oh_contraire ([info]oh_contraire) wrote in [info]unplottables,
@ 2004-02-21 00:53:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current mood: gloomy
Current music:London After Midnight - Sacrifice

Having another crack at it...
Theory/Observation: Ron is not Dumbledore (yes... again)
Character(s): Ron, Dumbledore
Abstract/summary: Inspired by [info]anamchara's post of a few days ago, I have put together some more ideas about why Ron is not Dumbledore, and why Knight 2 King is not necessarily a convincing argument for this theory. Possible OotP spoilers.
Supporting evidence:

Inspired by [info]anamchara's 'Ron is not Dumbledore' post of a few days ago, I have put together my own take on why I don't agree with the Ron is Dumbledore theory. This was originally going to be a comment on the aforementioned post, however it kind of took on a life of its own. I hope you'll excuse my putting it here as a separate post.

Oh, and this is my first post here, for what it's worth...

Basically, it is my opinion that the Ron = Dumbledore theory is incorrect. To show this, I think that the theory itself must be put under scrutiny.

First, I think that the conclusions drawn from the premises on which the Ron = Dumbledore or Knight 2 King (K2K) theory is based are flawed.
As far as I can tell, this theory evolved because of several observations.

1) The assumption that the chess game in PS is an allegory for the series

While I find elements of this chess theory interesting, I don't think that it is developed enough to treat as a valid basis for further theorising, especially when said theory is based on subjective choices about which pieces the characters might represent (choices which not everybody agrees upon). And particularly when the theory itself admits that Ron and Dumbledore are represented by two different pieces (Knight and King, respectively), and creates an arbitrary link between them based on the fact that Ron is the 'metaphorical player' of the chess game (which, as far as I've always been aware, has traditionally been a position filled by the actual player, and not one of the pieces, even if it is the DumbleRon-King).

2) 'Weasley is our King'

This is taken to be 'foreshadowing' that Ron will 'become' the King piece in the chess game in the first book (that is, he will become Dumbledore), in the grand tradition of JKR's foreshadowing in HP. However, in the HP books, this type of foreshadowing, where a character hints at the fate of another character tends to require some knowledge (either unconscious like Ron's jokes, or conscious and just unknown to Harry) of the circumstances and/or the outcome. In the Ron is Dumbledore theory (and indeed in many other matters), Draco is extremely unlikely to have the slightest idea what is going on – least of all that Ron is going to become Dumbledore. And even if the 'Weasley is our King' song was intended as a type of foreshadowing (as different as it is to the normal way in which JKR uses foreshadowing), it could equally mean that Arthur Weasley might become the Minister of Magic (which has already been joked about/hinted at in the books, making it IMO a much more likely reference than an obscure theory about an undeveloped allegory that very few readers would have figured out on their own).

3) Physical similarities

Both Ron and Dumbledore have red hair (well, actually, Dumbledore's hair was auburn, I seem to recall, but anyway...) both are tall (as are many of the characters in HP, incidentally), and have long noses (like, say, Snape? Not as unlikely as you think - it'd only take twenty (Time-Turner-ed) years, a few good punches in the face, an unfortunate hair-dye accident and the discovery of a long-dormant appreciation for Potions... but I digress). Finally, both Ron and Dumbledore might have a scar on their left leg. Suffice to say that I do not believe that this is necessarily an indication of anything significant, except perhaps JKR's predilection for using exaggerated physical types for her characters.

4) Dumbledore appears to know almost everything.

Well, at least up until OotP Dumbledore appeared to be almost omniscient, at least from Harry's point of view. However, as the books have progressed, there have been revelations about things that Dumbledore doesn't know, but which Ron certainly did – for example, Harry's map of Hogwarts that Barty Crouch Jr. uses in GoF (about which Dumbledore says, "What map is this?" (GoF, p.599), or (M)WPP being Animagi (I believe I have heard a theory that he was feigning ignorance in this case, however there is no canon indication of this, and it seems to me that if it is necessary to decide that certain pieces of information in the books were deliberate 'lies' because this would fit the theory better, then, IMO, the theory does not gain any credence). In addition, it has been shown that there are many other ways of finding out information in the Wizarding World – Dumbledore describes himself as "a sufficiently accomplished Legilimens" (OotP, p.733), and he has at his disposal a room full of portraits who can spy for him, both around the school and in many other important places. This is without taking into account the widely hypothesised "chocolate frog card" idea, or the theory that Dumbledore is, in fact, an Animagus who can turn into a bumblebee. In fact, with all of these methods at his disposal, Dumbledore does not need to have been Ron in order to know as much as he does about everything that is going on. Oh, and he's pretty cluey, too. That always helps...

5) Time Turners and patterns of introducing magical technology

It has been assumed (through pattern and, I believe, JKR's interviews) that Time Turners will play an important role in the future HP books, leading the proponents of the Ron = Dumbledore theory to claim that this theory is surely going to fill that role. However, thus far, Time Turners have only ever been used for short intervals of travel, and the theme JKR seems to be developing with them appears to have something more to do with the Department of Mysteries scene at the end of OotP, and while I do not claim to know what their ultimate significance will be, it does not seem (thus far) to have anything to do with long term time travel and doubling up of characters.

