Coherence II (long)

[bluesqueak]

No: HPFGUIDX 39028

Thanks, David. That was a really thought-provoking post. 

The following thoughts are based on what I know of 'Golden Age' 
detective stories and how I *think* JKR is using the techniques of 
that genre.

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "davewitley" <dfrankiswork at n...> wrote:
> I got rather more replies to my coherence post than I expected - 
the 
> reverse of the usual situation.
> 
> I just want to pick up on two points: to refine what I mean about 
> coherence from book to book, and to discuss the mother's love thing 
> in particular.
> 
> Much of what I wrote was merely autobiographical - I was trying to 
> explain where I am coming from, particularly the type of books I 
read 
> that might seem to be precursors to HP.  Quite simply, I have had 
in 
> the past a very low expectation of authors' willingness to create a 
> consistent universe.  Like Pippin, I expect my background to be 
> distinctly impressionistic: perhaps there is a discussion to be had 
> there about the tension between archetypal and detective-story, as 
> well as novelistic, characters.  (J.I.M. Stewart, aka Michael 
Innes, 
> has written on the problem that detective authors face with 
> characterisation: the better drawn their characters, the less 
> psychologically plausible it is to keep them all equally suspect up 
> to the final denouement.)  Anyway, I am quite happy to concede that 
> there is a clear developmental arc for the main characters that is 
> intended to be present from the beginning (Finwitch's point), and 
> that there are clearly signalled 'problems' (such as why Voldemort 
> attacked Harry, why Snape flip-flopped into and out of DEism, what 
> exactly was going on when James rescued Snape) awaiting a later 
book 
> for resolution.  There are also blanks awaiting filling in, for 
> example, did Lily have no friends at school?
> 
> What I remain to be convinced of is that there are *clues* which 
make 
> no sense in terms of the book they are in, but do make sense in a 
> later book.

I think there is going to be a problem with that one, simply because 
JKR seems to be following a 'Agatha Christie style' model. [I do 
*not* mean that she is 'copying' Christie, merely that I think I've 
recognised some of the techniques as similar] This means that the 
*clues* we are given *will* make perfect sense in terms of the book 
they are in: however, their actual meaning may be a complete reversal 
of their apparent meaning, and they will almost certainly not *look* 
significant.

> 
<snip>
> 
> I don't count simple foreshadowings such as Harry's Parseltongue, 
> because they are not mysterious - we just assume in PS with Harry 
> that it's a wizard thing to talk to snakes.  

In fact, Harry's Parseltongue is a brilliant example of 'hide the 
clues in plain sight'.
The clues we are given in PS/SS are: 
Harry can talk to a snake, apparently in English.
Harry cannot do this with any other animal - not even Hedwig.
No other wizard is seen talking to any animal - they can't even speak 
to their familiars. No animal is magically made to talk.
Slytherin's symbol is a snake.
Lord Voldemort went to Slytherin.
Harry defeated Lord Voldemort; something no other wizard could do.

At this point we should be asking 'can Harry do anything else that no 
other wizard can do?' But we don't.
 Of course, *I* spotted these clues immediately... well, on the 
second reading.... well, after I read CoS... ok, then, last night 
[shuffles feet].

>The trouble with these 
> is that *any* apparently innocuous statement can be one of those.  
> The name of a Sorted pupil, the fact that Mr Jordan is owed money 
by 
> Bagman, that fact that the statue of Boris the Bewildered has his 
> gloves on the wrong hands (one of my all time favourite lines), ad 
> infinitum.
> 
> GOF is apparently full of such clues or puzzles
<snip>

Again, that's a classic Christie technique. We're 4/7th's of the way 
through the mystery, and at this stage should now have enough red 
herrings to open a fishmongers.:-) The problem is going to be 
spotting which *clue* is a real clue. IMO, it's also half the fun.

