JKR's priorities and how they affect interpretation

[dfrankiswork at netscape.net]

No: HPFGUIDX 31937

Warning! This post contains SHIP elements.

It is, however, about something more fundamental: the priorities that JKR has in deciding what to include and how to present it; and how these affect the way we read HP.

I perceive her priority order to be:
1. Development of the plot, and solving the associated mystery of the night Harry was attacked.
2. Character development/revelation of a few key characters: Harry, his parents, Riddle, Snape, the Dursleys, probably Hermione and Ron, possibly Hagrid, Percy, Draco, Neville, Ginny, probably not much more significant on Lupin or Sirius. Some wildcards such as the older Weasleys, McGonagall, Pettigrew.
3. Development of the relationships between a few key characters: Harry with Dumbledore, Snape, the Dursleys, Hermione, and Ron; Hermione with Ron; Dumbledore with Snape. Possibly Harry with Ginny.
4. Semi-random generation of a fun wizarding universe, using (in common with fanfic authors!) a great many pre-existing components from an incredibly eclectic variety of sources.

I am writing this because I realised that my perception above influences how I interpret the story.  I have to admit straightaway that I don't know exactly how I arrived at this perception.

When I read, I subconsciously sort what I am reading according to the above scale.  So, crucially, if plot development is happening, I tend to discount character and relationship inferences somewhat.  If it isn't I give them more weight.  Furthermore, the plot development contains misdirection by JKR; we have as yet no evidence of serious misdirection in the character and relationship development *except when plot driven* (as for example, the case of Snape).

What this means is that I expect surprises in the plot development, and these may involve character and relationship elements, because plot trumps them.  I don't expect surprises or misleading hints in the 'pure' character or relationship areas.

Here's the SHIP part: avert eyes now, non-shippers.

Celtic 3, Dunfermline 2

Oops, wrong meme.

When Ron and Hermione are interacting (not *only* arguing!), I see that as character and relationship development largely incidental to the plot. So I take it more or less at face value - that is, expecting to read between the lines, but not expecting JKR to try to mislead.  So when Hermione frowns at Ron/Fleur, the most natural explanation *ignoring the wider context* is that she is slightly jealous of Fleur.  Similarly, after the ball, when she tells Ron off about knowing what the remedy is, the first explanation that jumps to mind is that she wanted Ron to ask her.  Sure, if there are strong reasons arising from other parts of the books to think something different, then other explanations spring readily to mind; they have been cited often enough here.

So we have to turn to those other parts.  The problem I have with most, if not all, of them is that they seem to me to be plot points in which relationship is temporarily submerged.  So, when Krum is jealous, it is not really because Hermione has given him reason, it's because JKR wants an excuse to get Harry and Krum talking at the edge of the Forest.  Yes, she could have chosen a different excuse which might seem less constraining on the nature of the H/H relationship, but it's priority 2 or 3.  She just doesn't care about relationship consistency when focused on developing the plot.

When Hermione spends most of her time with Harry rather than Ron before the first task, it's because the story would go as flat as The Day of The Jackal with no dialogue or other interaction to move it along.  When Hermione turns up at the pub apparently alone, JKR is thinking: 'I can't have Ron coming and talking to her now, she's with Harry developing that bit of the story'.  If someone had pointed out at that point that it's a bit weird for them not to meet, because Harry is invisible, she would doubtless have inserted a throwaway sentence to keep Ron from noticing Hermione, or to distract him with F&G.  As it is, that didn't happen, and the focus is elsewhere.

Crucial to all this is my belief that, in the character and relationship arena, JKR is not setting puzzles or trying to mislead.  See how this works in the potions lesson where they discover the Witch Weekly article.  All Hermione's embarrassment is directed at Ron.  All JKR's puzzle-setting and solving attention is directed, I believe, at Rita Skeeter's mysterious ability to know things.  Again, this scene can be given an H/H spin, but I think that involves crediting JKR with dragging Ron across the H/H trail at this point.  On an H/H interpretation, Hermione has to simultaneously conceal her attraction to Harry, while revealing in a very spontaneous way her embarrassment on Ron's behalf, all while her main focus is Witch Weekly.  I don't believe JKR's interested in that sort of misdirection at this stage - she has room to display the interplay between Hermione and Ron because to her that's part of the scenery; she doesn't have (or make) room to play out *two* mysteries - Rita's powers and Hermione's romantic preference - at once.

</SHIP>

Here's another example: the Marauder's Map is a plot device (priority 1) which also adds to the colour of the Potterverse (priority 4).  Even as a plot device, it is flawed, as two Harrys and two Hermiones should be seen by Lupin.  As a magical item, it presents a number of other problems (detailed at the Lexicon), which again, JKR just doesn't care about.

Development of the plot demands one kind of consistency; development of human elements demands another.  JKR is pretty good at both of these on their own, but IMO you can see the joins in the workmanship when taking the two together.

In message 28600, Pippin made the comment:
>We can't rely on deduction because we can't assume that the Potterverse is logically consistent, in fact we know it is not. It is "catastrophic": subject to the whims of its creator rather than to natural law.

I regard this as the most profound statement that I am aware of on this list - in theory it deprives us of any rational way to interpret the books at all.  This post is my personal attempt to say when we can say things - and when we are misleading ourselves in what we deduce.

On rereading, I realise I have written this post backwards - it arose out of trying to understand differences of interpretation between myself and others on this list, which led to the conclusion asserted at the beginning.

Do you think I am right about who is to be developed as a character in future books and who not?  Personally I find this question a bit more interesting than the 'who will die?' one.

David
-- 




__________________________________________________________________
Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas. Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop at Netscape! http://shopnow.netscape.com/

Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Mail account today at http://webmail.netscape.com/