SOME ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE RON = DUMBLEDORE THEORY:

So, then, why does Dumbledore let bad things happen?
The K2K theory claims that Dumbledore often does not change the course of events because he knows they will turn out okay in the end. Sometimes this is true. Sometimes it really is not. Some very bad things happen over the course of the book, and it seems unlikely that Dumbledore would just sit back and allow it all to happen.
And then, in the cases where the theory claims that he did try to change things, why does he (according to the theory) attempt to change certain things in extremely ineffective ways – instead of offering to be the Potters' Secret Keeper, he could just as easily have dropped a few subtle hints to, say, not trust Wormtail. And why would he not attempt to change things by not taking the Philosopher's Stone to Hogwarts in the first place? Because it is all going to turn out OK (give or take a couple of unicorns, a traumatised eleven year-old Harry and an injured Ron)? Why, if Dumbledore knows details of all of the major events that are going to happen in the future, does he choose to change some, but not others? I think that this the most problematic part of the theory, representing a major inconsistency, both in terms of the theme and tone of the books, and in terms of Dumbledore's character. Far more likely is the possibility that Dumbledore is - wait for it - just good old Dumbledore!

Time travel paradoxes
If everything has already happened (at least for DumbleRon), then there will be no changing it. Ron has seen Dumbledore do things. While Ron obviously doesn't know that (according to the theory), he is going to become Dumbledore, Dumbledore certainly knows that he once was Ron, and therefore shares Ron's memories of what he saw himself do 'the first time around'.
This means, then, that while DumbleRon does not necessarily know every little thing he will do (obviously Ron didn't observe every moment of Dumbledore's life while at Hogwarts), he does know quite a lot of what he (as Dumbledore) will do (or has done) in relation to the 'big events'. If he does not wish to change anything, then he can only do what he already knows he will do. This is not acting freely (however much DumbleRon's actions would have been the same regardless of time travel), because having seen 'himself' perform these actions in his 'past', he is, to whatever degree, influenced by this knowledge, and can no longer act entirely freely – his actions are now dictated (to whatever extent) by the actions of the Dumbledore he observed when he was Ron.
And if he were to make a choice to try to change events, he risks "unforeseen consequences" that could have all sorts of repercussions – most pertinently, that he might never have gone back in time to become Dumbledore in the first place.
Therefore, this theory effectively takes away much of Dumbledore's free will in the present (in relation to certain important situations), and therefore devalues the idea of choice, which has continuously been reinforced as a major theme throughout the books.

I think, then, that this theory becomes something of an insult to Dumbledore's character (although not so much Ron's), because all (or at least most) of his actions, his weaknesses and strengths, the things he does right and wrong, he would already have seen from Ron's perspective, and he already knows what is coming. It *doesn't* all turn out OK. People die. Bad things happen. If Dumbledore knows what is coming, yet is powerless to change it, this means that he can do *nothing* (in terms of the important things) other than what he has already seen himself do from Ron's perspective. Causality loops aside, this completely devalues Dumbledore's noble (and less noble) actions, and is most certainly ideologically opposed to the theme of 'choice' or free will that has been continuously reinforced throughout the books. This is, I think, why it is important for one not to be seen when travelling with a Time Turner – because, although the events have already happened and a character has acted a certain way, the time-traveller can only perceive themselves to have free will if they haven't already seen themselves do all the things they are now doing (for example, in PoA, while Harry and Hermione were hiding from their 'other' selves who were living out the 'first' version of events, while they did everything that they (presumably) did in the 'first' loop, they did not know exactly what it was they were going to do, and therefore they could act as though they had free will, and the question of whether or not they did is really irrelevant).
JKR continually says (and often through Dumbledore, no less) that choice is important, particularly in its repercussions regarding strength of character, and by taking away (or at least severely reducing) Dumbledore's ability to act freely (being unable to risk consequences, etc.), this character is rendered less noble according to the values extolled by the books.
This could be taken further to claim that K2K effectively means that Dumbledore's free will, for the duration of the series of books (Harry and Ron's time at school), is practically non-existent, and that he is (at least in the important parts of the story) merely acting out the circumstances as he remembers them from his time as Ron, and not acting as himself. However, I don't think that it needs to be taken quite this far – it is enough to simply show that this theory is contrary to many of the values that the books undeniably present as good.
I understand that there are many other philosophical arguments about determinism and free will, which would probably be able to counter the arguments I have presented, however I think that the pertinent question has less to do with logistics and more to do with the vibe, if you will, or value system of the books. And the Ron is Dumbledore theory is, upon further examination, contrary to this value system.


Above all, however, I think the thing that bothers me the most about this theory is that there is no way in which it can really be disproved (at least until the series of books is completed). I know that HP-related theorising should not be required to hold up to scientific standards of testability, however the fact that this theory is at once vague enough and insistent enough to cover any possibility. That is, that everything that Dumbledore does or doesn't do can be taken as evidence FOR the theory. In fact, the problem with any HP-related theory is that we don't yet know all the facts, or often even most of them, and the ones we do have are deliberately ambiguous, so as to mislead.
For example, according to the theory, it appears that all differences between Ron and Dumbledore can be explained by the 130 or so years separating them. Personality differences (which would normally be ascribed to the fact that they are two different characters) become the result of an age difference of more than a century, which would surely change any character's personality. Differences in appearance are likewise explained away – Ron's long nose becomes Dumbledore's long, crooked nose with the assistance of a couple of unfortunate incidents over a period of a hundred or so years. Of course, this is possible. However, it equally could cover just about any pair of characters who share a superficial resemblance, and who are separated by a sufficient number of years.
Likewise, Dumbledore's actions are universally covered by the theory. If he allows something bad to almost happen, it is because he knew it would turn out all right. If something bad *does* happen and he cannot prevent it, it is because he tried to change something, and thus caused TEH BADNESS, because we all know that changing anything in time travel is bad. Or he just knows that trying to change it would cause worse things to happen.
I think the point I am trying to make is that just because the K2K theory covers absolutely any possibility does not make it valid – it just makes it versatile. This is, I think, the main place where the theory fails – how does one argue with a theory that cannot be proven false?

