The 'Seeming' Reality

[wynnleaf]

No: HPFGUIDX 155601

Neri
> 
> Basically both Elizabeth and Emma show good instincts regarding 
human 
> true nature despite their intellectual failure to recognize 
> motivations and being lied to about the facts. Elizabeth never falls 
> for Wickham and Emma never falls for Churchill. Elizabeth is 
deceived 
> about Darcy's character only for a short time and Emma is never 
> deceived about Knightly's character. So in principle the ESE and DDM 
> paradigms just don't work in Austen's novels.


wynnleaf

The problem here is that the *reader* is not deceived by Elizabeth or 
Emma -- and particularly Emma, since the surprises in Emma are much 
bigger, and it was the book, "Emma," that JKR particularly cited as 
the "standard."

To repeat...  the *reader* is not deceived by Emma's understanding of 
the character's or motivations of others.  The reader is deceived by 
the narration.  Most decerning readers figure out relatively early on 
that Emma's ideas about her friends and aquaintances are mostly fairy 
tales and wishful thinking.  Or, in the case of what she thinks of 
Jane (hey, she didn't get Jane right, did she?) it's basically 
jealousy and spite.  No, the reader is not deceived by Emma.  The 
reader is deceived by the narrator.  And that's the principal that 
*does* fit JKR.  

After all, JKR didn't base her plot construction, or her characters on 
Janes Austen novels -- "let's see, I'll have Snape be like Darcy."  
Certainly not.  Her quote about Austen was in praise of her ability to 
create plot and "who dunnit" twists that surprised the reader.  Often 
that includes totally surprising the reader about particular 
characters.  But one needn't try to figure out who is ESE in an Austen 
novel.  There are weak, spiteful, or deceitful characters, but 
not "ever" so evil ones.  Wickham is about as close to evil as you get 
and he doesn't come close to a death eater.  In Emma, there aren't any 
evil characters.  That's not the point of the comparison.  There are, 
however, major plot surprises, caused by using the narration to 
misdirect the reader.  That's what JKR was praising, and that's very 
likely exactly what JKR likes to do. 

Now, lets suppose that JKR is really, really good at this.  I didn't 
see fake-Moody coming.  I didn't see good-Sirius coming.  I never 
thought Scabbers was anything, but a rat.  I bet few of any posters 
here did either.  But everyone is wondering about Snape.  I'll bet 
that's one plot twist and it will surprise most of the millions of 
readers who don't nitpick over the books and read them a dozen times 
each.  But if JKR really wants to surprise almost *all* of us, she'll 
have to have some other big plot twists up her sleeve.  And what might 
they be?  It would be very like JKR to have another character 
surprise.  Is there anyone that's a possible shock for us?  I really 
*liked* fake-Moody.  What if she had some character that we truly 
think we know, be completely different from what we thought?  l

And personally, I think that all the information that JKR seemed to 
give us at the end of HBP -- that info that makes us *think* we know 
what Book 7 is going to be about (go to Privet Dr., go to wedding, 
visit Godrics Hollow and graves, don't go to Hogwarts, find horcruxes, 
destroy them, kill LV) is misdirection.  Would a lover of plot twists 
really hand us the basics of Book 7 like that?  Not that she won't 
cover those topics, but I'm guessing that the main action is going to 
be something quite different.

wynnleaf