Sartorial blind-spots, Animagi clothing, Sirius' motorcycle

[ssk7882]

No: HPFGUIDX 36291

There does seem to be a great deal of sartorial inconsistency in the
books (if the Weasleys are so oblivious to the ways of the Muggles,
then why does Harry only recognize them as a wizarding family when
he overhears mention of Platform Nine and Three-Quarters?  Shouldn't
he have known this instantly from their bizarre form of dress?  Do
the students wear those pointy hats to all their classes or don't 
they?  Is a robeless Hogwarts student indecently-exposed or isn't 
he?  How do you manage to straddle a broomstick in floor-length 
robes?  And so forth.)  The animagus question is just one of a long 
list.

My gut feeling about JKR as a writer is that she doesn't tend to 
visualize clothing very much at all when she imagines the scenes 
to herself.  Descriptions of clothing in the books are rare, and 
where they appear, they are quite sparse.  Unless the the author is
going out of her way to make a point about someone's form of dress,
she rarely thinks to mention what people are wearing at all.  Fudge's
gaily-colored ensemble merits some description, as do Hagrid's awful
suit and the dress robes people wear to the Yule Ball.  There is quite
a bit of sartorial description in the QWC segment of GoF.  But 
generally speaking, there just isn't very much emphasis on clothing
in the text.  I get the impression that JKR is simply not terribly 
interested in clothing (unlike food, which clearly is something that
interests her and that plays a large role in her visualization of
the fictive world).

So when it comes to Shrieking Shack, for example, my suspicion is that
it didn't occur to the author to specify whether or not Pettigrew
was dressed because what the characters were wearing played very
little role in her own visualization of that scene.  She may, indeed, 
simply not have considered the question.  Sirius' ratty grey robes 
did occur to her, because his role as "convict" was important, and so 
the appropriate clothing for that role leapt to her mind. Pettigrew's 
dress (or lack thereof), on the other hand, was something that she 
may well just never have thought to consider.

This may seem strange to people who are interested in and attentive
to clothing.  To me, it seems perfectly natural.  As both a reader and
a writer, I know that while I always visualize things like facial 
expression and body language and landscape in photographically vivid 
detail, I often fail to visualize clothing at all.  This is likely 
related to my oblivion to clothing in real life: I am remarkably 
inattentive to what people are wearing; unless they are indecently-
exposed or in some truly bizarre get-up, like a period costume, I 
rarely notice their clothing.  (This makes me absolutely useless as a 
witness, as became all too clear when the police asked me questions 
about a con-man who had tried to pull a scam at our store and upon 
failing, fled the scene.  "Well, all right, then.  Was what he was 
wearing dark or light?"  "Um...I'm sorry.  I really just didn't 
notice.")  Whenever sartorial issues come up on this list, I find 
myself wondering if JKR might not suffer from a similar blind spot.


Charis Julia wrote:

> So, Peter left his robes behind him when he transformed. * Was* he 
> naked in the Shrieking Shack then? Ugh, ugh, shakes self violently 
> trying to rid brain of horrible new envisioning of scene. Nope. 
> Won't work. Stuck with it. Bother.

Ugh.  You know, I have to admit that it never once occurred to me to 
wonder what Pettigrew was wearing in Shrieking Shack.  And you know 
what else?  In this particular case, ignorance really was bliss.  I 
could, I think, have lived very happily for the rest of my life 
without ever being forced to contemplate the possibility that the 
poor wretch was actually stark naked throughout that scene, or (even 
worse) being forced to try to *visualize* it that way.  So thank 
*you,* HPFGU.  Thanks a whole *lot.*

<Elkins pauses for a moment, trying to envision Shrieking Shack with 
a starkers Pettigrew, then shakes her head with a shudder>

No.  Ugh, no, that's just far too degrading.  I balk at the concept.  
My imagination goes on strike; the shutter on my mental camera 
refuses to click; I instinctively avert my inner eye.  I simply  
cannot bring myself to go there.  Therefore, I am forced to deduce 
that Pettigrew must have been clothed.

So there.  That's settled, then.


Charis wrote:

> By the way, one thing I've always wondered. Why did Sirius tell 
> Hagrid he wouldn't be needing the motorcycle any more? The only 
> explanation that I can come up with is that, in a blinding rage 
> that had possessed him and half unhinged by grief, he really does 
> intend to murder Pettigrew. Oh, yeah, actually we know that for a 
> fact, he says so at the end of PoA. So, he knew he would be caught 
> and sent to Azkaban, but had no problem facing the prospect if it 
> was necessary in order to avenge his friends death. 

That was always my understanding.  He was slightly unhinged at the 
time, and he wasn't thinking too clearly; he felt as if his life were 
over.  There's a tinge of the suicidal there, to be sure -- giving 
away cherished possessions, you know.  Never a good sign.  

> Except that, well, all this doesn't fit in too well with my 
> perception of wizarding justice at all. Surely in the post—
> Voldemort years a man would be honoured for bringing in a Death 
> Eater, not hauled off to prison. 

But there would have been no way for Sirius to prove his story, would 
there?  If we assume (as I think that we must) that for whatever 
reason, veritaserum was not being used for such purposes at that 
time, then it would have come down to Sirius' word.  He didn't expect 
that anyone would believe him.  

> Moody doesn't seem to have been punished for killing Rosier, does 
> he? 

Ah, but that's different.  Moody was an Auror, with a licence to 
kill.  He was authorized to identify people as Dark Wizards and to 
take violent action against them.  Sirius was not.  The wizarding 
world may be a bit anarchic, but it nonetheless does seem to draw a 
distinction between vigilante justice and the activities of the 
duly-authorized representatives of the judicial system.


-- Elkins