In conclusion (whew, finally!) I don't think the theory is based on sufficiently strong arguments to hold up. It is a possibility, of course, that Ron is Dumbledore - in Harry Potter, pretty much anything is a possibility, but as far as I can tell, it is no more likely than many of the other theories thrown about. Just better researched and documented. I think, however, that it is symptomatic of theorising in the HP fandom – JKR has thrown in so many little hints and clues throughout the books that allude to things that could not possibly have been guessed in advance that people's imaginations have come up with some brilliantly inventive ideas. However, as well researched as they may be, I don't think it is really valid to say that Ron = Dumbledore is a certainty until either JKR says it outright in the books, or there is a more convincing argument to support it.

Yeah. So...

I'd like to apologise to all the Ron = Dumbledore people out there if they found this at all insulting or rude - I find these sorts of things interesting fodder for dissecting arguments (it must be the repressed philosophy student in me), and this was actually one of the best researched and presented arguments floating around the net, and was, as such, irresistible. So it's really more of a compliment than anything else, I suppose...


Hope I've put this across in a coherent way... let me know what you think. You know, if you want.


(Post a new comment)


[info]procrastino
2004-02-20 08:54 am UTC (link)
in the knight2king theory, some of the points were too much overanalyzed (which made it difficult to read), though many of them made incredible sense, and the book could certainly be read trough that standpoint.

however, your counterpoints show clerly that it could have been a red herring. and what a red herring indeed!!??

but i won't put it aside, i'll have it in mind, and both lizzardlaugh and ixchemala have my sincerest gratitude for sharing this great theory with the world.

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re:
[info]oh_contraire
2004-02-22 01:20 am UTC (link)
Glad I could help you see both sides of the debate - I never really expected to sway anybody who believed in the theory, just hoped to present an argument for why *I* don't believe it. Thanks for commenting.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]sesana
2004-02-20 10:00 am UTC (link)
Of course, there's always the possibility (that I don't think I've seen anyone cover, though I could be mistaken) that Ron/Dumbledore is *trying* to change the past/future. So, for example, maybe in the original past, Dumbledore tried to give Harry the Legilimens lessons, and they didn't work. So he asked Snape to try instead. But any adjustments he tries to make to the time stream results in the same essential outcome. But you can also make the argument that if Ron is Dumbledore, or vice versa, Dumbledore could never meet Ron without huge repurcussions in the time stream. However, this is the point where my brain implodes from the possible time paradoxes involved. My first fandom was Star Trek, so I have a good fear and awe of attempting time travel. The Prime Directive is there for a reason! *G*

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re:
[info]oh_contraire
2004-02-22 01:30 am UTC (link)
Yeah, I think the paradoxes are the biggest problem I have with the theory - it just seems far too complicated for the books to get onto such potentially dangerous ground at this late stage in the series.
But I guess we won't know for sure for a while yet... *shrug*

(Reply to this) (Parent)
I think he is changing things
(Anonymous)
2004-03-09 02:44 pm UTC (link)
It makes sense to me that Ron would learn from things that didn't work before and that he would be trying to change things, however he's only one person, and no matter how great a wizard he is, there's only so much he's able to change. One example of things he's trying to change would be in the Goblet of Fire. He tries to keep the younger students from submitting their names. He goes through great lengths to prevent it. If he hadn't lived through it once already, and known that Harry would die as the champion, do you think he would have tried to prevent his entering? Besides this, there is a lot we don't see that he does. I've seen a number of posts complaining that he doesn't intervene enough. Perhaps there are many things he is doing behind the scenes. I also wonder if he has or will reveal his true identity to anyone else. Perhaps he is afraid to admit that he has gone back in time, because he doesn't want Voldemort to know that it's possible, otherwise Voldemort might attempt it himself. That would be one VERY good reason for Dumbledore to keep it to himself. Sorry if this is kinda jumbled, just some ideas I had while reading.

BTW, I'm glad you mentioned Star Trek. Anyone else notice any similarities between the arch Black fell through, and the Guardian in City on the Edge of Forever? I wonder if instead of a gate to the world of the dead, that's a gate to the past or something like that. Ideas?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]taradiane
2004-02-20 10:29 am UTC (link)
I think it's very coherent, thanks. You've summarized basically all the issues I had with the theory when I first read it, and none of the follow-up discussion surrounding it was able to sway me.

The whole time travel issue in and of itself was always my biggest problem. JK made it very clear, thru Hermione (which was via McGonagall), that attempting to alter even the smallest event or circumstance with the time turner would be very bad indeed, yet Dumbledore attempted to alter one of the biggest events in Harry's life by trying to keep him from competing in the TWT. Surely if Dumbledore was willing to risk changing a major event, he would have risked trying to change the events which led to James'/Lily's/Sirius' deaths.

And maybe this is taking things a little too far, but along that same line of thinking...we know from that pivotal scene in OotP just how much Dumbledore cares for Harry and how much he loves him. Not to sound like a callous bitch, but surely the prevention of Sirius' death would have taken precedence of the prevention of Cedric's death (which most likely would not have happened had Harry not competed - Barty would have gotten word to Voldie that Harry was out of the game and the plan would have been altered altogether, thereby leaving Cedric out of the loop) simply because Dumbledore would know how much more one would affect Harry than the other. And the full extent of that trauma on Harry is something we haven't even seen yet. For Dumbledore to argue with the Ministry over Harry's involvement in the TWT, yet merely place Sirius under what amounts to house arrest in OotP seems...unbalanced. Hell, I myself would have put Sirius in a dungeon under full body bind to prevent his death and thereby Harry's suffering. Dumbledore was casually lax about the possibility of Sirius going AWOL, something he could only have acknowledged in retrospect like we the readers did.

