TIPS - and traps - IN WORKING OUT CLUES

[moorequests]

No: HPFGUIDX 84320

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "samnanya" <yswahl at s...> wrote:
> thesparksiii
> =============
> TIPS ON WORKING OUT CLUES IN THE HARRY POTTER SERIES
> First, look closely at the statement following the 
> phrase "AS THOUGH." ,<snip>
> Second, watch out for what seems like only a couple of
> uninteresting descriptions of situations that we barely
> notice.<snip>
> Last, DIVERSION. In the middle of an exciting scene,
> JKR slips in important stuff that is quite immaterial
> on what's exciting and tension-filled that is happening,
> we tend to overlook it.<snip>
> 
> samnanya
> ==============
> Thats a great start! The only problem is that JKR is
> such a good plotter that there are literally dozens of
> clues scattered everywhere that support all kinds of
> different conclusions. The goal of  any good author 
> is to keep the reader guessing. A reader who
> has finished the series can usually find the buried 
> clues, even if the gleeful author doesnt actually 
> point them out. However, in the process all the red
> herrings that were scattered along with the true clues
> are quickly forgotten.

  M.M.

  I disagree. Going back through Goblet of Fire, one of my main goals 
was to re-discover scattered red herrings. There are surprisingly 
few, and many more signs that point to Barty Crouch, Jr., than I had 
realized. I simply didn't see them, and so I assumed, quite 
pompously, because I didn't see them, that they weren't there. 

> 
> What makes fansites like this so much fun {as long as we
> dont take all this TOO seriously) is that there are clues
> for almost EVERY result we want to see -- for shippers,
> there is "canon" for every ship out there, 
> HH HG HL RH RL NG NL and on and on .....
> EVERY ONE of the above ships (except perhaps NL)
> have several "clues" planted so that the alert
> reader will say AHA! I KNEW IT! THAT IS  WHAT HAD TO
> HAPPEN! - if and when it does.
> 

  M.M.

 This is not necessarily true. By knowing a writer's style, you can 
pick up on a writer's clues. You can often predict a result before it 
happens. In Goblet of Fire, I was not able to predict the death 
before it happened, nor who was behind it. Going back and looking at 
the clues again, I realize that, had I sat down and really tried to 
puzzle the thing out instead of racing through the novel as I did, I 
might have had better luck. But I will say this; I picked up on the 
very first clue of Sirius's death in OotP; and the second I read 
the "house of a dying person" and then later, the foreshadowing about 
Harry's feelings of gloom before heading back to Hogwarts after 
Christmas, I knew Sirius was doomed. In fact, I wrote it down on a 
slip of paper along with the time and date, to make sure I couldn't 
change my mind. ;)

  As for there being 'canon' for every ship out there... frankly, 
there has not been canon for a Harry/Hermione relationship ever since 
the books started. There has been canon for a Harry/Hermione 
friendship. I know some of you want to roast me on this- go ahead. 
Here's my POV: 

  Harry and Hermione have a quiet, friendly relationship. It is the 
kind that is mutually agreed upon, no tense sparks, no real 
arguements, but no romance either. Whereas Ron and Hermione... well, 
I can find about 20 places in GoF and OotP where Ron and Hermione 
both narrow their eyes, get red in the face, snort, etc, when Victor 
Krum is mentioned or Fleur Delacour pays a bit of attention to Ron. 
Hermione's jealousy is more subtle, but it's still there. The best 
examples are when Fleur kisses and smiles at Ron in book 4 (twice, 
once by the lake, and once before they leave Hogwarts for the 
summer.) Hermione is quite obviously jealous. Harry's bored by all of 
it. Then there's the blazing row they had after the Yule ball (which 
I'm certain has been gone into a thousand times on this list, so I'll 
leave it alone. You know what it was about.) In the CoS movie, 
Hermione and Harry hugged for a reason, but when Hermione went to hug 
Ron, and then awkwardly shook his hand, it was supposed to convey 
something. (That Harry and Hermione are friends, there's no sexual 
tension, so they can hug, but it's not that way with her and Ron.) 
While movies are not canon, Rowling does have a hand in them, through 
Kloves, and I suspect this was approved by her. 

