Very Little Foreshadowing? (was Re: Malfoy's Redemption)

[caliburncy at yahoo.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 25357

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., cassandraclaire at m... wrote:
<snipping the rest of this message except the relevant quote>
> In fact, I've seen the New Yorker cite 
> the fact that JKR gives her plot twists so very little foreshadowing 
> at all as being a weakness in the series. (I don't agree it's a 
> weakness but I will agree she does it.)

Really?  I think JKR uses a great deal of foreshadowing.  Well, first 
of all, let me specify what I'm talking about.  THIS IS REALLY 
LONG: PLEASE BEAR WITH ME.  IF YOU REALLY CAN'T STAND IT, SKIP TO THE 
END.  I'M JUST TRYING TO BUILD A COMMON FRAME OF REFERENCE.  There are 
three kinds of foreshadowing that spring to mind.  This is all my own 
thoughts--not regurgitation from a creative writing class, so I've 
kind of made up the classifications--but take it for what it's worth.

1) "First-time foreshadowing"

     This is called 'first-time' because you are expected to notice it 
on your first read and understand what it means.  It's purpose is to 
raise a story question that will be answered later.  A story question, 
basically, is a question the reader asks about the future of the 
story, like "What did he mean by that?" or "What kind of role are 
those people going to play?"  This is absolutely essential to good 
pacing, because it's the kind of comments that make you want to keep 
reading to find out what it means.

     This is so prevalent in HP that I have a difficult time coming up 
with the single, ideal example.  At the moment, I'll settle for a bad 
one.  In the beginning of PS/SS, Mr. Dursley sees a cat reading a map. 
 We, the readers, wonder what the cat is doing there and especially 
why he thought he saw it reading a map, which is not normal cat 
behavior.  A story question enters our minds.  Note that we draw no 
concusions until one is given to us, when we learn that the cat is 
Prof. McGonagall transfigured.  We don't make a hasty, incorrect 
assumption like we are supposed to do with second-time foreshadowing. 
 The point is simply to spark our interest and keep us wondering 
what's coming up.

2) "Second-time foreshadowing"

     This is called 'second-time' because you are not supposed to 
notice it on a re-read after you have found out what it signifies.  
You might also call it 'kick-me foreshadowing' because it's the kind 
of foreshadowing that makes you feel like an idiot for not realizing 
it the first time through.  It is so incredibly obvious.  Or so you 
think.  Hindsight is 20/20, after all.  The reason it works is because 
it is misdirected by multiple interpretations.  There is always 
another explanation to make you disregard the real explanation.  This 
alternate explanation must have attention called to it and it must be 
entirely valid.  So you make hasty assumptions (actually the 
characters often make the hasty assumption first, which is part of why 
you go along with it).  Surprise endings DO NOT WORK without 
second-time foreshadowing because otherwise they stretch credibility. 
 It must surprise you at first, but then on second thought it must 
seem inevitible, there was no other way it could be.

     A great example of this in HP is when Snape accuses Harry of 
stealing Boomslang skin in GOF.  Here's the quote:

***

     "Don't lie to me," Snape hissed, his fathomless black eyes boring 
into Harry's.  "Boomslang skin.  Gillyweed.  Both come from my private 
stores, and I know who stole them."
     Harry stared back at Snape, determined not to blink or to look 
guilty.  In truth, he hadn't stolen either of these things from Snape. 
 Hermione had taken the boomslang skin back in their second year--they 
had needed it for the Polyjuice Potion--and while Snape had suspected 
Harry at the time, he had never been able to prove it.  Dobby, of 
course, had stolen the gillyweed.

***

     On first read, we accept Harry's assumption that Snape is 
referring to the incident in their second year when Hermione stole the 
boomslang skin.  But this assumption is false, even though it seems 
reasonably valid at the time, as it must if the literary device is to 
work.  We realize on re-read that Snape was actually referring to a 
more recent incident in which Crouch-as-Moody stole the boomslang skin 
to make Polyjuice Potion.  It is a great bit of second-time 
foreshadowing.