Also, and this isn't anything that can be proven/disproven as it's simply my opinion, there isn't anything in Dumbledore's personality that reminds me of or even makes me think of Ron. They aren't two people that I would ever link in such a way simply because of that. Yes, Dumbledore is a lot older than Ron, but age doesn't completely change who you are. Even people who are "bad" and then reform still retain that central spark that made them, ultimately, who they were/are. They share certain traits where morality is concerned, but then so does half of Gryffindor. But to me, Ron and Dumbledore are two very different personalities and I would be very surprised - and would actually feel a tad cheated - if JK were to eventually reveal that they were one in the same.

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re:
[info]oh_contraire
2004-02-22 01:42 am UTC (link)
there isn't anything in Dumbledore's personality that reminds me of or even makes me think of Ron. They aren't two people that I would ever link in such a way simply because of that.

Yeah, this is one of my major issues with it - I think if JKR had spent the five books she has written so far working up to such a big point, then the similarities between Ron and Dumbledore's personalities would maybe have been made far more obvious in a foreshadowy kind of way. It just doesn't seem to fit. That's basically my initial problem with it. This post was just trying to flesh out an argument that supported my intuitive reaction.

I would be very surprised - and would actually feel a tad cheated - if JK were to eventually reveal that they were one in the same.

Me too. I think it would shift the focus of the books too far from Harry, who is, of course, the *main* *character*. Good to know I'm not the only one who feels that way ^_^

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Harry Potter as Main Character
[info]krud42
2004-12-12 02:05 am UTC (link)
Random two cents, ten months after the fact:

In the novel Moby Dick, the character most present is Ishmael, the narrator. Yet the "key character" is Captain Ahab.

But who'd read a book called "Captain Ahab"?

Also, if the books were titled "Albus Dumbledore and The [Book Subtitle]", you'd pay too much attention to that character.

It's not unheard of for the most influential characters of a plot to not be the agreed-upon "main character".

Harry may be merely the perspective through which the epic drama unfolds. (Though it does, in my opinion, have to ultimately center on him and his conflict with Voldemort.)

But then, what do I know? I was half convinced by the R=DD theory just from the "Bertie Bott's Every-Flavor Beans" argument... ':P

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]bentley
2004-02-20 04:04 pm UTC (link)
I'd just like to add on to this that as much as I love the R=DD theory... I only like it as just that, a theory, to have fun speculating about. I

don't think it would happen in the books, because as J.K.R has proved time and time again, they're children's books.

She does say they're getting 'darker' - however I feel the interacacies and paradoxes of time travel are too complicated for kids to pick up. The forshadowing and allegories might be fun for the fans to dissemble, but remember this was back in PS/SS, when she didn't have a huge following, and was writing for her KIDS.

It's unlikely she's going to have some hugely brain-powered allegorical theory that dictates the rest of the books, that could only be discovered through speculation and careful research. Even the twist in book 3 was hinted at throughout the entire book, and could possibly have been guessed.

This is a fun theory, and while it is possible (as you said, everything's possible) I agree with you that I don't think it's something JKR will include - more for meta reasons than any actuall book content, though you've made some god points (Ron=Snape, heh. Can you imagine his horror when he found THAT out?)

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re:
[info]oh_contraire
2004-02-22 01:52 am UTC (link)
Oh, for sure. I actually found the Ron=DD theory amusing and interesting and really well argued. But while it makes for good theorising fodder, I definitely agree with what you said about JKR not including it for meta reasons more than actual content. That's exactly what I was hoping to get across.

And, besides, if JKR doesn't use the Ron=DD thing, there's always fanfiction to satisfy people who want it to be true...

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]ixchelmala
2004-02-21 10:07 pm UTC (link)
Echos and blatantly uses [info]lizardlaugh's intro as I feel the same way :D

"First, I'd like to say that your post isn't insulting or rude. Heck, I think it is great people are looking at things more closely and giving K2K this much thought. We aren't trying to win converts, just throw some ideas out for discussion. I don't think any theory can be proven or disproven until it happens in the text. That is just the nature of plot speculation on a story that isn't finished. In a way, it is like trying to debate the existence of God. You can't really prove or disprove anything, but you can make really good arguments for and against."

1) The assumption that the chess game in PS is an allegory for the series

While I find elements of this chess theory interesting, I don't think that it is developed enough to treat as a valid basis for further theorising, especially when said theory is based on subjective choices about which pieces the characters might represent (choices which not everybody agrees upon).

We think it's a metaphor for the rest of the series. I could be wrong, and if I am *shurgs* cool.

It's true that It's not developed to the degree other theories are because the purpose of the short bit of analysis was to not read too much into it. Look at it as a general guide of what might come to pass. Speculation on the specific nature of the events in the next books isn't helpful because not all the books are out. Personally, it's something I don't like to do too much, unless the clues are woven in at various levels and tones. For the chess game, it's pretty plain and simple in the book.

Positioning:
The general positioning of the pieces was based on the ones mentioned in the game. I decided to add a visual, not being a chess player, so that I could "see" any other patterns that might be present.

That of course led to assigning the places to each space and it's left incomplete on purpose.

I know not everyone agrees to all the pieces, and I'm glad for that, because it allows for others to add their opinions as to why they think other characters might be poised for those parts.

