Curses and non-descriptions (was: DDM!Snape clue)

[Neri]

No: HPFGUIDX 148501

> kchuplis:
> 
> <snip> 
> I can see the argument for another, but the way it is written, I 
> believe it was meant to be Harry and that the "non-descriptor" as you 
> call it is a device she uses when representing furious activity and 
> action to quicken the pace. That is how it reads to me at any rate. In 
> any other book it would not be scrutinized to this degree and therefore 
> I think it is a legitimate device to quicken pace, but since it's JKR, 
> we do look for coloring and clues everywhere :)
>

Neri:
Exactly. I recently started looking into all the different kinds of
problems that JKR has because she merges the mystery genre with other
genres (in this case the adventure genre) and I think this is one of
the symptoms. When you write fast action scenes you don't have time to
describe everything. The interesting question is if JKR is aware of
the problem, and has she made a conscious decision not to use the
action mode unfairly in order to interfere with the mystery plot? 

> zgirnius:
> <snip>
> This would be just like the scene in PS/SS in which Quirrell is 
> jinxing Harry's broom, and Snape is doing a countercurse. The 
> narrator, by you standard of playing fair with us, ought to have told 
> us what Quirrell was doing when Hermione bumped into him (even if 
> Hermione herself did not notice, being too intent on her plans to set 
> Snape's robes on fire). She was right there, she should have seen 
> Quirrell was staring intently at Harry and doing whatever it is one 
> does to jinx a broom.
> 

Neri:
I don't think Hermione *must* have noticed that Quirrell was saying
the jinx. The way it's described she was running in the row *behind*
him, so perhaps she couldn't see his lips. It's the author's full
right to decide that the character didn't see or didn't notice some
detail that would be too much of a giveaway. This is not a
non-description the way I defined it. A non-description is when the
character *must* have, according to the text, known something or seen
something, and yet what he/she saw or knew isn't described. Harry must
have seen the second jet of light that hit Sirius, so he must know
what color it was, and yet the color isn't described.

> zgirnius:
> <snip>
> But actually now that I have reread Flight of the Prince again, it is 
> quite interesting. The two Petrificuses from nowhere at the start of 
> the chapter are the only possible Harry spells described in that way. 
> Following our hero past that point, we see every single spell he 
> casts, explicitly attributed to him either by letting us know he said 
> or thought the incantation, by explicit mention of his wand movement, 
> by explicit mention that he cast a spell, or finally (in the case of 
> some unsuccessful spells) that Snape blocked them. 

Neri:
So are you saying that Snape shot both curses from nowhere? And Harry
never wondered who was breaking a trail for him? I could perhaps
accept it for the second one, especially if the text would have said
something like "somebody shouted `Petrificus Totalus!'". But as for
the first, Snape would have to shoot it from the bottom of the tower
past the other DEs (he and Malfoy are the first to go down) and while
shouting the curse out loud. I can't see how he would avoid detection.
  
> 
> zgirnius:
> I wish she had told us the color of the Sectumsempra curse, and the 
> color of the curse Snape used on James in "Snape's Worst Memory". But 
> since she has not, I of course can't say whether it was to protect 
> the identity of the Half-Blood Prince from those readers who had not 
> yet figured it out by the "Sectumsempra" chapter of HBP, or not.
> 

Neri:
Yes. Had she told us what the color of Sectumsempra is, then not
telling us the color of the curse Snape used in the Worst Memory scene
would have been an unfair use of a non-description. But as it is, it's
just one out of many innocent non-descriptions. The color wasn't
relevant in any way for guessing what curse it was. But JKR did
describe the *relevant* detail about the curse Snape used – that it
drew blood. So she was playing fair.
 
> CH3ed:
> I think it is quite certain that Bellatrix was the one who shot that 
> curse that sent Sirius over the veil, tho. Otherwise Harry wouldn't 
> have screamed that "She killed Sirius. I'll kill her," as he ran 
> after Bella toward to fountain.
> 

Neri:
I agree that it was most probably Bella, but since this isn't
described explicitly there's some wiggle room left, and this room is
exactly where all the conspiracy theories get in. They'd say "maybe
Harry didn't actually see where it came from and just assumed it was
Bella". If only it was written "a second jet of light from Bellatrix's
wand" , it would have been much more difficult to theorize that it
wasn't Bella, and this is why I categorize this case as a
non-description. 

