A good narrative strategy (was Re: All the World's Problems; )

[lupinlore]

No: HPFGUIDX 125831


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jim Ferer" <jferer at y...> wrote:
> 
> Lupinlore: " To put it even more strictly, let us suppose wizards are
> capable of curing cancer (we know they don't suffer from it, at any
> rate). I grant you there is nothing in the books that says this, but
> let's suppose for an example. By holding themselves apart and denying
> muggles the cures they can provide, are they not guilty of a grave sin
> of omission, in effect murder by implied consent?"
> 
> "Carol responds: As Nora has frequently pointed out, argument from
> absence isn't a very solid argument. IOW, just because the narrator
> hasn't mentioned any wizards dying from cancer doesn't mean that "we
> *know* they don't suffer from it." 
> 
> Absolutely, it doesn't even suggest anything at all strongly.
> 
> Carol: "Note that St. Mungo's is not a hospital of the type we're
> familiar with. It doesn't treat cancer or heart disease or perform
> surgery (stitches are an alien treatment used by Muggle doctors, who
> are regarded with suspicion by both Ron and Mrs. Weasley). "
> 
> We don't know this, either, for the same reason. We just haven't seen
> it.  Some of what Madame Pomfrey does could be considered [magical]
> surgery. Bloodless and painless to be sure, but something akin to
> surgery.  Wizard Healers might treat both cancer and heart disease
> with varying degrees of success.
> 
> Without meaning to, Lupinlore answered the question why wizards don't
> dare reveal themselves.  If the wizard world has some kind of moral
> obligation to fix things like cancer, then wizards have a lot to
> answer for if they ever come out.  Even if wizards can't cure cancer,
> a lot of people won't believe it, and will think wizards are guilty of
> grave sins of omission, in effect murder, for everything from cancer
> to heart disease to not preventing 9/11 or the tsunami, and nobody
> will be listening to explanations.  
> 
> It won't be long before people believe that wizards are running things
> behind the scenes to suit themselves. It'll be a short step for some
> people from believing that the wizards could have prevented the
> tsunami to believing wizards **caused** the tsunami for some purpose
> of their own.  We live in a conspiracy theory world.
> 
>  Envy, resentment, and persecution are almost sure to follow if the
> wizard world reveals itself.
> 
> Jim Ferer

I think this is a very good point.  I also think it points out why,
from the point of view of story construction and narrative strategy,
JKR keeps the Wizarding World and the Muggle World as far apart as she
can.  Trying to deal with any kind of interface between them just
raises far too many messy questions and would drag up all sorts of
issues she doesn't want to deal with.  Which is why I think it's a
mistake to try and come up with "hidden messages" in the way JKR
presents the split between the worlds, or even to try and make too
much sense of it at all.  It is a narrative strategy that makes it
possible for her to tell the story she wants to tell.  

Trying to make some logical argument for the split misses the point
that this is one of the first "buy ins" you have to make in order for
the story to make any sense (perhaps the first after you buy in to the
existance of wizards at all).  Trying to argue that it makes sense is
like trying to argue for the actual existance of wizards and witches,
it misses the point that this is part of the basic rules of the
universe JKR has created.  I think it is legitimate to criticize JKR
for not making sense within the rules of the universe she creates, and
I have been very hard on her in numerous instances because I think she
often makes just that error.  However, on the question of basic rules
like the existance of wizards and the fact that they live pretty much
totally apart from the rest of us, I think she is justified in asking
us just to take that at face value and go on.  And I think that is all
it really amounts to.

Lupinlore