Bishops:
For the moment, I still think that Neville and Draco are two of the four Bishops. There is canon evidence to link Neville to Harry, from OotP that he could have been the other boy being talked about in the prophecy. He also has other things in common with Harry. He wasn't raised by his own parents, but rather family Nevilles' Gran isn't that far from treating him like the Dursley's even if her manner is more subtle and silent,. She doesn't treat him well imho. Also, like Harry, Neville isn't treated well by Snape, and is also picked on by Draco.

Draco: A white bishop
Now to Draco being a Bishop to the White side, there is canon evidence, even if it's just a clue from JKR, in GoF. However, before I get to that, notice that JKR makes a point to tell us over and over again that Draco is pretty much Harry's opposite.

One is dark one is light, one has pure bloodlines the other doesn't, they are on opposite teams, one lives in the Muggle world the other Wzarding one. One is clueless and the other isn't, even if it's from Harry's POV that we see Draco, you can argue that many of Draco's over-loud statements and emphasized text in the series could be read as prophetic or perhaps him passing helpful information to the trio. But I digress.

Looking deeper into Draco's home life, you might see, (speculates a bit here), that Draco might not have been raised by his mother, which doesn't mean she doesn't love him, because I believe she does, if only out of duty. I doubt that Lucius was much of a caretaker in the day to day affairs of Draco's life, so seeing that he comes a well to do family and having myself been raised in that kind of environment for parts of my life, I would say that it's entirely possible that Draco was not raised by his parents.

Kinda like Harry. Kinda like Neville.

(con't in next comment)

(Reply to this)

(con't reply from above)
[info]ixchelmala
2004-02-21 10:08 pm UTC (link)


The lack of parents is what links Harry and Neville, if this is the case for these two, then the non-family caretaker being in charge would be what connects the Crouch Jr. and Draco. Also, we have the one more connection with Neville and Crouch Jr. He was sent to Azkaban for the state the Lestranges are in.

So if Draco wasn't raised by his parents, who might have done it?

Well, we know of a similar situation where a young man who's mother who sacrificed her life for her son and father was not there for him was raised by a third party. Who?

Barty Crouch Jr.

We know that Winky took care of him and we know that she loved him quite a bit. I'd quote canon here for you, but I don't have my books. (I will later when I update the site.)

So if Crouch Jr. was raised/take cared of by Winky, not his parents, who's to say that Draco might have been raised by a house elf as well. Dobby perhaps?

Yes Dobby is free. However he wasn't free in CoS.

We know now from OotP that house elfs can't leave the house without being told to do so by a family member. So who's to say that Draco was the one who sent Dobby to warn and keep Harry out of Hogwarts? He has been warning the trio all along, and I don't think for the purpose of being "good" or "redeemed" but because he's looking out for his own self and possibly sees Harry, at that time, as a hero that he wanted to have as a friend, but now know more ominous things were gonna go down. Why warn him? Who knows... but I doubt that Dobby was able to go on his own.


Then in OotP we're conveniently told that Draco lives in Wiltshire, just 50 miles from Surrey. We're also told in the first pages that a helicopter had almost crashed in a field in south Surrey.... and the only other mention of helicopters is when Harry tells of Draco bragging that he flys so well that he's had tangles with them. Why are we told this? I admit this is the furtherest I have had to speculate on Draco, but I could imagine him trying to get out, for whatever reason, to get to Harry. He knows what his Dad is up to, and almost every single time, it could be his bragging, but it could also be him warning him.

So the news on the first pages of OotP they mention the helicopter, later that night Harry gets hit with Dementors. And yet, if you suspend your judgments for a moment on all this, and just consider it, you might ask, well ok, if Draco was trying to get to Harry, for whatever reason, how would he know where Harry lives?

Dobby. He was stealing all his mail in 2nd year. He never gave Harry his letters back. Ever. Who do you want to bet has those letters? If Lucius had them, I'm sure he would have used them against Harry and his friends by now. no? Again, more stuff I'm pondering, that can't really be ignored.

JKR said she's worried at all the attention Draco is getting, she should be. I think she's trying to trow us all off any possible clues that might be there. She wants this to be a surprise, and I'm on the edge of my seat waiting to see what will happen.


So yes, all that is convoluted. Kinda like Harry. However, after considering all this with many people, and especially [info]lizardlaugh I was still hesitant to commit to Draco being a White Bishop.

Then I got an email from TheWeenyOwl, where she said, "I woud add one thing about Draco being a bishop. In GoF at the start of the Yule Ball, Harry observes Draco and says he's wearing black velvet dress robes with a high collar that makes him look like a vicar."

At this point we were, me more so than [info]lizardlaugh, convinced that Draco is the White Bishop and that possibly Crouch Jr. is the 4th one.

As for the rest of the pieces, I'm still unsure.

I'm totally open for discussion on any of it. I placed all of it for visual purposes, hoping and inviting all to have their say and include their expert opinions.

Again a lot of this may be speculation on my part, which I don't like to do, but after canon I base my observations on patterns and clues from the series.

Whew.. that was a lot, thanks for posting this. I've not had time or direction to write like this in a while and I'm very grateful now that you posted.

Also, I think [info]lizardlaugh got to the rest of your post:)

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: (con't reply from above)
[info]oh_contraire
2004-02-22 05:01 am UTC (link)
Actually I don't have a problem with the chess theory at all – it seems just like something that JKR would put in as an extremely obscure clue that will remain undecipherable until after the 7th book. It's really just the fact that it is the main basis of a much more elaborate theory that makes me think that Ron=DD is unlikely – JKR's hints tend to (so far) follow a different pattern, and be decipherable by more people (at least in retrospect), and while the chess allegory will undoubtedly become clearer when the series is complete, I think it is currently too vague to form the basis of a much larger (and extremely pivotal to the whole plot of the series) theory.

