More on reader interpretation (was Nel #10)

[davewitley]

No: HPFGUIDX 41657

Elkins and Pip had the following exchange of grins, about the lady 
with the trolley on board the Hogwarts Express:

Pip:

> > > For all we know the trolley lady could be a working-class 
> > > research witch who does the six times yearly job for some extra 
> > > cash to buy the rare herbs she needs. [grin]
> >
> Elkins: 

> > Are you saying that if this were the case, then she would be in 
> > some way *superior* to an ordinary run-of-the-mill trolley lady 
who 
> > had no such intellectual ambitions?  [*exceptionally* evil grin]
> > 
and Pip again:

> [*even more exceptionally evil grin*] but you seem to be deciding 
> that the trolley lady, the nice ice-cream lady, and all the other 
one-
> or-two line characters are automatically of a particular social 
class 
> *because* they are in a service position. Think outside the box, 
> please. 
 
I think this thing of 'thinking outside the box' is at the heart of 
the issue.  I don't believe we *can* profitably think outside the box 
when interpreting fiction such as the Harry Potter series.

It seems to me that in order to think outside the box in this sort of 
way, we have to treat the text as if it is a sort of photographic - 
perhaps cinematic - record of real world events.  We observe a lady 
with a trolley, and try only to make deductions which are logically 
consistent with our observations, avoiding all prior assumptions.

The trouble is, I don't think fiction is like that.  It's written to 
key into reader assumptions which are derived from genre 
conventions.  Fiction is, I think, not like a photograph but like a 
painting: once we get too close we see, not more detail, but brush 
strokes.  We see the mechanisms that have been used to convey the 
impressions that the author wishes the reader to obtain, not a closer 
version of the impressions themselves.

All of which is a roundabout way of saying that characters like the 
trolley lady are presented in what is essentially a cliche form, and 
it is part of the text that the impression that goes with the cliche 
is conveyed, unless there is accompanying textual evidence to the 
contrary.  In short, the connotation of 'working-class' is part of 
the text for this character in its wider literary context.

Of course, with JKR, we have two lines of *circumstantial* evidence 
that a cliche character may not be all she seems: that she enjoys 
overturning genre conventions, and one of the genres she exploits is 
that of detective fiction.  In the former case, JKR may surprise us 
and say 'ha-ha - had you fooled: the trolley lady is a key character, 
the new DADA professor, in fact'; in the latter, she may be Neville's 
mother (who only pretends to be insane) on polyjuice.

However, there is no *direct* evidence that the trolley lady - or, 
say, Stan Shunpike - is a convention-busting surprise or a mystery's 
red herring or hidden villain.  And, in the context of the entire 
series (so far) class-related conventions are among those which are 
apparently not being overturned.

David, who, if he ever gets to speak to JKR, is tempted to ask 'did 
Stan Shunpike go to Hogwarts?' because it really could go either way, 
the answer makes a difference, and is unlikely to be classified