> 
> So, a challenge for you all: find something in an early book which 
is 
> a puzzle that is resolved in a later one.  I repeat, I am *not* 
> talking about mere foreshadowings, I am talking about mysteries, 
and 
> I am *not* talking about mysteries that have been clearly presented 
> as such.  I mean clues that with some thought and luck might have 
> given the reader help in cracking the puzzle in the later book.
> 

Pippin's found another one: 
>>How about the cabbage smell in Mrs. Figg's house? That's 
>>mentioned in Book One, and doesn't seem magical until we find 
>>out about the resemblance between Perkin's tent and Mrs. Figg's 
>>furnishings at the World Cup. Then an "Arabella Figg" turns out 
>>to be one of the old crowd, and JKR awarded a "well-spotted" to 
>>the person who connected her with Harry's Mrs. Figg in a chat. 

which is a terrific example of clues spreading over more than one 
book.

We also get clues about Scabbers true nature in PS/SS. Wizards and 
witches can turn into animals (and we don't actually *need* to know 
this until Book Three). Scabbers is Percy's *old* rat. Ron can't make 
a transforming spell work on Scabbers (and we're told this twice). In 
Book Two, the clue is that Scabbers is still around; and in Book 
Three, in case we've missed this (or don't know how long pet rodents 
live) JKR sportingly explains that rats usually live two to three 
years. 

> --------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ------------------------------------
> 
> The Voldemort mysteries. 
<big snip>
>It is a 
> commentary on Voldemort's dumb evil overlordness that he swallows 
> this twice, once as Riddle, again at rebirthing.  One would hope 
that 
> a really consummate villain would at least say "Hang on, that can't 
> quite be right... Never mind, let's get on with the Aveda Keadvra-
> ing, it's so much more fun than figuring out exactly what 
> happened..." and it would, IMO, give the reader a little bit more 
> chance to see that some misdirecting is going on. 
<snip>

Ah, yes, Lord Voldemort is Ever So Evil...but stupid. He's a truly 
stereotyped Evil Overlord. He even has some traditional incredibly 
dumb followers. And he uses that good old chestnut of 'I will kill 
him! He is mine!'

It is possible that JKR has found she's *had* to stick to the 
stereotypical Evil Overlord, simply because in real life, Evil 
Overlords with some brains unfortunately tend to require major wars 
killing millions of people to dislodge them (Hitler), or even more 
unfortunately die in their beds whilst still in power (Stalin). 
Threatening them with a teenage boy is seldom effective.;-)

However, another Christie technique is to create stereotyped 
characters, then use our expectations of the stereotype to misdirect 
us. JKR uses this in PS/SS, where we suspect Snape because he fits 
the villain stereotype, and she uses it in GoF where we don't suspect 
Fake!Moody because he fits the 'tough cop with rough exterior but 
inner heart of gold' stereotype. Most importantly, IMO, is that in 
CoS, Voldemort uses this technique himself - Tom Riddle presents 
*himself* as the stereotypical poor-but-brave-orphan-who-couldn't-
*possibly*-be-evil.

 Did he genuinely expect to kill Harry? Or was he just trying to see 
how strong he actually was?

After all, it's hardly to Voldemort's disadvantage if his major enemy 
believes he's as thick as a brick, is it? <grin>
 
> I think the problem with this is that, to be satisfactory, 
> misdirection should be of the kind that on re-reading makes us say 
> that we should have spotted the answer all along.  
<snip>
> David

We Have Been Warned. JKR has told us in interviews - Things Are Not 
What They Seem. Even if people only read the books, by now we should 
be looking for misdirection  - she's tricked us enough times. Don't 
believe that what people *say* is true unless you have supporting 
evidence. Then check the supporting evidence. Don't believe that 
people are who they say they are. Don't believe that corpses are who 
we're told they are. Don't believe that people understand what they 
see.


Pip
(whose favorite bit of misdirection so far is Dumbledore's reply to 
Harry in PS/SS, when Harry asks if Snape hates him because he hated 
his father)