     Another example is in PoA when we are told that Sirius kept 
saying "He's at Hogwarts" while at Azkaban.  When we learn this from 
Fudge he states it very matter-of-factly as though Sirius must be 
after Harry.  We make another hasty assumption, mainly because Fudge 
did.  That's our alternate explanation (assuming you bought it like 
you were supposed to, which I never did).  The real explanation is we 
have no proof of who he was talking about.  It is totally ambiguous.  
With other evidence on second reading, you of course know he is really 
talking about Peter, not Harry.

3) "Author prophecy"

     This is similar to first-time foreshadowing, but not quite the 
same.  It is more direct, in a way, because it gives you an answer 
without the question.  You are TOLD that some particular thing will 
happen, but you don't really understand the circumstances yet.  I call 
it "author prophecy" because the author is telling you what will 
happen later on in very specific terms.  And usually it is done 
without any actual external proof (unlike most first-time 
foreshadowing), as most prophecies are, but if the author is a good 
one the prophecy WILL fulfill itself.  Usually author prophecies take 
a long time to fulfill themselves.  In the case of series, they 
usually span multiple books, unlike first and second-time 
foreshadowing which are generally (but not always) contained in a 
single novel.

     An example of this in HP is when Dumbledore says that Harry will 
someday be glad he spared Pettigrew's life because Pettigrew will feel 
indebted to him.  This is not first-time foreshadowing firstly because 
there is no external proof that this will happen, only Dumbledore's 
word, which is really just his opinion and even he wouldn't claim to 
have proof of his words.  But especially because this doesn't raise a 
story question so much as it gives an answer to a question we didn't 
even think to ask.  I can't prove that this will fulfill itself since 
the series isn't finished yet, but I guarantee you it will.  I'm sorry 
if I'm not making the distinction between this and first-time 
foreshadowing clear, but it's a little bit subtle and I'm not much of 
a teacher sometimes.

IF YOU MADE IT THIS FAR, READING ALL THE WAY, YOUR MEDAL OF HONOR IS 
IN THE MAIL. (*see disclaimer)  IF YOU DECIDED TO SKIP, I FORGIVE YOU. 
 :-)

Anyway, JKR uses lots of first-time foreshadowing, which is where a 
lot of her good pacing comes from.  And she uses a little author 
prophecy, but not much.  I have never seen a book that used much of 
this, nor would it probably work to do so.  So that leaves second-time 
foreshadowing which is, of course, what I imagine you were taking 
about in the first place (partly why I gave two examples for it, since 
it is most important to our discussion--but they may not be the two 
best examples, I almost added more, but stopped myself).  If you look, 
you will find it, because it is certainly there, and in great supply. 
 I'd love to give an exhaustive list, but I don't have the time (even 
if the length of this post seems to indicate the contrary).  It is 
because of all this second-time foreshadowing (and perhaps having too 
much "fiction intuition") that I actually predicted the vast majority 
of the plot-twists in the Harry Potter books.  There are big clues if 
you look for the assumptions and I picked up on many of them the first 
time through, which is actually kind of sad because it's less fun that 
way.  But at least I've rarely guessed everything, for example I 
didn't guess the Scabbers is Peter connection at all.  Though there 
was foreshadowing for that as well with the fingers, among other 
things.

The test of too much or too little second-time foreshadowing is 
credibility.  If you believe it--meaning you are surprised at first, 
but later think it makes sense, then the amount of foreshadowing 
worked.  The Scabbers/Peter thing, would not have worked if we hadn't 
had even the small bits of foreshadowing we got.  But we didn't get 
enough to guess it either.

On the other hand I thought there was too much foreshadowing on some 
things, especially Sirius really being good.  The "He's at Hogwarts" 
thing was SO blatantly obvious (to me at least) as a faulty assumption 
meaning that I never for one second believed Sirius was after Harry.  
That really threw off the effectiveness of the book for me, though I 
dearly love it anyway.  But apparently this fooled others, so maybe it 
really wasn't too much/too obvious.

-Luke

*Disclaimer: True honor is intangible, being born only of heart and 
mind.  And, therefore, so is your medal.  Given the intangible 
contents, an intangible envelope was deemed equally appropriate.