Show/Tell(formerly:PossibilitiesofGreySnape/Dumbledore/Harry/GoodwritingBadwriti

[JLen1777 at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 143115

 
In a message dated 11/16/2005 3:21:15 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
bartl at sprynet.com writes:
 
Bart (snipped):
>> Often, especially when a writer is on a deadline, he or she 
will do something for which I do not know the technical term 
(and there may not be one); I generally call it writing AT a 
character rather than writing the character. This occurs when 
a writer has a character do actions which, when looked from 
outside the character, make superficial sense, but, looking from  
inside the character's body, so to speak, actually do not 
make sense at all.  <<<snipped>>>  Dumbledore's speech to the 
Dursleys probably fits into this mold; it gives the reader 
satisfaction, but, when the reader attempts to look at the scene 
from Dumbledore's point of view, it raises questions.

This brings up another factor that I often see in writing.  Once again, I am unaware of the technical term (and, once again, there 
may not be one), but I tend to call it the "bad writing clue." 
This is especially true in writings where there is a mystery: 
when you see an example of bad writing from an otherwise good 
writer (for the postmodernists out there, make that an internally 
consistent writer), that is often a clue to the mystery. <<


Jaimee:
I think you make a good point, and though it may not be exactly 
what you are saying, I think it is similar.  On some amateur 
writing (workshopping) sites, I see this type of problem called 
"telling" rather than "showing," and I think sometimes DD's 
speeches could potentially fall into this category.  However, I 
am not sure that JKR could (or should) change it.  She spends 
most of the novel "showing" through Harry's eyes, and then allows 
DD to clear things up and lets him "tell" the reader from a 
fuller perspective.  I feel like that is what she feels is 
necessary to clear up the Mystery.
 
I think she also has another agenda with this type of "telling."  
In each book, I think she tries to write it in a stand alone 
capacity, meaning someone wouldn't necessarily have to read 
previous books to enjoy the next (though I think this would be 
difficult).  Therefore, I think part of her reasoning in chapters 
like DD in HBP as well as "The Other Minister," are at least in 
part, to fill in back story for new readers.  "The Other Minister"  
especially seemed like a summary for those lacking previous 
information.  I am not attacking her style mind you, I can see why 
it is necessary, I'm simply expanding on Bart's ideas with my own 
opinion on the matter.  I do see how this might be the potential 
problem with some of the chapters as Bart mentioned above.
 
Jaimee