Coherence II

[davewitley]

No: HPFGUIDX 39041

Pip wrote:
> Thanks, David. That was a really thought-provoking post.

Glad to be of provocation! 
> 
> 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.

Aha, now that is an interesting subject.  IMO, JKR doesn't really 
obey the rules as I understand them (not surprising as one can regard 
HP as subversive of the other genres it draws on).

My understanding of detective stories is that the clues given are 
unambiguous once you understand them right.  For example, in one 
Christie (SPOILER) a witness sees someone at the murder scene with 
the letters TA monogrammed on their dressing gown.  Elsewhere in the 
book, it is made clear that the ability to see in this situation 
depends on the presence of a mirror.  So, in fact, the monogram says 
AT.  Needless to say, there is both an AT and a TA in the story.  The 
A of AT stands for Arabella, but the character is routinely referred 
to as Bella.  So all the info is there to make an unambiguous 
deduction - only *one* suspect could have done it, despite all the 
red herrings.  The art of reading the detective story is to identify 
those clues that really do eliminate 90% of the suspects, as opposed 
to merely appearing to.

JKR doesn't do this, IMO.  I believe the main reason why not is not 
so much to do with witholding necessary information from the reader 
or cheating; it is that the puzzle itself is less well-defined.  A 
classic murder mystery has a well-defined puzzle: identify the 
murderer.  With a book such as GOF, we don't even really know what 
the puzzle is.  No crime has been committed (it appears).  At one 
point Harry points out that *nothing* has happened to him all year - 
except that his name was put in the goblet.  It's not really true to 
say that the identity of that person is the puzzle: it's only part of 
the puzzle.  The real puzzle is 'what is going on?'

This means that although we have lots of clues - Moody's dustbins, 
Crouch in Snape's office, etc. it's much harder to whittle down to 
the ones that answer the question, because we don't really know what 
the question is. (As it happens, in GOF we also have a whacking great 
coincidence: Barty breaks Imperius and releases the Dark Mark just at 
the time that Voldemort is planning to use him, IMO a bit of a 
weakness in the plot as it gives us a number of valid clues that are 
nevertheless incidental to the real conspiracy.  In detective 
fiction, coincidences should be red herrings.  All that World Cup 
stuff is not red herrings but it is a coincidence.)

> 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.

I'm not sure what you mean - you've convinced me later on that 
Scabbers doesn't quite make sense in PS/COS.

> 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.

<other clues snipped>

This is interesting too, because the other things Harry does are:
- grow hair fast;
- cause glass to disappear;
- fly (or apparate?) onto the roof of his school: QTTA specifically 
states that wizards *can't* fly unaided;
- blow up (in the nicest possible way) aunt Marge;
- cause his cupboard to fly open.

I don't recall any of these things being done otherwise, though I can 
hear Faith (see HypotheticAlley in the admin files) saying we had no 
need to hear about other examples.

But the real eye-opener to me is that *Neville* bounced when his 
uncle dropped him from a window; at Hogwarts, he is injured when he 
does his spectacular jump in the flying lesson.  I had always seen 
this as a Flint. But...

You could argue that wandless wizard children can do magic that 
Hogwarts manages to suppress or take away (Parallels to RL education 
to OT!).  (If true that weakens the PS Parseltongue clue as a clue 
for CS, of course.)  The ultimate example of this is then of course 
baby Harry's defeat of Voldemort.  Now what themes and messages does 
*that* bring out?

> Pippin's found another one: 
> >>How about the cabbage smell in Mrs. Figg's house? 
<snip>

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

But the smell isn't a puzzle, in PS at any rate.  It is a mystery of 
a sort now, I suppose, why the tent smells the same, but only because 
we know Mrs Figg is significant.
> 
> 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. 

I like this.  This is an example of what I meant, because Scabbers 
*is* being signalled as unusual.  But it frightens me too: if Harry 
believes or doesn't notice something, then I do too.  Every time.  My 
only excuse is that at the time we are still very short of 
information about what is reasonable to expect of a wizard's 
familiar.  So I think I *had*, in a subconscious sort of way, pegged 
Scabbers down as 'not an ordinary rat', but I think the comment field 
in my database said 'of course he's not ordinary, he's a wizard's 
rat'.  BTW I still think that the reason Ron couldn't transfigure him 
was a combo of a dud spell (courtesy F&G) and Ron's inexperience: 
after all they do have to learn this sort of thing at school.

> (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)

Go on, you've got me stumped

David