after the book’s release, and it’s a good one. Keep in mind, the majority of fandom has no idea what this is all about. But “serious” readers (for lack of a better term) have made it part of their thinking for almost a year.
But it becomes so much a part of our thinking that it almost becomes canon. We get bored with it, and we’re so used to be surprised by Rowling that, over time, we begin to think, No, it can’t be as simple as that. So we jump off “Stoppered Death” (a theory which, if true, will still be a huge shock to the vast majority of fandom) and on to wilder and crazier speculations.
[Of course I'm not saying "Stoppered Death" is definitely true, though it's my preferred theory; but we need a better reason to abandon one of the better working theories about book 6 than being bored with it - especially if we're abandoning it for theories less in line with Rowling's themes.]
Wrapping it Up
We’ve all, despite our best efforts, been fooled by Rowling before, and we’re determined not to let it happen again. I’ve seen people construct the craziest theories based on some really random details, and there’s simply no hope of them coming true. Some details will be significant, some will not. But as you’re making your book 7 speculations (as I am doing!), get a good handle on the themes, symbols, literary characteristics, and structure of the books thus far. If your theory goes against a key theme, that might be one you want to re-think.
And just a note: There are not many pages left, and a lot to cover. If your theory over-complicates things, ditch it. If your theory requires significantly long essays to explain it, try this: Put your theory into a one page (two at most) conversation between the characters involved. Write the dialogue and everything, and see if it fits. If you can’t simplify your theory into some basic dialogue, it’s probably too much, and you probably won’t see it in book 7.
revgeorge on 
Lily Luna on 
Arabella Figg on 
Travis Prinzi on 
Loading ...
{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }
I was going to put this on a post at Muggle Matters, but I realize it’s more apt here:
I can’t remember where I made this statement, but I didn’t realize the depth of structure of the HP books – I saw them as kind of sloppily plotted with some of the traditional “cliffhanger” techniques to lead into the next book — information “accidentally” dropped and then deliberately withheld until explanation in a later book. I thought some descriptions unnecessarily repetitive.
But then I realized where I had seen this kind of thing before: Dickens novels, and in particular, his later ones. Dickens was a very sloppy plotter early on, but by the time he got to Bleak House, he knew how to put in an overall structure, and mix up genres inside. In Bleak House, there’s mystery, suspense, romance, horror (the spontaneous combustion scene is one of the creepiest ever), tragedy (the story of the lawsuit… and its victims), melodrama, and a little comedy (Esther’s first suitor, who is pretty much a joke). The world of Bleak House is stuffed with all levels of society – the aristocrats and hangers-on, generic middle class, up-and-coming industrialists, the new type of police inspector, lawyers and doctors, all the way down to the lowly street-sweeper Jo. And he was publishing this in installments, and had to leave the reader with questions at the end of every installment, wanting to know what happened next or what the explanation of a particular action was. The overall plot was actually not that complicated, but everything he threw in there along the way would sometimes obscure that structure from the readers…you don’t want them figuring out the whole before you get to that last installment.
I’ve been meaning to write an essay on Dickens and Harry Potter — though I’m sure someone else has done so before now.
But what’s crucial in this is to remember that the plots of Harry Potter tend not to be very complicated – you could explain the important action within a paragraph – but the details of character and the like flesh out this plot and hide the actual structure. Austen is a little different, as her novels came in either two or three volumes, which is usually obscured in how the novels are published today. But just as with Dickens, even though our modern editions don’t indicate where and installment or volume ended, you can tell. They were excellent craftsmen when it came to the novel, and it shows.
Now reading around these “adult” HP sites, I’m starting to see the overall structure. The motivations tend to be even starker than in the Austenian and Dickensian worlds, as this is a plot about good vs. evil, and the others were more caught up in the more grey morass we usually find in the real world. (As an aside, you ought to read Mansfield Park – it is definitely the only novel that’s actually shocked me. There’s one point where I thought “Did she say what I thought she said?” and checking around, yes, a refined gentlewoman really did make an obscene remark as a joke.) But there’s plenty of room for obscuring details, even when the overall plot arc is simplicity itself.
I can just imagine getting to the end of Book 7 and thinking – Oh, it’s so obvious! Why didn’t I see it before?
I’m woefully ignorant of Dickens – something that’s not good for an English Ed major! I’ve only read A Christmas Carol. It looks like focusing more attention in Dickens is going to have to happen sooner rather than later. Thanks for these thoughts.
I so agree. As Steve Vander Ark said in an email to John Granger, the solutions are going to be simple even if the clues and set-ups are very complicated.
The solution to the head-scratching puzzle of GF was that Barty Junior had escaped from Azkaban and impersonated Alastor Moody with the use of polyjuice potion. Once the solution is known, the clues jump off the page.
We knew Azkaban Dementors could be tricked (PA) and that polyjuice potion could transform one person into the exact replica of another for one hour at a time (CS). Harry’s dream in GF1 indicated Voldmort needed Harry for some reason and another wizard could not be substituted for unspoken reasons, the plan would take months and rely on a faithful DE at Hogwarts, the plan was made with information obtained from Bertha Jorkins who worked in the Department of Magical Games, The Triwizard Tournament would be held throughout the year at Hogwarts, Alastor Moody was attacked shortly before taking the DADA post, someone at Hogwarts placed Harry’s name in the GOF and a student wasn’t powerful enough to do it, Moody explained how it must have been done and Karkaroff asked him if he had done it himself, Barty Crouch, Sr. was not showing up at the MoM, someone had set off the Dark Mark at the QWC using Harry’s wand and the Crouch’s house elf was involved, the pensieve memory of Barty Jr.’s trial showed Mrs. Crouch as frail and distraught, Harry saw Bartemius Crouch on the Marauders’ Map in Snape’s office late at night, Snape was missing polyjuice ingredients, Fake Moody was helping Harry to win the TWT, something was wrong with Mr. Crouch when he showed up disoriented at Hogwarts and then disappeared, a day later Harry had a dream of an owl flying to Voldemort with the message that the damage had been repaired, etc. But Rowling was throwing us off with Ludo Bagman’s suspicious activities, and Fake Moody won us over (at least me) as soon as he turned Draco into a ferret and punished him for trying to attack Harry.
