JKR's priorities and how they affect interpretation (small SHIP section in the middle)

[Penny & Bryce]

No: HPFGUIDX 31967

Hi --

Well, David, you've rattled my cage ...<g>

dfrankiswork at netscape.net wrote:

> 
> 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.

Well, I'm rather hoping that some of our resident English lit scholars 
will eventually chime in (I do know that Dr. Nel is on university break 
at the moment so we'll have to do without him for the moment).  But, 
being a former English lit type, I will wade in on this topic & see what 
I might be able to add, if anything.  I dusted off (literally!) some old 
textbooks from a grad class on British Novels that I took more years ago 
than I care to admit.  One of those books is entitled "Aspects of the 
Novel," by E.M. Forster and though it was published in 1927 & has 
doubtless been superseded many times over in the years since I last 
looked at it, I do think it has some interesting points.

The commonality to all novels is the story-telling function: "What 
happens next?  And then?"  [My infant daughter has taken to babbling at 
me and I've been dutifully saying: "And *then* what happened?"  She is 
always delighted by this question & happy to babble on some more].  But, 
a story is not the same thing as a plot Forster tells us.  True enough. 
  A story is a narrative of events arranged in a time-sequence.  The 
plot adds causality.  Forster says: "The king died and then the queen 
died" is a story; "The king died and then the queen died of grief" is a 
plot.  Hmmm.

He moves on next to discussion of characters.  I just have to quote this 
little bit which I highlighted & loved when I re-read it this afternoon:

"The characters arrive when evoked, but full of the spirit of mutiny. 
For they have these numerous parallels with people like ourselves, they 
try to live their own lives and are consequently often engaged in 
treason against the main scheme of the book. They 'run away," they 'get 
out of hand': they are creations inside a creation and often 
inharmonious towards it; if they are given complete freedom they kick 
the book to pieces, and if they are kept too sternly in check, they 
revenge themselves by dying...." (punctuation Forster).

I had this lovely mental image of our beloved HP characters "getting out 
of hand" & JKR wrestling with them.  :--)

Anyway, moving on.  Forster divides characters into "flat" & "round." 
He notes that a novel that is to be at all complex requires some of both 
types.  He claims that the test of a round character is that a round 
character is "capable of surprising in a convincing way.  If it never 
surprises, it is flat.  If it surprises but unconvincingly, it is a flat 
pretending to be a round."

So, who's flat & who's round in the Potterverse?  This ties in a bit 
with what David was saying about which characters will be developed & 
emphasized in the coming books (it *is* a far more interesting question 
indeed than the "who will die" question).

I'll take David's list for starters.  I'd be interested to know why he 
included the Dursleys since IMO there couldn't be 3 more flat characters 
than the Dursleys.  The Dursleys haven't changed one iota since PS/SS, 
and while this doesn't necessarily mean they won't grow & change in the 
latter 3 books, I'm still not sure I'm sold on the notion that there is 
any reason for their growth.  We do see *Harry* changing in his 
relationship to the Dursleys, but the Dursleys themselves remain static 
in my mind.  If there is more to Petunia than meets the eye, we might 
have a case for further development of these characters.  But, I must 
say that they would not make my list of characters that will develop too 
much in the next books.

David says "probably" on Hermione and Ron.  I would say definitely on 
both of them.  They are most definitely "round" characters and we've 
already seen tremendous growth in both these characters.  Well, actually 
to rephrase, I see Hermione *growing* so far; I see Ron becoming ever 
more inexorably who he is, which is not necessarily growth so far.  I do 
think though that both characters will achieve real growth in the latter 
books though.

David thinks Ginny.  I suppose in fairness I must concede that further 
development of Ginny is a possibility if I'm going to throw my lot in 
with the "There's still time for Draco to be redeemed or at least 
renounce evil if not be a full-fledged good guy."  I do subscribe to the 
latter, so I shouldn't necessarily say, "Well, JKR's had 4 novels to do 
something ... *anything* ... with Ginny & hasn't."  I'll put that one 
down as a "maybe" on my list.

I do think we'll see more development of Sirius & Lupin (and not just 
because they are 2 of my favorites!).  They are both clearly "round" 
characters in my mind.  We are certain to learn a great deal more about 
Sirius in connection with learning more of Snape's mysteries, are we 
not?  I don't think we've seen or heard the last of the Marauder 
generation.

> 
> 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.