Of course it's just a matter of opinion – what different people see in and want from different characters. It's all in good fun, of course, and while I doubt that many of the theories floating around the net will come true, I, for one, will continue to find them interesting and amusing until they are disproved.

I like your theorising on Draco, although I tend to be a little wary of thinking that Draco has been trying to warn the Trio – it's obviously a matter of opinion, but it just doesn’t ring true for me, somehow. I definitely hope, however, that he will be redeemed in one of the future books, but if this happens I feel it will be because he actually comes face to face with and sees exactly what he has been supporting all along because of his father. I can't really imagine Draco, as a sheltered (in many ways, Malfoy evilness notwithstanding), pampered brat, being able to cope particularly well with what Voldemort regularly dishes out to both supporters and enemies. I think (hope, at least) that this is where Draco's redemption would lie. I personally feel (and of course this is just blind speculation once again) that he is more likely to be bragging about things that he knows very little about, just to show up Harry and his friends who know nothing about them. And possibly to show Harry (who he had once wanted as a friend) how cool and knowledgeable he is. Draco just doesn’t seem mature enough to be secretly hoping to protect Harry and his friends, but it is definitely a possibility that he's trying to warn them. But as you said, it's all speculation, and of course everybody is going to be more inclined to support theories that back up their views of what they want the characters to be/become.

I think the main problem is that you can draw a huge number of parallels between any two HP characters (I recall reading something that brilliantly demonstrated this... somewhere - once...), and while I tend not to associate Draco with Barty Crouch Jr. (I see him as more like Snape in many ways), it is an interesting connection that I've never seen before, and you’ve argued it well.

The point you bring up: "Draco might not have been raised by his mother, which doesn't mean she doesn't love him, because I believe she does, if only out of duty." doesn’t seem to be completely in line with canon (I know that you said it's speculation, but I don't really see where it comes from) – the non-doting Malfoy parents thing seems to be more of a fanon idea – Draco always gets sent sweets from his mother, she didn't want him going to Durmstrang because it was too far away, Draco defends her rather heatedly, and, IMO, there was really nothing in the one scene where Narcissa appeared with Draco that hinted at anything more than a Malfoy public façade. So, yeah, I'm not 100% sure of the Dobby raising Draco thing, but I suppose it's a possibility - I'm sure the Malfoy household is far from a stable, warm place, what with the evil and all. *g*

I *had* actually wondered about Dobby being able to leave the Malfoys to warn Harry – perhaps, however, unlike Kreacher, Dobby was never expressly forbidden to leave the Malfoy mansion. And could, therefore, go and visit Harry in Surrey. Maybe. Even so, the slasher in me wants to giggle at the thought of Draco keeping Harry’s mail, even though H/D is hardly my ship of choice. But that’s another story. *g*

Thanks for reading my counterargument to your well thought out theory. It’s good to know there’s some intelligent thought that goes into these things. ^_^

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: (con't reply from above)
[info]ixchelmala
2004-02-22 01:42 pm UTC (link)
Actually I don't have a problem with the chess theory at all – it seems just like something that JKR would put in as an extremely obscure clue that will remain undecipherable until after the 7th book

I'm curious to know where you see it as obscure. The place where it clicked for me as a general road map, if you will, was when we connected the the number of Harry's Bishop matching up with the 7 years that Harry must complete at Hogwarts. That was too big a clue to ignore and leave on it's own. Sure the details of it won't be revealed till the end of teh series, and I'm looking for that nd hoping I missed something.... or if I'm wrong, damn, that will just floor me.

Ron=DD is unlikely – JKR's hints tend to (so far) follow a different pattern, and be decipherable by more people (at least in retrospect), and while the chess allegory will undoubtedly become clearer when the series is complete, I think it is currently too vague to form the basis of a much larger (and extremely pivotal to the whole plot of the series) theory.

More curiosity on his, how is the Ron=DD theory too vague, I mean we don't know where or what Ron does to sacrifice himself in the series because it's simply not complete. But we can't ignore the number of clues in the form of foreshadowing, word play, and many other layered bits that JKR has left. Since we posted K2K, we have found loads more clues and evidence that points to R=DD. We had twice as much ready to post, but we thought it might be too much, but now we find ourselves putting those points together for those who have wanted to see it. Is there anything in particular that sits hard with you about Ron not being Dumbledore, that we could address?

Again, I really don' care it we end up being right or wrong. To me it's just one huge ass puzzle that I'm obsessed with, having loads of fun with, and meeting new friends and people because of it:D

On Draco:

I like your theorizing on Draco, although I tend to be a little wary of thinking that Draco has been trying to warn the Trio – it's obviously a matter of opinion, but it just doesn’t ring true for me, somehow. I definitely hope, however, that he will be redeemed in one of the future books, but if this happens I feel it will be because he actually comes face to face with and sees exactly what he has been supporting all along because of his father.

Three points here. Firstly, I personally don't think Draco needs redeeming beyond being a bully and a prat. As we know he hasn't seen death, and really imho, hasn't done anything to condemn him as a person, thus far. Second, I think he has seen what he appears ,from Harry's POV and consequently ours as well, to be supporting with Voldemort, when he had to go into the Forrest his first year and ran from what he saw:
Harry, Malfoy, and Fang stood transfixed. The cloaked figure reached the unicorn, lowered its head over the wound in the animal's side, and began to drink its blood.

"AAAAAAAAAARGH!"

Malfoy let out a terrible scream and bolted -- so did Fang.

