Villains Spouting Exposition

[Caius Marcius]

No: HPFGUIDX 24666

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., rainy_lilac at y... wrote:
> 
> 
> I thought this one section existed mainly to inform the reader of 
the 
> plot-- I could not imagine the confrontation actually taking place 
> for any other good reason.
> 
> --Suzanne, blushing because frankly she really loves the book

That's just a difference between books and real life - the reader 
must be informed at some point as to what is going on, and who better 
to inform him than the evil agent actually manipulating the plot? and 
what better time than at the moment of maximum suspense?  In real 
life terms, this may ridiculous - it would be like John Wilkes Booth 
giving Lincoln an explanation of why he was about to be assasinated - 
but in a fictive work, this is not only necessary, it may be 
preferable.

Given that the author/director has to inform the reader/viewer as to 
what is going on at some point or other, the only real choice is how 
and when to do it.  JKR's only other option (given this particular 
plot twist) was to have Moody/Crouch lash out at Potter without 
explanation, and then, after being struck down, to have his 
motivation and actions explained by some third person.  But who would 
that person be? If it were, say, Dumbledore, that would beg the 
question as to how Dumbledore was able to learn so much about Crouch -
 and if he knew so much, why did he wait so long to intervene. And if 
it were Voldy, we'd have the same overly talky Evil Overlord problem 
as before.

What follows is a major spoiler for Hitchcock's Psycho:





You remember how Psycho ends: Anthony Perkins (as Norman Bates), 
garbed as the hitherto unseen Mrs. Bates, attempts to stab John 
Gavin, but without a word of explanation from him. After he is 
overpowered and taken into custody, the basis for Bates' behavior is 
given in the penultimate scene by a psychiatrist (a "Dr. Richmond").  
All very rational and realistic - the "expert" comes in to explain 
the meaning of it all to all us common folk.  But it's also a clunky 
and prosaic ending that mars an otherwise great movie. How much more 
memorable - especially given Perkins' superb acting skills - if 
Norman Bates rather than Dr Richmond was the one to inform the 
audience of the weird Bates mother-son dynamics?

  - CMC (Who also thinks that Voldy calling for Harry to be untied in 
GoF was a moment of high drama)