JKR's priorities and how they affect interpretation

[cindysphynx]

No: HPFGUIDX 31942

David wrote:

<snip interesting comments and shipping stuff>

> 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.

Interesting idea, David.  It got me thinking about which areas of the 
HP world JKR's workmanship is less seamless than other parts.  I 
think you are correct (assuming that I read your comments correctly) 
that JKR doesn't tend to have many "glitches" in her 
characterizations.  I can't think of any obvious flaws there.  
Characters generally act as they should.

The glitches come, for the most part, in the plot development and 
only secondarily in the magical devices.  

Plot development glitches include issues like Lupin and the clouds, 
Moody's failure to hand Harry a toothbrush.  Device glitches are 
things like inconsistent properties of portkeys and the Marauder's 
Map.  

I wonder why this is?  Is it an unavoidable part of fantasy 
literature that the author is only human, so he/she will have 
glitches in the way the device elements work together?  Are the plot 
glitches the sort of thing that a more experienced or talented author 
would have caught?  Are there more magic device glitches or plot 
glitches, and which type of problem is worse? I really haven't made 
up my mind; any thoughts?

Cindy



> 
> 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/