As for Draco trying to warn the trio or pass info, there is the more obvious clue in GoF, when the Dark Mark appears and Draco warns the trio that Granger should keep her head down becuase he knows that the D.E.s may very well come after her.

(con't in next comment... again)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: (con't reply from above again)
[info]ixchelmala
2004-02-22 01:45 pm UTC (link)
The more obscure warnings are in the texts and are worthy of a second look. If you read the sections where Draco interacts with the trio carefully, you will notice pattern of italics or "louder speaking" so the Trio can hear him that show him having foreknowledge of things to come. In CoS there is the best example:

"Famous Harry Potter," said Malfoy. "Can't even go into a bookshop without making the front page."

"Leave him alone, he didn't want all that!" said Ginny. It was the first time she had spoken in front of Harry. She was glaring at Malfoy.

"Potter, you've got yourself a girlfriend!" drawled Malfoy. Ginny went scarlet as Ron and Hermione fought their way over, both clutching stacks of Lockhart's books.
US Ch4 Pg 61

The italics are from the text and could be deciphered thusly:

Famous: Who else is famous besides Harry Potter in the Wizarding world? The Dark Lord, Voldemort.
bookshop: What do you get in a bookshop? Books. Who gets a particular diary in this particular exchange?
girlfriend: Ginny, though not Harry's girlfriend, she's he one that's targeted as we find out later

Then two pages later, JKR shows us that Lucius makes a point to get the book to her:
He was still holding Ginny's old Transfiguration book. He thrust it at her, his eyes glittering with malice.

"Here, girl - take your book - it's the best your father can give you -" Pulling himself out of Hagrid's grip he beckoned to Draco and swept from the shop.

We know what's in the diary later on, now don't we;) There are also, other examples of this kind of code if you will all through the books. And yes, I'm documenting it as I'm convinced that Draco being in such a difficult environment, must not be something he likes too much, but also can't appear to be against his father, as it might bring him more trouble.

Yes, it's speculation, but I try to do mine rooted in canon as much as possible.

I think the main problem is that you can draw a huge number of parallels between any two HP characters (I recall reading something that brilliantly demonstrated this... somewhere - once...), and while I tend not to associate Draco with Barty Crouch Jr. (I see him as more like Snape in many ways), it is an interesting connection that I've never seen before, and you’ve argued it well.

The parallels I drew between Draco and Crouch Jr. were a result of the chess deal. Go fig? :D If you find that essay/post you're referring to, I'd love to read it! I still see some obvious connections with Snape, though, I'm suspicious of JKR's Slytheriny ways to perhaps use them to throw us off track.

The point you bring up: "Draco might not have been raised by his mother, which doesn't mean she doesn't love him, because I believe she does, if only out of duty." doesn’t seem to be completely in line with canon (I know that you said it's speculation, but I don't really see where it comes from) – the non-doting Malfoy parents thing seems to be more of a fanon idea – Draco always gets sent sweets from his mother, she didn't want him going to Durmstrang because it was too far away, Draco defends her rather heatedly, and, IMO, there was really nothing in the one scene where Narcissa appeared with Draco that hinted at anything more than a Malfoy public façade.

Yeah, it's me speculating, but I can see how sending sweets, and Draco's declarations of her concern, all things that we see from Draco's side of things, from Harry's POV. As you say, we've only seen Narcissa once. And in that one passage she is introduced to Fudge. We never see her interact with Draco in GoF, or anywhere else, at all.

(last part follows;)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: (con't reply from above again)
[info]ixchelmala
2004-02-22 01:46 pm UTC (link)
I have no doubt that Draco does love his parents, but how difficult might it be for him to know his parents are the equivalent of drug lords or mafia bosses? You'd see a lot and if you didn't like the way your family was, and rather opted for a different life that didn't involve cloaked figures, sucking the blood from dying animals, you might find ways to get out or help the person you'd grown up knowing to be the saviour of the wizarding world. I'm not talking fanon here, but placing it in a muggle world setting. What would you do as a possibly unhappy teenager in a crime family? If you wanted to get out, you'd have to to it very carefully, no?

I *had* actually wondered about Dobby being able to leave the Malfoys to warn Harry – perhaps, however, unlike Kreacher, Dobby was never expressly forbidden to leave the Malfoy mansion. And could, therefore, go and visit Harry in Surrey. Maybe. Even so, the slasher in me wants to giggle at the thought of Draco keeping Harry’s mail, even though H/D is hardly my ship of choice. But that’s another story. *g*

Draco reading Harry's mail, now there's a bunny for fic, but I digress;)

On Dobby vs. Kreacher this is what I found interesting in OOTP that made me ponder the possibility that maybe, just maybe Draco sent him, instead of Dobby going of his own accord.
`Kreacher seized his opportunity shortly before Christmas,' said Dumbledore, `when Sirius, apparently, shouted at him to "get out". He took Sirius at his word, and interpreted this as an order to leave the house. OotP Ch 37 Pg 830

Then...
`Oh, yes,' said Dumbledore. `You see, Kreacher was not able to betray us totally. He is not Secret Keeper for the Order, he could not give the Malfoys our whereabouts, or tell them any of the Order's confidential plans that he had been forbidden to reveal. He was bound by the enchantments of his kind, which is to say that he could not disobey a direct order from his master, Sirius. But he gave Narcissa information of the sort that is very valuable to Voldemort, yet must have seemed much too trivial for Sirius to think of banning him from repeating it.' OotP CH37 Pg 831


Now, it's true that Dobby did punish himself, however, if Draco sent him, and Lucius was his Master, being the head of the house, then that may have been his reasons for punishment. It's possible, imho, that if Draco sent Dobby, then he might have been vague about how Dobby should do what he was told to do, resulting in the floating pudding, the rogue bluddger, and possibly more, but I'll leave that for another post, as I do believe there is on-going help from Draco via Dobby in OotP. Yes, Dobby is free, however, like Winky, who cared for Crouch Jr., it's not unlikely to think that Dobby might feel the same when it comes to Draco.

