Hermione, Winter's Tale and plot clues

[Judy M. Ellis]

No: HPFGUIDX 44582



 
> Judy Ellis wrote:
> 
> (paraphrased): Rowling's plot clues are never blatant.

> Daharja XXX responded:

> I'd have to disagree with this last statement. JKR's plot clues are
> actually very blatant at times - it's the actual *reading* of the 
story
> that creates the twists of a mystery novel. Take names, for 
example. I
> remember reading PA and when I heard the name 'Sirius Black' I  
thought
> of a black dog. And when Harry  overheard the Weasley's talking 
about
> Black, I was immediately thinking " 'Sirius Black' - black dog -
> hmmmm?", having associated the dog at Privet Drive. The association
> became clearer as the novel progressed, as did the obvious fact 
that
> Lupin (*lupus*) was a wolf or a werewolf (I thought wolf at first, 
then
> changed my mind when Snape set an essay on werewolves!)
> 
> So JKR can be very blatant about clues throughout a plot - you 
just have
> to look for them!

Judy Ellis responds:

    I think you must have mistook my statement.  The witty names 
Rowling comes up with serve as descriptive, shorthand of her 
characters' personalities and, in some cases, as with Sirius Black 
or Remus Lupin, also serve to foreshadow future revelations about 
the character as you have said, but these are NOT blatant.  Sirius' 
name might mean "black dog," but you could NEVER have guessed on 
first reading it that he was an animagus because the first time we 
see Black’s name is at the beginning of SS/PS (Chapter 1)  Rowling 
had not yet revealed that there was any such thing.  The correlation 
comes as hindsight after we learn about animagi.  You indicate that 
clues become clearer as the novels progress.  Something ‘blatant’ is 
obvious at once, don’t you think?  Some authors are so patronizing 
that they practically club their readers over the head with their 
silly plotting clues as if no one has the wit to figure things out 
any other way.  THAT is being blatant. 
    As for the names-- ‘Sirius,’ and “Remus,” “Minerva,”  “Sy=
bil,” 
and all the rest of her cleverly-named characters--since the books 
were originally written for children, do you know of many 12-year 
olds who  know that the star Sirius is called the “dog star,” or 
that Lupin had its root in the Latin “lupus?”  Out of the 172 
children I teach every day only one knew that without any clues.  
For most kids, many of the names are something of a mystery until 
they pull out a Harry Potter Lexicon or go online. They are always 
delighted when they find a new one.  You are an unusual adult if you 
immediately made the connections.  Secondary school Latin has a way 
of evaporating as we age. Rowling’s character clues are wonderfully 
subtle and the fun in reading her books comes with making the 
associations and interpretations..  
   The statement about ‘plot clues’ in my previous post had to do 
with story line foreshadowing.  Rowling never blatantly foreshadows 
anything in her novels â€" she never resorts to hackneyed old cliché 
plotting or treats her readers as if they were scatterbrained 
twits.   Rowling’s books are full of layers and subtleties most 
children’s authors are not going to take the time to write.  I was 
simply stating that to believe the many rows and spats between Ron 
and Hermione were indicative of an eventual romantic relationship 
was not giving enough credit to Rowling’s cleverness and 
intelligence and contradicts her plotting style which you have so 
well pointed out.  (Jessica has since posted a very insightful 
response which I am looking forward to answering.)   Rowling makes 
her readers think on every page.  But isn’t that why we have this 
super e-group and we--several thousand adults--are still discussing 
her books after all this time?  Rowling may use the familiar to lead 
us into unknown territory, but blatant and obvious, she is not.
-- Judy