Coherence II

[bluesqueak]

No: HPFGUIDX 39061

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "davewitley" <dfrankiswork at n...> wrote:
> Pip wrote:

> > 
> > 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.

David wrote: 
> 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.

Umm... yes, a detective story should give you enough clues to 
unambiguously identify the murderer. But the clues in themselves do 
not have to be unambiguous - in fact the best type of clue should be 
ambiguous, so that you have to put several together.

My own favorite Christie example (SPOILER) is a story where she 
writes a page or so of dialogue between two people who are completely 
alone. It is an apparently perfectly innocent discussion of the awful 
danger some other characters are in. At the end of the book we 
discover that the conversationees are the murderers. At this point, 
the book is flung in the air with a merry cry of SHE CHEATED! Then 
you go back to the conversation and discover that *every single line* 
can also be given the meaning of 'we'd better make sure these 
characters are in awful danger, hadn't we?' And, of course, the 
reader *could* have spotted the ambiguity the first time round, if 
only we'd taken a little more notice of the other clues.
(END SPOILER)

<snip>
> 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?'

 I agree with you, I don't think JKR is writing a detective series 
per se, any more than she's writing a school series, or a fantasy 
series. I just think she's using some of the classic detective story 
techniques, and where there *is* a puzzle, we do have enough clues to 
make an unambiguous identification. We had enough clues to identify 
Moody, for example. I also think that she is 'signalling' that Things 
Are Not What They Seem using classic detective story techniques.

> 
> 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. 

That is, IMO, entirely deliberate (given that JKR has enough notes on 
the plots and characters to nearly fill her flat [1]). Harry's whole 
problem is that he doesn't know what the question is, what he really 
is, or why this maniac keeps  trying to kill him. :-) This may be 
because Dumbledore thinks that if he does know, he'll cut and 
run/become an Evil Dark Lord/whatever; or in keeping with the books 
becoming more complex as Harry gets older, it may be the more RL type 
situation of nobody really *knowing*. Everyone's just doing the best 
they can, making plans as things come up, and hoping it somehow turns 
out all right.

>(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.)

Is it? Quite possibly it is. I may be going completely off the rails 
here.  But - why did Winky spend *months* persuading Crouch Senior? 
Why has she gone so completely to pieces? Why does she pull Barty not 
back towards the stand, but into the forest? Why does she let out 
a 'wail of despair' *not* when Barty says that 'She had failed him' 
[Crouch Sr] (and for a house-elf to fail her master is presented as 
the worst thing they think they can do) but when he says 'She had 
*almost* let me escape'. [my emphasis] (p. 593 - 5600, GoF, UK 
hardback)

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

He doesn't (and - I forgot the most significant clue of all about 
Scabbers - the fact that pupils are allowed to bring a toad OR a cat 
OR an owl, but nobody ever mentions that Ron shouldn't have a rat. 
Nice spellwork, Mr Pettigrew).

However, while he doesn't make sense, you have to actively work out 
that he doesn't make sense, because a) Ron having some kind of pet 
makes perfect sense - a lot of the kids have pets (including Harry) 
and the pets play minor but noticable parts in PS/SS  b) a kid's pet 
rat is not the sort of thing you would assume is significant and c) 
we assume that Scabbers is on Ron's side (he bites Goyle) and he's 
quite definitely not. 
 
<Parseltongue 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;

Good one: since we have now also been carefully informed in GoF that 
apparation is so difficult that only 18+ wizards are allowed to even 
attempt it: anyone want to make any bets that Harry's ability to 
apparate will become vital in Book 5, 6 or 7?

> - 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.

I have a lot of sympathy with Faith, I'm naturally inclined to 
reading books that way myself. She can be quite vicious with those 
heels, though...

> 
> 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're right, it does rather suggest that Neville is in some way 
suppressing his natural magical ability.

> 
> 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?

Now *that's* an interesting theory! And compatible with Neville...and 
at the moment, with Harry...

