[HPforGrownups] Coherence II

[Edblanning at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 39060

David:

>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.

<snip>

> 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.
> 

What about Snape? Is he too obvious? Never mind, I think he'll do for my 
purposes. ;-)  In any case I haven't talked about him for ages and I'm in 
danger of going into withdrawal. :-)

He's just a little bit of a mystery, isn't he? :-) I don't think for one 
minute that he's a puzzle that's completely resolved by the end of GoF, but 
his mystery is beginning to resolve, or at least be elucidated, isn't it?

In PS/SS we are presented with this unpleasant character, obviously out to 
get our hero, obviously there (in retrospect) to deflect our attention from 
the real villain, yet we are also presented with the idea that he is on both 
Harry's side, protecting him and on Dumbledore's side. We know also that he 
has some connection with Harry's parents and that he seems to have an 
undisclosed reason for hating Harry. It is strongly suggested he is well 
aquainted with the Dark Arts.

Does the picture of Snape we are presented with in PS/SS make sense?
Well, Harry can't figure him out, can he? I say he's a mystery.

("And when *I* use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither 
more  nor less.")

In CoS, he plays a less active role, but his continued antagonism towards 
Harry re-establishes the mystery of his motivation, which seemed partially 
resolved by the unmasking of the real culprit in PS/SS.

In PoA, the solution to the mystery just begins to be forshadowed, with the 
revelation of Dumbledore's resistance movement, or whatever we should call 
it; the fact that Dumbledore did have spies, that he was involved in the 
events surrounding James' and Lily's deaths.
But Snape's role is still ambiguous. Is he motivated solely by the desire for 
personal revenge, or not? Is he questioning/defying Dumbledore's authority in 
his attitudes to Lupin and Sirius? 

In GoF, from the Pensieive scene onwards, the mystery both deepens and 
resolves further.
Yes, this man with a reputation for interest in the Dark Arts *was* a Dark 
wizard.
*But* he changed sides. And was involved, as a spy, in Dumbledore's 
resistance which had been introduced in PoA. And yes, his loyalty to 
Dumbledore is apparently being proved by his refusal to flee like Karkaroff 
and his unquestioning obedience in the face of whatever it is Dumbledore 
gives him to do on the night of the Third Task.

Snape is an on-going mystery, little bits of the puzzle being filled in, or 
hinted at, but the final solution - and there has to be one (or more), 
doesn't there? - still to come.

Could we have worked out in advance of the Pensieve that he was or had been a 
DE?
Well, perhaps yes, as the question of whose side Snape is on has been dangled 
in front of us.
What about the Dark Mark? References to it are built in throughout GoF, but 
as we do not know that DEs have the Dark Mark burned into their flesh, we are 
dependent on the revelation of Wormtail's Dark Mark in the graveyard at the 
very least in order to put two and two together. (Although I suppose if one 
were very astute, the idea of some sort of brand could have occured during 
the Pyjama Party scene).

But going back, we've discussed this before, haven't we?
Porphyria, in one of her moments of brilliant insight, once wrote:

>I think Ali it totally right on this one; Quirrell didn't even have the 
turban on in >Diagon alley, so no Voldemort/no burning scar. Personally, I 
think the fact that >Snape *was* looking right at Harry when his scar burned 
that night was what tipped >off Snape that Quirrell was suspicious. Quirrell 
stated in no uncertain terms that >Snape suspected him before the 
Halloween/Troll incident. So, why? Probably >because Snape is familiar with a 
scar that burns due to Voldemort, and when he >looks at Harry he puts two and 
two together. 

Now, if Porphyria is right, she has found a clue to Snape's DE'hood, right 
there on our first meeting with Snape. And that sure wasn't obvious.
(And incidentally, the mystery of Harry's scar burning is brought up also, to 
be resolved in GoF and I'm sure that wasn't opportunistic)

But a reformed DE? No, I don't think that was very easy to anticipate. Not a 
reformed DE with no claim of Imperius.  But yet, there again, JKR has put 
before us (right at the beginning of the series) the idea that people who now 
live outwardly respectable lives were once in Voldemort's service. In PS/SS, 
Hagrid talks about people apparently coming out of trances, and then in GoF 
we learn of the Imperius curse and see it in action. 

The fact that we now know Snape to be a reformed DE is consistent with the 
picture of him we have already built up. It is a bombshell, probably one we 
couldn't anticipate, but the groundwork was laid in the perhaps Dark, 
Slytherin-favouring, ambiguously motivated wizard who ostensibly seems out of 
place in Dumbledore's circle, but is trusted by him.

Incidentally, I do think this challenge is slightly unfair. Given that we are 
just over half way through a series of books, if there *is* to be coherence, 
as many of us think there is, then we must expect the greater part of the 
earlier books to be setting up the mysteries which will ultimately be 
resolved at or towards the *end* of the series. 
I honestly wouldn't expect too many resolutions yet. If the mysteries are set 
up and resolved too quickly, then your charge of lack of coherence gains more 
weight.

Similarly, I think coherence may be evidenced by the coming together and 
making sense of things which are not necessarily presented as mysteries. Now 
I realise that this does not pass the test of proving that coherence was 
intended and is not just the skilful opportunist use of past ideas, but just 
because we cannot *prove* coherence is intended by forward reasoning (which 
I, of course, think we can) it does not mean it was not.

But there are plenty of mysteries around, particularly in the area of what 
Dumbledore knows, but doesn't say. What was Trelawney's first prediction? Why 
doesn't Harry ask more about his parents? What did they do? (I recall that 
JKR has said in interview that this will be revealed later).  Why did 
Voldemort want to kill them and Harry? Which members of the family *did* 
Voldemort want to kill, precisely? What exactly has Arabella Figg been doing? 
Etc, etc.,etc..

Perhaps these are what you would call clearly presented mysteries. Perhaps 
you think some are ones whose resolution will be forgotten a la Fourth Man 
(how do we *know* she will not resolve that one?), but to me, these are all 
mysteries begging for answers, and I for one, am quite sure that those 
answers are all there, in JKR's little notebooks and files, ready to be 
brought out at the right time. 

Eloise.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]