Thanks for reading my counter-argument to your well thought out theory. It’s good to know there’s some intelligent thought that goes into these things.

Likewise, I hope you get a chance to read [info]lizardlaugh's counter-arguments to your post as well. we're really excited to see all this renewed discussion happening:D

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re: (con't reply from above again)
(Anonymous)
2004-03-09 03:44 pm UTC (link)
I just had the thought. I wonder if Draco is putting on about his mother being so concerned about him and loving him. He could be sending things to himself, or have Dobby send them or something.

Just another random idea.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re: (con't reply from above)
(Anonymous)
2004-03-09 03:17 pm UTC (link)
I really like your Draco theories, however I have a slightly different take on them. I see Draco as the Snape of the second war. In the first war we know that Snape turned traitor to Voldemort. I think that we will see Draco do the same in the second war. If Draco is ever really on Voldemort's side (I'm not convinced that he is) then I think that he will eventually be turned for the good. I say I'm not convinced that he is, because I don't think he has really recognized that his father is one of Voldemort's henchmen. It's quite possible that his father has lied and twisted his son to his own will. Yes, Draco's a jerk, but perhaps that just because he's seeing things the way his father has been explaining them this whole time. When he comes face to face with the reality that his father is evil, I think we may see a whole new side of him, a side that wants to do good when he realizes that his father lied about everything.

I hadn't thought about the Dobby-Draco connection, that's cool, but if Dobby was working at Draco's insistence I don't think Draco had good intentions, probably more selfishness than anything else.

However this theory doesn't allow for Neville to be a bishop (Snape would be the other black bishop). I think it's more likely that Neville is Harry's pawn. He has the potential to move forward and be turned into another bishop (and if he moved straight, he would be turned into a bishop on squares the opposite color as Harry's). I think we have seen phenomenal growth in him through the books, and this leads me to believe that while he began as a pawn he is becoming another bishop.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]ixchelmala
2004-02-24 01:39 am UTC (link)
My dear, I'm documenting the evolution of this theory, so I want to know if I may either link your post or use the source on the K2K site. There a couple of others that are being added as well. Thanks!

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]oh_contraire
2004-02-26 03:11 am UTC (link)
Absolutely. Use it as you see fit... hope it was helpful :D

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(Anonymous)
2004-03-12 12:18 am UTC (link)
I tend to agree that ROn is not Dumbledore. There is way way to much red haor in these stories though so I wouldn't mind betting that he turns up in somebody's family tree.

Water Witch

(Reply to this)

Enjoy this time - some praise for JKR
(Anonymous)
2004-03-19 08:37 pm UTC (link)
My two cents worth:

Eventually book 6 will come out.
Finally book 7 will come out.

At that time, all of this speculating, theorizing and arguing will be for naught. Then, knowing the end, readers will be able to look back from the top of the mountain and view the whole trail that brought them there, but the opportunity to mine for and discover clues and interpretations will be over.

So enjoy all these debates now. Once the series is complete, new readers (and re-readers) won't be able to speculate on what this means, and what that connection might be, and where JKR is taking us.

I remember, between "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Return of the Jedi," having three years to speculate on if Darth Vader was Luke's father - and I don't think any fan foresaw Leia being his sister. (And of course we now know that Paul wasn't dead.)

I get the same rush now watcing "24" - what is going to happen to Jack Bauer? The president? and on and on.

The books are enjoyable and will remain so for decades to come, no doubt. But the suspense will go away - it is an extra element that can only be enjoyed now.

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: Enjoy this time - some praise for JKR
(Anonymous)
2004-05-11 03:41 am UTC (link)
well then i don't want the other ones to comes out! 8(

i have no idea what i'll do with my mind when the harry potter series is over . . . do ya suppose that JKR will do something with the grown-up potter kids?

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]aphrodite923
2004-08-18 02:24 pm UTC (link)
I may be a little lost here since me and my children just watched the first two movies and then read the other three books. I really do need to go back and read the first two books since I'm aware that movies do not include everything that books do. But correct me if I am wrong here - in COS it came out that Lord Voldemort was born Tom Riddle and attended Hogwarts where Dumbledore was headmaster. Now, if DD was Ron gone back in time, why not put an end to the entire Lord Voldemort thing by finding a reason to expel Tom and break his wand therefore keeping him from ever coming to power. If he never came to power, then all the deaths and pain are avoided. I could understand how after Voldemort came to power how some things had to happen in order to lead to Harry being able to defeat him for good. But why let him come to power at all if he really was from the future and knew about all the horrible things this boy would grow up to do?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

(Anonymous)
2004-12-24 02:36 am UTC (link)
time travel paradox, unfotunatley. If ron=dumbldore and younger ron was sent back in time by events even indirectly linked to voldemort, then if older ron/dumbldore stopped voldemort then younger ron would never be sent back. If younger ron was never sent back then dumbldore couldn't stop voldemort which means younger ron would be sent back... and so and and so forth. Due to paradox Dumbledore could do NOTHING that would change the fact he'd been sent back in time.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]skepanie
2004-11-21 08:24 pm UTC (link)
I just have to say that I agree. with all of this. bravo for your eloquence!

(Reply to this)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…