A superfluous point (with a touch of TBAY)

[dicentra63]

No: HPFGUIDX 40297

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., dfrankiswork at n... wrote:
> Pippin originally wrote, in connection with the analysis of minor clues:
> 
> "Every sentence serves a purpose, whether it's to entertain, inform,
persuade or confuse."
> 
> and Dicentra bridled (what does this look like? I'm not sure if I've
seen anyone bridle IRL - could you do one of your text diagrams, Dicey?).

I think the term I used was "bristled."  It looks like this:

'|'\"./<<-|>>-\\
<|>>=|==>-->\,,/|<,

> So how could we possibly demonstrate that a sentence does not
entertain?  

If I don't dig it, it doesn't entertain. :D

>If we think that a sentence is completely superfluous, does that mean
that it has fulfilled JKR's purpose to confuse us?  

No. I think Pippin uses "confuse" to refer to misdirection, wherein a
seemingly insignificant detail turns out to be important later on.  In
the scene where Ron takes Scabbers to Diagon Alley for some tonic, for
example, Harry observes that "the witch's eyes moved from Scabbers's
tattered left ear to his front paw, which had a toe missing, and
tutted loudly."  That little parenthetical "which had a toe missing"
looks for all the world like a superfluous statement, but it's the key
to the whole mystery.  On the other hand, the rats playing jump-rope
in their cages seems important, but it apppears it isn't at all.  (It
is entertaining, though.)

When I say that Harry Awakens at 4:30am is superfluous, I mean that it
looks like something JKR wrote as part of her first draft (first
drafts tend to be lousy with superfluous stuff) and forgot to delete.
 Or it's just a filler bridge for clearing one's palate between
scenes, which doesn't fulfil Pippin's criteria.  It seems to just
be... there.  It never gets picked apart as a clue to something, it
doesn't prefigure anything, it doesn't DO anything but get Harry up
early and make him wait for the kitchen to start serving breakfast. 
It's one of those things that *would* happen in real life, but that
you'd edit out were you writing a biography or something.

>How uninformative does a statement of 'fact' have to be, to not inform?

This depends on how dense you want your prose to be.  In 19th-century
novels, the authors described every scenic element in detail so dense
it would choke a horse.  If a scene like that were in HP, I'd have it
aboard my GARBAGE SCOW faster than you can say "Quidditch." Much of it
would be "irrelevant" because it would call too much attention to
itself without forwarding the plot, clarifying the characters, or
providing clues.  In HP, we like the idea (well, some of us do) that
JKR's prose is dense not with irrelevant detail but with Meaning--that
we can go ahead and assume that her word choice is deliberate, not by
how pretty it sounds but by how much it contributes to the overall
thematic and dramatic action.

>(Incidentally I think JKR does start to build Amos Diggory's
character in the Portkey chapter - his remark about Harry falling off
his broom is nicely done.)

Hey, Cindy put that can(n)on aboard the barge.  Take it up with her.

> IOW, I think Pippin's list of purposes is so all-embracing that I'm
not sure it, er, serves any purpose.

It does if you're characterizing JKR's prose as thematically and
dramatically dense, purposeful, and tightly woven.  Contrast Pippin's
statement with your average hack-job grocery-store dime-a-dozen novel,
where you're getting maybe two revisions past the original draft. 
Those novels are rife with superfluity.  

Ironically enough, I declared Harry Awakens at 4:30am superfluous with
a considerable amount of dismay.  I LIKE the idea that Pippin's
statement is universally true of the HP series.  But now that I've got
myself a ship with can(n)ons aboard, I have to defend it, don't I?

--Dicentra