> 
> CH3ed:
> Not sure. I don't have my books with me. How about in GoF after 
> Harry and Krum met the deranged Mr. Crouch in the forest and DD had 
> the fake Moody out looking for him? Harry asked fake Moody later if 
> he used the Marauder's Map, and fake Moody said he took a leaf out 
> of Harry's book and summoned it from his office. I'd think had he 
> really done that the map would have been spotted zooming toward the 
> forest (but I think Fake Moody had it with him all the time...just 
> put it in his pocket once he saw his dad entered the ground). But 
> Harry and us took fake Moody's patronizing words for it. Does that 
> fit the criteria? 
> 

Neri:
No, it doesn't. This is a hypothetical: *if* the map would have zoomed
through the trees, someone would have spotted it. But it didn't. I'm
talking about something that the hero actually has seen for certain,
and yet it isn't described.
 
> 
> Pippin:
> Quirrell's broomstick curse has already been mentioned, so I'll just add
> that JKR actually changed the narrator's point of view (a cardinal no-no
> according to my eighth grade English composition text) to
> avoid  letting Harry or the reader find out  that the  hexing
stopped as 
> soon as Quirrell was knocked over. JKR  clearly and obviously
> made it a rule, right in the first book,  that  literary conventions
may be 
> overturned to serve the plot.
> 
> So if she does it again, she's not cheating, just playing by her own
> previously established rules. Caveat lector.

Neri:
First, in this specific case the whole issue becomes somewhat
complicated because it's not clear from who's point-of-view each
detail is described. But I still can't see here any clear-cut unfair
non-description, in the sense that there isn't any detail that one of
the characters *must* have seen and yet is not described. It seems
obvious that all of Hermione's attention is on Snape, and that all of
Ron's attention is on Hermione and Snape, so it's quite realistic if
they don't notice something about Quirrell. But when Harry fights
Greyback it's obvious that all his attention was on the struggle, so
it would be ridiculous to claim that he didn't notice if it was
himself or somebody else who shouted the curse. 

Secondly, regarding the rule of not changing of the narrator's
point-of-view, this is a very different kind of rule. It isn't a no-no
because it's not fair mystery writing, but because some consider it as
interfering with the reader's feeling of realty. I don't think that if
JKR broke one kind it necessarily implies she'll also break another
kind, and all other kinds too. In fact, did JKR ever write something
that would be grossly unfair by mystery writing criteria? I don't know
enough about the genre to judge.  

> Pippin:
> Another example of non-description is the composition of the 
> Irish Quidditch team. At least two of the chasers are female, but the 
> only indication is a  pronoun or two -- they're never described as 
> women. Many readers have failed to notice this and railed at 
> JKR for sending two all male teams to the World Cup, ironically
> exposing their own stereotyped thinking rather than hers.
> 

Neri:
Yes, this is a typical non-description, but it isn't an *unfair*
non-description, since the genders of the Irish players aren't
relevant in any way for the mystery plot, and the non-description
isn't used to spring on us anything unexpected. Non-descriptions are
extremely common in this sense. It is actually almost impossible to
write a description without a non-description, because the author can
never describe everything the hero sees. Even assuming JKR would have
described the genders of the players, what about which of them scored
each of the goals in the match? I'm sure Harry noticed that, yet it
isn't described. But I was asking about *unfair* non-descriptions.

> Pippin:
> For the record, I assumed on first reading that someone else cursed 
> Fenrir. What's curious is that we don't hear anything more about FG at 
> all. You'd think the capture of such a notorious criminal would set 
> the WW abuzz, but nothing, which makes me wonder if whoever
> hexed him didn't smuggle him out of the castle as well. There's
> another non-description for you -- we aren't told what
> happened after Snape called the DE's off, so we don't know what
> became of Fenrir.
> 

Neri:
Yep, like I said, they are *very* common. Which makes it even more
significant if we can't find any of them that are used unfairly. The
unknown fate of Greyback was not used to spring any surprise on us.
 
> Potioncat:
> <snip>
> Another one, that sort of fits your non-description is "nonverbal 
> spells." We'd seen evidence of them without being sure that was what 
> JKR intended. When it came up early in HBP I said "Yes! Nonverbal 
> spells do exist!" We've also questioned whether intentional wandless 
> magic exists too. Guess we'll have to wait till the next book to find 
> out.
> 

Neri:
I don't think we knew about them less than Harry did, so I'm not sure
they would qualify as non-descriptions. But in any case they are
surely not *unfair* non-descriptions. When their turn arrives to play
an important role in the mystery plot JKR has Snape and Hermione
explaining them. We had a few nonverbals before that, but they were
never important for the mystery and never used to spring a surprise on us.

I thought about this some more in the last day, and I still can't
remember even one case in the series of a non-description used
"unfairly" for springing a surprise on us. But lets have another round.


Neri