Depth? Things to take on their face value (Was: Sirius' loyalty)

[nrenka]

No: HPFGUIDX 139812

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" 
<horridporrid03 at y...> wrote:

<snip>

> Betsy Hp:
> But you're combining two different things, I think: taking JKR at 
> face value and taking Sirius's statements at face value.  And 
> frankly, you cannot do both.  

But JKR's statement is that she *means* Sirius' statement, the one 
specifically discussed here, at face value.  You absolutely cannot 
get around that plain fact, much like the Ginny case.  I wasn't 
referring to the other ones at all.  You pulled them in first.

> Betsy Hp:
> How?  And more specifically, how is it relevant to Peter being 
> asked to get into a situation where it's *his* life on the line.

Because it means that it's not just "Peter, do this for James your 
old buddy," it's "Peter, this involves a group of people important to 
the cause and the organization you have pledged yourself to".  
Question of institutional/group loyalty as well as personal.  Just 
like we wonder if characters are ideologically committed, or are 
simply loyal to one or more person(s).

>>Nora: 
>> -Nora notes that you can do all sorts of things when you're        
>> working on a revelation model of storytelling...shocking sorts of 
>> things
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Ooh, I *really* disagree with this one.  In the revelation model I 
> think you have to be *incredibly* careful about playing games with 
> your readers.  More so than in other genres, actually.  Because the 
> shocks *must* be based on foundations you've already put into 
> play.  Otherwise, you're cheating.  If JKR suddenly reveals that 
> Neville is Voldemort's minion I think fans round the world would 
> cry out in protest, because it goes completely against Neville's 
> character.  However, revealing that Neville was nearly the "Chosen 
> One" is okay, because as early as PS/SS Neville showed some hidden 
> depths. 

Different kind of revelation, because the method of exposure for the 
characters has been so different.  Let's put it this way.

We 'know' characters such as Draco and Harry and Neville in a 
particular manner, because we've watched them for a good six years of 
their lives.  Thus we've seen them mature and develop, and we can 
draw lots of patterns of character, typical actions, etc.  We've 
experienced them in the present tense.

We don't 'know' any of the adults in the same manner at all.  We get 
their actions, but think about how we think about them here--we're 
most interested in motivation, but we're also most interested in 
their PAST actions.  This is what I mean by the 'revelation' model.

We get information about Snape from flashbacks to the past.  We hear 
accounts and hearsay of the Marauders, and we see one instant in 
time.  Then we the readers try to assemble these things into 
patterns, and make them as consistent as we can.

When we're playing that game, the author can drop in any number of 
things that we then have to MAKE fit the pattern (because we're good 
readers in Iser's model).  For instance, there are any number of 
reasons which potentially fit for Snape's conversion and current 
motivations.  You may not like the OFH!Snape or ESE!Snape 
explanation, but they can certainly be made to fit in mechanical 
terms--as can ESG!Snape.

When you take characters who you give a fairly small amount of screen 
time, you can really shock readers with the revelation model, and 
still make it work.  What if, for instance, we get a memory scene of 
the Marauders acting very differently?  That's not necessarily Out of 
Character, it's just up to the readers to adjust our mental images.

-Nora brings up the wonderful world of 'seriation' yet again