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

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 148522

 
> 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. 
> 

Pippin:
Um, that's not quite what you said earlier. I quote :
The most famous example of a non-description in the series is probably
the curse that killed (or not) Sirius in OotP. Harry surely saw at
least what color it was, but the color isn't described. Harry probably
also saw if it was Bellatrix who shot it, or at least he'd know, if he
thinks back about what he saw, whether it could have been somebody
else. So if the author is going to take advantage of this
non-description to tell me later that it was somebody else (like
ESE!Lupin, as Pippin suggested) who shot the curse, I'll feel cheated.
The author doesn't have to describe explicitly *everything* the hero
sees, but I feel as if we have a tacit agreement that she has to
describe anything *relevant* that Harry sees.

Pippin:
My point is, she doesn't have to tell us whether Harry *failed* to see
something relevant. Rowling  manipulates the 
narrative, as in the broom incident, so that we don't know 
exactly what Harry has observed.

There are two bits of information lacking in the description of
the spell that killed Sirius. One is its color, which I agree Harry
must have seen, though we aren't told what it was. The second
is its source, and as you seem to be conceding above, there's
some wiggle room there. 

Rowling showed in Book One that there are times we cannot
rely on Occam's razor to validate  conclusions drawn from
what Harry observes.  It was not Snape's hatred that caused 
Harry's scar to burn at the opening banquet, and it was not 
Snape who hexed the broom. 


My theory is that Rowling gives the reader a clue that she is
up to something by using what seem to be stylistic gaffes. 
The switch in narrative PoV in PS/SS is the most obvious 
one but there are others, for example Scabbers
falling so suddenly asleep again after biting Goyle, or Ginny's
endless fountain of tears at the end of CoS. Neglecting to
tell us  the color or source of the jet of light that struck Sirius 
could be another such gaffe/clue. 

There are two bits of missing information. One is the color
of the light, which Harry must have observed but which is
not relevant if Sirius is really dead. The other is the source
of the curse, which Harry need not have observed but is
extremely relevant especially if Sirius is really dead. 

I  remind you that before HBP there was much discussion
of whether Sirius was dead or not, and the missing
color of light was one of the mainstays of the argument.
A lot of energy that might have gone into discussing
why the source of the curse was hidden was diverted into
discussing whether Sirius was really dead or not. The
missing color of light functioned like a classic red herring.

A similar situation obtains with Fenrir. There are two bits
of missing information. One is who cursed him and the
other is what became of him afterwards.  Harry must
know whether he did the curse or not, but the relevance
of this changes depending on what happened to Fenrir
afterwards, and that we don't know. Occam's razor would
say he was captured and turned in, but can we rely on
Occam's razor in this case? 


Neri:
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:
"Fair mystery" is a term of art and describes a story constructed
so that the reader, using only deduction and factual knowledge (which
may be in the text or obtainable independently) can
solve the mystery before the solution is given by the sleuth. Strictly 
speaking the main mysteries in the books are not "fair", and 
escape being cheats only because Harry never deduces the answers
either. They are solvable, but not by deduction and fact -- you
have to use a meta approach and discard some solutions simply
because they are too obvious. For example we never get a reason
that Bagman or Karkaroff couldn't have put Harry's name in the
goblet so there was no logical or factual reason to eliminate them
as suspects in advance of Fake!Moody's confession.


The lesser mysteries that Hermione solves, OTOH, *are* fair. 
With logic and a little research, the reader could have found out 
who Nicholas Flammel was, deduced that Rita Skeeter was an 
animagus, that the monster was a basilisk and 
getting around in the pipes, and figured out that Lupin was a 
werewolf.

Pippin