Characters and the revelation model (Was: Re: Depth?)

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 139935

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > So James really *is* retiring and shy? <g>  Yes, the best way to 
> > build up to a big reveal is to leave blank spaces and allow the 
> > reader to assume.  But the author is unwise to lie.
> > <snip>
> > If it's all untrue, why write it to begin with?

> >>Nora: 
> Not lying.  Complicating.  
> <snip>
> You seem very comfortable using one scene as the baseline for all 
> formulations of character, and linking up the similarities        
> smoothly. In situations with such little information, what you get 
> depends on how you read--you want similarities, you get them; you 
> want differences, you get them too.

Betsy Hp:
Probably because the similarities *do* line up smoothly. <g>  I've 
pointed out (a billion and six times it feels like) that *none* of 
the characters in the pensieve scene are unrecognizable, especially 
pre-Snape spotting.  JKR *was* laying out a baseline, a foundation 
upon which to build her characters.  Yes, changes can occur.  
Actually, we *know* they will occur.  But (new verse same as the 
first) *no one is unrecognizable*.  

You seem to be suggesting (and you've yet to correct this assumption 
of mine, so I think you must agree) that JKR could choose to throw 
out everything she layed out in the pensieve scene because thats 
just how reveals go.  And she *could* do that yes.  Purple monkeys 
from Mars could attack Hogwarts, eat Harry, and end the tale.  I 
doubt either will happen.  Both senarios are jarring, and frankly, 
cheating on the part of the author.

> >>Nora:
> <snip>
> But I can certainly think of points in time when we shouldn't take 
> what we'd see at that one point as *the* model of extrapolation   
> for the character.  Ron isn't utterly defined by his jealousy of  
> Harry, nor is Hermione always unforgiving and utterly convinced of 
> her rightness.  That's the seriation problem: you can't make a    
> pattern out of one incident.

Betsy Hp:
In a work of fiction, not only can you, sometimes you must.  You're 
thinking like an anthropologist, or a police detective, I think.  
Assuming that one must collect more data in order to draw a 
conclusion.  But we're not talking about characters that have a 
great many scenes per book.  We're talking about characters that 
will probably have *one* more scene together before series end (the 
Prank, I imagine) and that's all she wrote.  JKR *knows* this.  And 
while the new scene will give us more information to work with it 
will not (unless JKR is a crap writer, which she isn't, so she 
won't) throw the other scene out like so much waste.

We're not merely stumbling upon the Marauders here.  JKR has given 
us only *one* scene to lay the foundations of the Marauder character 
and interplay.  She *expects* us to gain an understanding of them 
through this one scene.  So she wrote it carefully.  And she gave 
plenty of secondary information to back this scene up.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > JKR certainly leaves enough holes to allow a reader to go       
> > astray.  But I really don't think she cheats in what she does   
> > definitively state.

> >>Alla:
> One word - Ginny. Now, I love her and Harry together and I        
> swallowed new Ginny, because I muttered to myself that Harry did  
> not really notice her and that is why everything is possible, but 
> I really did not see any signs of new Ginny prior to OOP.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Exactly!  Thank you, Alla, this backs my point up beautifully. <g> 
JKR fell down when it came to Ginny's character, and the cries of 
foul throughout fandom show it.  I see enough evidence in the books 
to think that JKR really did see Ginny as the spitfire girl from the 
get-go, but she bungled in sharing that information with her 
readers.  Frankly, I think JKR sees the romances as a bit boring so 
fleshing out the character of Ginny (as Harry's prize) was never top 
of her list. [Just a note: I'm talking purely of character here, not 
the ship.]

*Friendship* on the other hand, is a big thing with JKR, and she's 
been so careful with her handling of the Marauders and Snape and 
their interactions with each other so far I seriously doubt she'd 
screw up as badly with them.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> >  With James, obviously there's a change from the boy we see 
> > in the pensieve and the future head boy.  But I'm quite         
> > confident that the change will not be so drastic as to render    
> > the boy in the pensieve a falsehood.  His character will        
> > maintain continuity, he'll just take it in a more positive      
> > direction.

> >>Nora: 
> Okay, so we're left with a kind of genteel 'he changed' with no 
> causal element.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Erm...if that's what you want?  I doubt it's how JKR will play it, 
and it's not at all what I'm suggesting.  (My money is on the Prank 
turning James around, and an attempt to turn your "friend" into a 
cannibal hardly strikes me as "genteel".)  I just doubt a total 
personality make-over for James.  After the prank, his mom will 
still recognize him. (And so will the readers.)

> >>Nora;
> Again, I've never asked for 'falsification', although there are 
> aspects of character that could well be solidly falsified by the 
> ending of the series.  But I think we could get enough to render  
> one of the propositions way back, "The Marauders didn't have a    
> genuine friendship, it was a myth" falsified.

Betsy Hp:
Depends on how you define friendship.  Peter was not an equal of 
James and Sirius.  I get the sense that Remus was considered a bit 
of a lesser-then too.  And yes, the "shoulder to shoulder into the 
sunset" is something I don't think canon supports, myself.

I'm *not* saying that victim!Snape and bully!James is the only 
possible conclusion of that scene.  (Too much in the scene itself 
contradicts it.)  But I am saying bestfriend-of-Sirius!James and 
sporty!James and bit-of-a-showoff!James, and even goldenboy!James is 
there, and it's foolish to try and read the character while 
overlooking those aspects, IMO.

Betsy Hp