This is an interesting way of looking at it all, David.  But, I think 
it's important to remember that to JKR the series is one big novel, 
divided into 7 convenient chunks.  So while "misdirection" in character 
& relationship development may not be evident quite yet, it's a bit hard 
to discount it as completely unlikely.  I think it's hard to do true 
critiques of the HP books in the sense that we are only halfway done, 
and if you do view it as one big novel, it would be like setting a novel 
down mid-way through & trying to analyze & critique it without finishing 
it up.

I'm also not convinced that JKR, consciously or otherwise, would 
separate it out quite like David has done with plot & character 
development.  If there are, in fact, to be no "pure" character 
surprises, then really there won't be any truly "round" characters in 
the Potterverse at all.  Remember Forster's test of a round character is 
a character who can surprise the reader in a convincing way.  Forster 
included a nice section on Dickens in which he notes that by all 
accounts, Dickens ought to be bad because all his characters are, at 
base, flats.  I do see some similarities between JKR & Dickens (and they 
are in fact 2 of my favorite authors), but I do think I'll be 
disappointed if there are no surprises, no complex characterizations in 
these novels when all is said & done.  I mean more than just 
disappointment that Evil!Draco ended up as Evil!Draco (although I'll 
feel sad about that too).

Cindy wrote:

<<<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.>>>>>>>

I'm curious to know what Cindy means by that last statement.  How 
*should* the characters act?  By that, do you mean that so far they 
haven't surprised us?  I suppose in thinking about it briefly now, there 
really haven't been any true surprises as yet.  But, I can't imagine we 
can really have Harry mature to adulthood with no real challenges to his 
character.  That seems to be too important an overall theme: the hero's 
journey & all that.  As Alan Jacobs notes in his excellent article on 
HP, Rowling doesn't just divide the characters into two piles: good and 
evil.  Harry, as he has already learned in CoS, is not *inevitably* 
good.  I believe he will be tested quite a bit in the times to come, and 
I'd be surprised if he is the only character to present us with some 
surprises.  Snape surely has some surprises for us.  Yes?

SHIP WARNING: Addressing David's specific shipping points so avert your 
eyes if you want (I'll put SHIPPING OVER below to signal the end of it):

> 
 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.

I'm not sure you've made your point here.  Why wouldn't she make up some 
other reason to get Harry & Krum talking near the edge of the Forest if 
all she cared about was advancing the plot?  I'm not yet convinced that 
JKR follows David's priority order in writing the novels perhaps.  <g> 
  Is it in fact even necessary that it be *Krum* in terms of pure plot 
development; could she not have had Harry lured to the edge of the 
forest in conversation with someone else?  I confess that after 
ruminating on this for some time, I can't think of any reason why it was 
necessary that it be Krum who had a conversation with Harry at that 
point.  Remind me if I'm missing something.

> 
> 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.

Um, that's not *my* spin on this scene as a H/H'er.  I think Hermione is 
acutely aware of Ron's feelings for her (it's post-Yule Ball), so of 
course she's embarrassed to admit that Krum asked her to go to Bulgaria 
in his presence.  She knows Ron likes her, and it makes her 
uncomfortable.  It very possibly would make her *more* uncomfortable if 
she *doesn't* return his feelings.  There's really no H/H spin to put on 
that scene at all, other than the simple fact that she seems flustered & 
embarrassed does *not* necessarily prove that she is attracted to *Ron.*

SHIPPING OVER!

David again:


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.

What I would say is that this isn't mathematics: there is no *one* 
single right answer.  We can all bring our own interpretations to the 
mix; sometimes we will persuade others of the validity of our positions 
& other times we will fail.  But, IMO, in sharing our interpretations, 
we will all have a richer experience with HP than if we simply read the 
books on our own & formed our own conclusions.

I can't agree with David's conclusion that we are "misleading" ourselves 
if we allow or speculate on possible JKR misdirections that *might* (or 
might *not* in future plot developments) be outside of furthering 
plot(s).  For one thing, we can't know how some characterization 
surprises might affect the overall plot of the *series* (which is only 
halfway complete at this point) or the plots of later books.  There is, 
IMO, foundation enough for Draco to be redeemed: a "convincing 
surprise."  There is, IMO, foundation enough for Hermione to be nursing 
romantic feelings for *Harry* rather than Ron: a "convincing surprise." 
  So on & so forth.

I also think that if we went through the books carefully, bearing 
David's thoughts in mind, we might find other examples of character 
"misdirection" that isn't necessarily tied to furtherance of the plot. 
But, alas, that will have to wait for a more sane time in my life than 
the holiday season.  :--)

Penny