The Fake Moody clues were not vague at all and they weren’t little verbal tics; they were clearly marked major clues, and once we knew the Fake Moody theory, they all made sense and held together without contradictions in the text.
The right theory about the end of the HP series is going to be elegantly simple but as beautifully set up as Fake Moody.
I know my own theories might be too imaginative and wishful, but I do try to keep them well-grounded in the text and consistent with the characterization. They can be described in a couple of sentences, but they require a lot of space to demonstrate. That is especially true of theories for book 7 since 6 and 7 function as a unit and we don’t have all the clues to really sew a theory up tight.
The trouble I have with many theories is that they’re either “wouldn’t it be great if . . .” wild speculations, or some character (usually Dumbledore) has to be turned into a corrupt old schemer, or they’re just bizarre and require an extravagant amount of hypothetical “behind the scenes” action that isn’t hinted at anywhere in the text.
> If your theory over-complicates things, ditch it.
Best advice. Although realize that some there are some fairly long and womewhat complicated explanations for events in the books, e.g. Sirius Black’s innocence, Crouch Jr.’s charade, etc.
Sanity among the theorizers!
Hey Travis, what’s your opinion on RAB as Regulas Black? I have often thought about just what you wrote in regard to “stoppered death”:
“This is a theory that came out almost immediately after the book’s release, and it’s a good one. Keep in mind, the majority of fandom has no idea what this is all about. But “serious†readers (for lack of a better term) have made it part of their thinking for almost a year.
But it becomes so much a part of our thinking that it almost becomes canon. We get bored with it, and we’re so used to be surprised by Rowling that, over time, we begin to think, No, it can’t be as simple as that.”
I think that perhaps I don’t give it a chance because it is so obvious, and perhaps I am just bored by it. It is much, much, more obvious than Stoppered Death. But enough to make it un-worthy? Just looking for perspective. What do you think?
I think R.A.B. was sort of a “gimme” on Rowling’s part. It works beautifully into the plot (we all loved Sirius, right? Why not bring his bro into the plot), and it’s easily the best fit. My vote is for Regulus, even though it’s the most obvious. I really don’t think Rowling intended to make it so mysterious that we wouldn’t guess it. There are plenty of other big surprises in store.
That’s fair. I’m starting to fall back to that way of thinking as well. Especially with all of the super complicated theories that have been popping up. Thanks for the input!
I really enjoyed what everyone has said here so far. I try to be simple in my theories. But I do notice that sometimes we attach ourself to a theory and then practically try to rewrite the books to make it fit. I think some good advice would be when your theory hits a dead end, don’t start digging a tunnel.
Re: the “mystery aspect” of the books: that was the thing that suprised me (pleasantly) the most about the books, how much they were mysteries. Tolkien’s works have their own revelations about the ring, the riders, etc. but they usually come by way of a decree from on high (i.e., Gandalf, Aragorn, Elrond, Galadriel) rather than being discovered and figured out by three students (or hobbits.)
“A good look at themes would have told the reader that Rowling was not trifling with Dumbledore’s death; she takes the subject far too seriously.”
Why? Dumbledore didn’t. We all know his thoughts on death.
Why did she have Dumbledore offer to hide Draco by making it appear that he died? “They can’t kill you if you’re already dead.” It seems to me that Dumbledore was perfectly willing to fake the death of Draco Malfoy. Then, why not fake his own death so that it would free him up to help Harry (who, let’s face it, is not up to the task) vanquish Voldemort? Oh, right, because Dumbledore is too noble to fake his OWN death, but not so noble that he didn’t mind offering to fake Draco’s death.
Some of the ideas we “Dumbledore is alive” folks had were deeply rooted in theme, in my opinion. Just because we were wrong about Dumbledore’s death doesn’t mean that we lack the ability to interpret themes. Let’s face it, fellas, until the next book comes out EVERYTHING IS A GUESS – unless and until Rowling GIVES up more information for some to gloat about.
The grapes are still sour here. What can I say? We’re in a drought.
Dawn, Keep in mind I wrote that sentence from a bird’s eye view of the whole story. I’m not saying Dumbledore, as a character, would never consider faking his own death or the death of someone else (though I think the situations are radically different in the cases of Draco and Albus). I’m saying that Rowling would not have spent so much time on his death and the mourning of his death and the transformational effect it had on Harry only to say it was all a fake to begin with.
Let’s face it, fellas, until the next book comes out EVERYTHING IS A GUESS – unless and until Rowling GIVES up more information for some to gloat about.
There is still a difference in the quality of guesswork, though, is there not? “Dumbledore is Dead” folks had, quite frankly, the much stronger side (and you may recall that I gave both sides a solid hearing here, and actually spent more time letting the “Dumbledore is alive” crowd have their say. “Everything is a guess” – well, that’s true, but there’s still a difference between baseless speculation, wild speculation, and speculation that fits the books best.
Sorry if you interpret what I’ve been writing as “gloating.” Certainly don’t mean to be doing that at all.