Riddle solved - congrats Renee! -Alternatives

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 129691

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "tinglinger" <tinglinger at y...>
wrote:
> Renee  <briefly delurking, because this is so interesting>:
> ===========================================================
> Is it that no one could know what the man was dreaming because he 
> died without regaining consciousness, and therefore couldn't tell 
> anyone?
>
> And are you saying that no one could know know what exactly happened 
> at Godric's Hollow because James and Lily are dead, ...

> tinglinger
> =============
> Great work, Renee!
> If no one else was at Godric's Hollow to witness the alleged events
> that occurred there, then JKR violated the Omnipotent Observer rule 
> of writing (i.e. a story must be verifiable in order to have 
> validity.) 
>
> ...edited.. 
> 
> SO........... what does all this tell me ?
> 
> SOMEONE ELSE was at Godric's Hollow at the time Harry's parents
> were murdered.
> 
> As for who .... 
> 
> 
> 
> tinglinger ...

bboyminn:

Well, the solution to the riddle is the solution to the riddle, and if
you say that's it then that's it.

But I think their is a slight flaw in the reasoning in your thougths
on the riddle and on the 'Omnipotent Observer'. First, isn't it the
/omniscient/ observer; or the 'third person omniscient narrator'.
'Omnipotent' means all-powerful; 'omniscient' mean all-knowing. 

So, if the narrator is all-knowing, then they are somewhat god-like in
that they are able to know things that generally can't be known. I do
agree however, that a good author has to be careful with the
all-knowingness of the narrator. If the author goes too far, the story
becomes absurd. Just as you can't jump on the time turner or
veritaserum to solve any and all problems, you can relie on the
all-knowingness of the narrator.

In the Riddle, there is one person who knows the entire story, and
that person is the dead man. The riddle could be related to us by the
all-knowing ethereal spirit of the dead man; as a man, he knows the
dream, and as a ghost, he know the events outside himself. Therefore,
he is able to relate the complete event to us. In this sense, the
ghost of the man is quite capable of being the omniscient narrator.

As far as the events at Godric's Hollow, have you ever watched the TV
show 'C.S.I.' (Crime Scene Investigation). It's their job to know what
happened during a crime even when there are no witnesses to recount
the events. The clues and evidence at the scene can lead them to very
sound and reasonable conclusions.

The question of how anyone could know what happened at Godrics Hollow
has come up before, I think at bare minimum, Dumbledore and the Order
examined the crime scene and were able to reach certain logical,
though perhaps not absolutely provable, conclusion. From the clues,
they were able to reconstruct a reasonable account of the events. 

Of course, from the many discussions of this, the idea that someone
else was there has grown stronger and stronger. I would say that it
has grown to the point where it is generally accepted. The most likely
candidate so far is Peter. However, if Peter was there, he would not
likely have recounted the events to Dumbledore. There is some chance
that, directly or indirectly, Peter may have recounted the events to
Snape who in turn informed Dumbledore. 

So, again, I'm not trying to be a spoil-sport. The answer to the
riddle is the answer to the riddle. It's easy, after the fact, to come
up with rationalized alternative scenarios. 

As a side note, I would like to point out that there is a huge
difference between 'rational' and 'rationalize'.

Don't know if it's worth anything, but there it is.

Steve/bboyminn