JKR's treatment of details (was: Some Lupin questions)

[Tammy Rizzo]

No: HPFGUIDX 58943

On 30 May 2003 at 5:49, annemehr wrote:

> As for revealing the fate of the grindylow, what do you want -- a
> laundry list of what happened to *all* the dark creatures?  He had a
> grindylow *tank* because the grindylow needed water to live in while
> it was in the castle.  The kids didn't notice any tank on the train,
> though.  Would they, or did he just pick it up in Hogsmeade?  Did JKR
> mention the tank because it's significant, or does she throw in some
> insignificant details to help mask the significant ones?

To which, I (tammy) say:

Well, of course she throws in insignificant details throughout the books.  If she 
didn't, if she only gave us significant, important details, we would know things right 
away. "Ahah!  This tank is SIGNIFICANT, or she wouldn't have mentioned it!"  
"Ahah!  The Fizzing Whizbees are SIGNIFICANT, or she wouldn't have mentioned 
them!"  "Ahah!  The boggart being in a log is SIGNIFICANT, or she wouldn't have 
mentioned it!"  Just imagine how BORING that would quickly become.  If we didn't 
have slews of insignificant details peppered with significant ones, we wouldn't be 
able to formulate our beloved theories, as there wouldn't be any ambiguities or 
mysteries or clues to glean from the details.  She'd have been just telling us things 
straight out.

I, for one, am quite in love with the insignificant details she puts into her world.  :)

***
Tammy
tammy at mauswerks.net