Precedents and Promises (was Re: JKR's priorities and how they affect...)

[caliburncy]

No: HPFGUIDX 31949

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., dfrankiswork at n... wrote:
> 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.

I entirely agree that Pippin's comments above are, as yet, the most 
profound thing I have read on this list.  But perhaps it doesn't 
deprive us *entirely* of a rational means of interpreting canon, 
though it certainly does deprive of us an infallible one.

A beginning creative writing teacher is likely to say, purely for the 
sake of efficaciousness, that there are rules and guidelines for 
writing.  We, of course, know that ultimately this statement is false-
-it's only purpose being to (allegedly) aid the struggling writer in 
learning to structure himself or herself through conformance to 
existing conventions.

But if there are no rules and guidelines, then just how does 
interpretation of writing work?  Why is that we can say, with some 
degree of validity, that Hermione would not murder someone in cold 
blood (barring a set of very extenuating circumstances--and even then 
I can't see it)?  Yet if JKR were to hypothetically write such an 
event, and since the books are subject to her own whims, on what 
grounds is it that we would be able to claim it as a character 
violation?  Would we just be wrong (after all, there it is on paper, 
straight from JKR's pen)--or is there something else at work here?  
Some "force" (for lack of a better word) which bad writers may 
ignore, but that all good writers know they have to be subject to?

By my understanding, the truth of the matter is that writing works 
not by rules, guidelines, or even by conventions.  It works by 
precedents and promises.  Ultimately, all this means is that 
fictional writing utilizes a more concentrated form of cause and 
effect than reality does.  The end of a book is clearly dictated by 
the beginning and *vice-versa*, if the book is tightly-crafted.  And 
there is generally not the same kind of superfluity and immeasurably-
complex system of consequences that the real world has.  A story must 
work within itself, having relatively little in the way of 
extraneity, just so that story really is a sequence of interconnected 
and interdependent events and not just one thing after another.  This 
fact makes the way we understand the workings of stories different 
than the way we understand the workings of reality, however.

For one thing, in the real world, what we experience is, more or 
less, what is credible.  In the fictional world, we, the readers, are 
at liberty to proclaim something as not credible, despite the fact 
that it's right there on paper.  And we come to these conclusions of 
what is and is not credible based on those precedents and promises 
that are set forth by the writer.

Perhaps an example would be more illustrative.  Some of you will 
recall, way back when, I attempted to identify some sub-categories 
for foreshadowing, among them one that I coined "author 
prophecy".  "Author prophecy", by my definition, was a statement made 
that would eventually have to see itself concretely manifested.  For 
example, let's say that a foolhardy lad with silly notions of glory 
and heroism, joins a campaign of war.  Before he leaves, his father 
tells him that, in the course of his quest, he may find out that 
heroism is about more than bravery and feats of arms and that there 
is no glory in war.  This statement is a kind of "author prophecy", 
because I can guarantee you that by the end of the story, the lad 
will learn this very same lesson.  But why?  In the real world, it 
doesn't have to work this way: the father possesses no prescient 
powers, so he really doesn't *know* that his son will learn any of 
these things.  But in the fictional world, when such things do not 
come to pass, it is considered that the book did not deliver on its 
tacitly understood promise.  The reader feels "cheated", because the 
book's ending does not jive with the promises that were subtly made 
in the beginning.

It is a similar effect that guides our understanding of what is and 
is not credible.  We judge what is out of character based on the 
precedent of actions that that character has set.  A character can 
grow beyond their existing characterization, but must be given 
sufficient impetus to do so, because it otherwise conflicts with the 
precedent that has been set.  Books that do not do this well are 
considered to have weak characterization, and believe me, there are 
several.  I can think of numerous incidents where an author got away 
with a character doing something surprising, simply because the 
character had been developed in such a vague manner that the reader 
could not really argue that such an act was a character violation.  
The truth is that, in a well-characterized work, such extensions of 
characters must not only be surprising, they must also be 
*inevitable*.  There must be some sort of precedent laid that, upon 
retrospect, makes the extension credible in the mind of the reader.

This also affects our understanding of plot credibility, in terms of 
internal consistency.  It has no bearing on problems of *external* 
consistency: such as JKR saying that the snake winked, when real 
snakes do not have eyelids.  That's a matter of external consistency, 
because it is a comparison of the work to the real world, and 
therefore is not working from Pippin's notion of catastophic 
creation, per se.  But when it comes to internal consistency: the way 
the plot works within itself, this too is governed by precedents and 
promises.  When we talk about the rules and limitations of magic, we 
are talking about precedents that JKR has set forth.  For example, I 
recall someone making the point that he did not feel time travel fit 
into the HP universe.  I understand the sentiment, but it does not 
technically violate any notion of internal consistency, because there 
was nothing previously in HP that excluded the possibility.  Had 
there been a precedent already in existence with which the notion of 
time travel was in contradiction, then there might be a possible loss 
of plot credibility, unless the contradiction could be rationally 
resolved.

So how do precedents and promises bear upon the way we interpret 
canon in general, with regards to speculation and SHIPing and similar 
predictive endeavors?  Well, it means that it can be looked at from a 
rational point of view under one assumption: that JKR will remain 
consistent with existing precedent and fulfill any existing 
promises.  Obviously, that assumption may be flawed--so the whole 
thing is fallible.  But when it comes to using canon to state that it 
is extremely likely that, for example, Peter Pettigrew will do 
something of benefit to Harry, there *is* a rationally-achieved canon 
basis for that.  We have Dumbledore's statement that "the time may 
come when you will be very glad you saved Pettigrew's life" and this 
statement is a kind of promise to the reader, that must be fulfilled 
if JKR is going to create a good series.  It has nothing to do with 
being able to quote a passage as evidence, it has to do with the 
promise that is inherent in that quote--that's where the rationale 
is.  That such a statement must be eventually filled is a matter of 
tightness, internal consistency, and the concentrated nature of story-
telling.  Other interpretations that we use to reach various forms of 
speculation may be less certain (even given the assumption that 
precedents and promises will be properly carried out), but they are 
still fundamentally plausible (and somewhat rational) until they 
clearly violate an existing precedent (without a sufficient 
extenuation circumstance) or promise.

I'm not going to bother commenting on how this approach impacts the 
SHIPing debate, because it is basically the same thing as with other 
forms of speculation in terms of what is and what is not a valid 
argument.  If people really give a fig about my opinions on what is 
and what is not a valid, rationally-reached argument, I'll provide 
them, but so far David is doing just fine, IMHO.

I have no idea how well, I explained any of this, but that's the 
general idea, as I see it.

-Luke