<snip>
 
Pip says:

> > 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. 
>
Dave replies: 
> 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. 

Which is a perfectly ok way to read the books! You'll then get the 
full effect of JKR's surprises, plus you'll be able to see Harry's 
development more clearly. It is written from Harry's POV, after all. 

 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. 

True. I didn't start to wonder about Scabbers until the beginning of 
PoA [embarrassed grin] when we were given the hint about how long 
rats live.

<snip>
>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.

That is definitely the garden path down which we're being led -and in 
fact, it's currently a perfectly valid interpretation, because we 
haven't yet been specifically told you can't change an animagi's 
appearance unless you are a more powerful wizard. :-)

My own reason for thinking it's due to Scabbers transfigured status 
is that Ron has tried it twice, suggesting that he believes it 
*should* work. Hermoine also manages to turn her match silver in her 
first transfiguration lesson, suggesting that changing something's 
colour is relatively easy. (  :-)but I will concede that Ron didn't 
manage to do anything to his match :-)  ). Incidentally, in That 
Which Shall Not Be Mentioned Ron manages to produce a 'flash-bang' 
effect around Scabbers.

> 
> > (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

Ok. This is going to be a bit long though. Having PS/SS handy might 
also be helpful. And [disclaimer] we haven't yet got any *proof* that 
it is misdirection - so I could be wrong about any or all of it. But 
I hope I'm right, because it's *really* good writing if I'm reading 
it correctly.

(From PS/SS p216 - 217, UK paperback)

Dumbledore's rules for the conversation:
"I shall answer your questions unless I have a very good reason not 
to, in which case I beg you'll forgive me. I shall not, of course, 
lie."

Note that Dumbledore does *not* say 'I'll *tell* you I can't answer 
your question.' The reader assumes that because -  the very first 
question Harry asks, Dumbledore tells him he can't answer it.

Next section:  'Why can't Quirrel touch Harry?'. This does not at any 
point say that Voldemort is going to be unable to touch Harry. What 
we are told about Voldemort is that he doesn't understand love, that 
he doesn't understand that Harry will be marked by his mother's 
sacrifice, that he doesn't realise that it gives Harry *some* 
protection [my emphasis].

 Dumbledore's last line is
"Quirrel, full of hatred, greed and ambition, sharing his soul with 
Voldemort, could not touch you for this reason."

Note that Quirrel is the subject of that sentence, not Voldemort. We 
are left believing that Voldemort cannot touch Harry because of the 
way the information about Quirrel, and  the information about 
Voldemort, is mixed together.

[cut to]

Harry: "Quirrel said he [Professor Snape] hates me because he hated 
my father. Is that true?"
Dumbledore: "Well they did rather detest each other. Not unlike 
yourself and Mr Malfoy. And then, your father did something Snape 
could never forgive...

What is the most natural way to answer a direct question like 'Is 
that true?' It's with a 'yes' or a 'no'.

 Dumbledore does not tell us why, or indeed whether, Snape hates 
Harry. Instead, he tells Harry (truthfully) that Snape and James 
Potter did hate each other at school. 

Notice that in Dumbledore's comments about James saving Harry's life 
he always refers to Snape's hatred of Harry's father - not to Snape 
hating Harry.

Now I don't know whether or not Snape does hate Harry. It is 
currently still just about possible that Snape the ex-spy is an 
incredibly good actor and that for some reason it's vital that Harry, 
(or everyone but Dumbledore and Snape), believe that Snape hates him. 
BUT, it is also possible that Snape truly hates Harry - for a reason 
that eleven-year-old Harry could not possibly be told. The point is 
that Dumbledore's reply leads us into believing that Snape hates 
Harry because of James Potter - and it never *says* that at all.

Pip

[1] 'her flat' is British English for 'her apartment'. As far as I'm 
aware, it has no suggestive meaning AT ALL. Unless you add coffee ;-)