Coincidences AND Re: Petrification with incredibly mild reference to TBAY

[eloiseherisson at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 51700

<snip lots of points by Pip>
I take the points you have made, only noting that as Melody pointed out, 
Riddle was *expecting* Harry to find him and I still don't understand how he 
thought he would.

>> ~Eloise
>> Resisting saying anything about mystery stories and convenient, 
>> far-fetched co-incidences. 
>
>That's me.. met... meta... ::gulps::
>That's a perfectly harmless bunny rabbit, OK?

Apparently. Though I still don't understand why the wretched thing bit me.
And of course, I have no problem with the M-word, or at least with the 
concept that I think it embraces. But I understand that others do, hence my 
reticence. ;-)

>Yes, Eloise, but if you go the 'convenient far-fetched coincidences' 
>route for CoS, then you make JKR out to be an awfully *bad* writer. 
>
>Because CoS is just FULL of it [them].

I think it is. But it doesn't necesarily mean *bad* writing, just that the 
writing is using the conventions of a particular genre.
I don't consider Agatha Christie a bad writer, orThomas Hardy or John Buchan 
(and just look at the convenient coincidences that _The Thirty Nine Steps_ 
relies on).

<snip list of convenient coincidences>

>Yes, you're right. CoS is using a mystery format. But it's doing 
>what in Britspeak is called 'taking the p*ss' with the format [grin]
>
>Very gently.

Possibly. JKR is a Jane Austen fan after all, so satire should not be 
unexpected, although I had never interpreted CoS in this way.
I take it that writing in a way that deliberately satirises another form has 
nothing to do with harmless bunny rabbits, then?

>Evidence for this mild satire on the mystery novel is the very clue 
>that is given to the identity of the basilisk. It is 'the scrap of 
>paper clutched in the [petrified] corpse's stiffened fingers'.
>
>This is such a cliche that even back in 1932, Dorothy L. Sayers was 
>making fun of it. (Have his Carcass).

I respect JKR greatly, but not to the extent that I think she is incapable of 
using a cliche.

>Harry isn't Hercule Poirot, or, in British children's mysteries, the 
>Secret Seven, brilliantly solving mysteries that leave adults 
>baffled. He's more like Captain Hastings. Even Dr. Watson would have 
>taken his revolver with him into the Chamber. 
>
>Harry doesn't figure out it's Tom Riddle until Riddle *tells* him. 
>He works out how Malfoy planted the Diary because he *saw* it.
>
>Harry's a *terrible* detective.

Exactly. Which is why he needs Hermione and why I see petrifying her as such 
a mistake on Riddle's part.

>Pip!Squeak
>
>> 
>> PS. Totally OT
>> >Wendy ... making her first post to the list after moving from 
>> >Scotland to California last month. And, who does love Lupin, 
>>>but would still rather be seeing Snape on page 3).
>> <LOL>
>>Eloise:
>>So would I! 
>>(Not quite sure whether that was a deliberate Britspeak double 
>> entendre, or merely a ref to OoP.)
>
>Double entendre. Hmm.. a page three spread of Snape, Lupin and 
>Sirius with his motorbike ?
>Pip :-)

That should satisfy most of us! Though I'm not sure that The Sun runs to 
*three* page spreads, does it? Not that I know about such things. I bet Witch 
Weekly could, though! ;-)
    
~Eloise