Length of GoF/Shipping (WAS Shippers and Non-Shippers)

[Cindy C.]

No: HPFGUIDX 28107

Penny wrote:
> I must say that I'm very against the recent trend to try & label 
what 
> seems like it could have been "cut" from any of the books.  It 
seems to 
> me that it's completely impossible to guess which details may seem 
> inocuous enough to us readers now but may be very important on down 
the 
> road.  I trust that the editors have at least said, "Hey, can we 
cut 
> this down by trimming here?"  If it didn't get trimmed, my guess is 
that 
> JKR said, "No way can you eliminate *that*..."  In fact, I think I 
> recall a post-GoF interview where JKR said something to the effect 
that 
> she was very happy with GoF and that it was as lean as it could 
possibly 
> be to get the story told in the way it needed to be conveyed (rough 
> paraphrase).
> 

Penny, if I agree to be a Shipper, will you agree that GoF could be 
cut down a bit?  :-)

Seriously, I think the speculation about what could be cut from the 
series and from GoF especially is really interesting (or at least as 
interesting as any other speculation we do on the list).  Most of it 
comes in the context of trying to figure out how to make the PoA and 
GoF movies work, and the day is certainly coming when someone will 
cut great hunks from the last two books to make the movies of 
reasonable duration.  I'll certainly allow, however, that most folks 
don't appear at all interested in the exercise, which is fine, of 
course.

But even if we talk about the books only, I think it's interesting to 
separate out sub-plots and think about how they work together, 
whether there's some room to cut, and which parts might be more 
important than others.  Can this be done when we don't know what's 
coming in the next three books?  Sure, why not?  It just means we 
might turn out to be wrong, and I can live with that, even if I have 
to eat my words when the final book comes out in, what, 2008.  If 
speculating weren't entertaining, then there'd be no point in trying 
to figure out Hermione's age, or the Triwizard Cup as Portkey, or 
boggarts, etc.

Now, if JKR thinks she has to have every word of the first 400 pages 
of GoF, well, maybe she's right.  After all, she's the one with the 
master outline.  But then again, maybe she's not right, and she 
wouldn't be the first writer to believe that her work couldn't 
possibly be any leaner.  (And of course, the fact that JKR says 
something like that in an interview doesn't mean she really means it 
deep down, as I'd hardly expect her to say, "Oh, yes, the whole thing 
was terribly bloated, but it's too late to fix it now.")  <bg>

So far, though, I'm not entirely convinced that everything in GoF is 
necessary for subsequent books.  For instance, in the early parts of 
GoF, we see things that could be important later, but I can't for the 
life of me figure out how.  We see a boy engorge a slug (after we 
already know about engorgement spells via Ton Tongue Toffees, BTW).  
We see toddlers ride toy brooms.  We see minor characters (Bagman, 
Crouch, some other wizard) apparate.  We see our heroes have 
breakfast and get winded walking up a hill.  It just struck me as 
unnecessary, but, hey, it wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong 
about things in HP.

The thing that really might be going on, though, is that JKR might be 
using some of these little details as misdirection or something.  You 
know, if we see toddlers ride broomsticks and engorge slugs, it won't 
stand out so much that the tent smells like cabbage, so we won't 
focus on that detail.  I don't know if this is a good use of 
misdirection or not.  But maybe that's part of the picture.

Cindy (who might be ready to re-classify herself from "Anti-shipper" 
to "Maybe-shipper-if-it's-done-with-humor-dignity-and-class-and-even-
then-not-too-often)"