I honestly have re-read all the books within the past 2 months, with 
an open mind toward relationships, but found nothing between Harry 
and Hermione. I started out reading Philosopher's Stone hoping that 
Harry and Hermione would be a couple- however, as it quickly was not 
evident, I changed my mind. Here's why:

I've recently been picking up on the fact that Hermione has a lot of 
J.K. Rowling's personality inside her. Rowling said, herself, that 
Hermione is a lot like she was when she was younger.

She also said that Harry is a lot like she is. I think, however,
that she writes Harry's personality like she is NOW- Hermione is like
her when she was younger. That that's the difference. But the problem
is, there are no 'sparks' or romance between Harry and Hermione
because the inspiration for the two characters is based on the same
person... Rowling herself. She put different aspects of her
personality into both, so they are different characters, but deep
down at the bottom, they still remain her. And she can't fall in
romantic love with herself. (The only person who can do that is
Gilderoy Lockhart, lol!)

I hope that made any sense.. if not, sorry. It's just that writers
tend to base characters in books upon people they know, and sometimes
upon themselves. As a result, those characters hook up with the
people they naturally would in real life. If you can read between the
lines, you can sometimes tell who a writer is basing their characters
on. I have put certain parts of myself into different characters, at 
different times, and I notice that those characters never end up 
getting together, although they can be friends. Until I saw this in 
Harry and Hermione, I didn't really know why.



> I have conjectured on the "Who REALLY killed Sirius"
> theme and have mentioned several canon clues .....
> the important thing to remember is that "It aint
> necessarily so!" - just because there are clues doesn't
> mean it has to happen! 
> However, without the clues, if Lupin did kill Sirius,
> the  reader would go "Aw cmon! You've gotta be kidding
> me!"; with the clues, if Lupin did kill Sirius, then
> the reader cant say that it was beyond the realm of
> possibility because we haven't always read what
> we thought we read {remember the muggles eyewitness
> accounts of Pettigrew's death?}
> 


  M.M.

  I understand what you're trying to say here, and I partially agree 
with you, but I partially disagree. There is such a thing as adding 
backstory in a way that it doesn't break the canon, but I have also 
seen writers attempt something that is beyond their reach. They do 
something which is not accepted by their readers; for example, let's 
take the Matrix. (No spoilers here... will keep this as general as 
possible.)

  The first Matrix movie was basically revolutionary. This isn't a 
pun on the last movie title. I'm just saying that the concept of the 
movie made people drop whatever they were doing and stare in 
amazement at the idea that we could be imprisoned within our minds. 
The Wachowski brothers, who made the movie, decided to make two 
others, claiming they had a previously written story which was meant 
to serve as the basis of three comic books. However, when Matrix: 
Reloaded came out, the reviews were overwhelmingly confused and 
negative. Many people rejected the story all together and said they'd 
just try to forget there ever WAS a sequel at all. Here's a quote 
from one of the reviews:

 "I'm warning you: don't see this film--because whatever third movie 
you envisioned in your head, no matter how lame, has got to be better 
than this." 

  Now I know few of us could ever imagine that being said about one 
of Rowling's books. But if she was to write something that completely 
stretched the boundaries of the Harry Potter Universe so unbelievably 
that it basically *broke* those boundaries, the reviews for the book 
would probably read in a similar fashion. Because people prefer not 
to have sequels at all then to see their well-loved characters acting 
in a totally unbelievable fashion. For example, suppose book 6 came 
out with this plot:

  Lupin stands up in the kitchen of Grimmauld Place and announced to 
everyone he is REALLY an alien from the planet Zoopiter and he would 
be kidnapping Harry and flying him on his broomstick back to his home 
planet and cloning him to start a race of Super-Harrys to populate 
it, and then come back to earth to bury Harry in the mud for 1000 
years, when he would next wake and kill us all. 

  I think most of us would reject that plot. There are SOME things we 
can take for granted. Basically, like Hermione said in OotP... "If we 
can't trust Dumbledore, we can't trust anyone." If you read these 
books, you MUST take it for granted that Dumbledore is good, or you 
basically have not absorbed any of the book's lessons. 

 -M.M. 


~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Understanding how we write teaches us how to read:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Writers_Group/join