Storytelling in Harry Potter (long)

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 170953

> >>BetsyHp:
> > Think of all the things you have to ignore for GoF to make       
> > sense... <snip>
> > And then there's PoA which includes both enough exposition to    
> > choke a horse *and* fun with time-travel. I love PoA for the     
> > introduction of the Marauders (character, again) I'm not a fan of 
> > the plot.

> >>Pippin:
> Alfred Hitchcock used to talk about The Plausibles, that group of
> people who couldn't take any pleasure in a story that didn't follow
> its own internal rules.

Betsy Hp:
That's absolutely me.  I cannot *stand* it when stories (or writers 
to be more accurate) suddenly break the rules of their world.  It's 
sloppy, IMO, and shows a massive dearth of imagination.  And is 
usually a sad, pathetic attempt to breathe "excitement" into a dying 
story.  (The tv series "Alias" is a good example, the last season or 
two of "X-Files" is another. I can't think of any books that go this 
route.  I suppose there are series works that might.)

But now I'm curious, is there ever a time when this sort of 
sloppiness in story telling is a good thing?  And if so, could you 
provide an example?  Because I kind of get the sense that "the 
Plausibles" is being used as an insult, and it's hard for me to 
understand how that can be.

> >>Pippin:
> But I think JKR is a Plausible herself, or as
> plausible as someone a bit maths challenged can be. Logistical
> plausibility doesn't matter to her, but logical and psychological
> plausibility do. I think the plot of PoA will make sense (aside
> from the fact that all theories of time travel have internal 
> contradictions) once the missing pieces of the puzzle are
> produced.

Betsy Hp:
But I'm not questioning the plausibility of PoA.  I just question the 
delivery system.  Lupin had to make this massive speech to fill the 
kids in on the Marauder background.  It's a boring bit of story-
telling.  And the time-turners, while perfectly plausible within the 
WW, are awfully trite. Especially as they're a form of magic we won't 
be seeing again.  I could obviously be wrong about that, time travel 
may be the lynch-pin of DH.  But at this point it just seemed like a 
way for JKR to force the plot to go her way.

> >>Pippin:
> My guess is there are things in DH that will cause
> us to re-evaluate the plots of all the books.

Betsy Hp:
I agree.  Though I think it will be a change more in how we view 
different characters rather than plots so much.

> >>Pippin:
> But GoF makes sense now given the character of Voldemort and
> Barty Jr.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
It can definitely be fanwanked, yes.  And you don't have to try too 
hard to do it.  But it's something the reader has to provide pretty 
much all on their own rather than something that grows organically 
out of the story being told.  I mean, yes it's *plausible* but 
there's still a sense of something being forced.

JKR's plots are plausible but they're also creaky.  Which is why I 
don't think she's all that good at actual plotting.  Or at having the 
plots flow is maybe the better way of putting it.

> >>Pippin:
> <snip>
> As for trying to find out who put Harry's name in the goblet,
> it would be pointless. Anyone who could confund the goblet 
> could confund the investigators too. As we saw in HBP,
> Dumbledore solves wzarding crimes by asking the old
>  question *cui bono*  -- who benefits.
> 
> Unfortunately for Harry, the answer was not clear until
> Fake!Moody tried to snatch him away.

Betsy Hp:
Yeah, that doesn't work for me.  It actually stretches plausability, 
honestly.  Because you're basically saying Dumbledore is all, "yeah, 
Harry, someone's trying to kill you, but trying to figure who that 
is... why bother?"  It doesn't jell with the sort of character 
Dumbledore is supposed to be, IMO.

Personally I prefer to think Dumbledore is doing all sorts of 
sleuthing outside of Harry's view, but Fake!Moody is too clever for 
him.  Again, it means a lot of fanwanking, but it's better than 
Dumbledore suddenly breaking character.

But getting back to the topic, I think the above all points to JKR 
being a bit weak when it comes to managing her plots.  I think her 
strength is more in her character work.  So we forgive her the plot 
holes and feel free to fill them in because we are fairly sure we 
understand how the characters should be acting there.  (We don't 
*see* Dumbledore sleuthing in GoF, but of *course* he would be.)
 
> >>Pippin:
> Mostly, the mysteries aren't "fair" , a term of art which means     
> that the reader can deduce the identity of the villain and the      
> method by which his crime was committed from internal clues.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I think there's usually enough there for the reader to deduce 
the "who". But not enough for the "how".  For example, I think 
there's enough to pick up on the fact that Quirrell, not Snape, is 
the villain in PS/SS.  But there's no way a reader could deduce that 
Voldemort is living in the back of Quirrell's head.

However, once the reveal is done, there are things the reader can 
look back on and say, "Oh, of course! That's why the odd turban, and 
that's why the bad smell, and that's why no one seemed to be in the 
room with Quirrell though there were two voices!"  It's not what I'd 
call a mystery, because there's nothing there that would allow the 
reader to solve it before hand.  But I would call it a satisfying 
twist in that the reader is surprised but not cheated.  The reveal is 
fulfilling rather than rude.

> >>Pippin:
> The mysteries that Hermione solves are "fair" -- when she says
> "Tuh!" or "I've just remembered something" and scurries off to
> the library, that's like Nero Wolfe pushing his lips in and out.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I disagree there.  I'm not sure the reader should have realized the 
voice Harry was hearing was a basilisk in CoS, for example.  But once 
the facts of the basilisk in JKR's world were shared, it was a twist 
or reveal that made sense.  Honestly, in CoS, I'm not sure there was 
enough there to suggest Ginny was the actual villain.  I don't think 
there was enough given for the reader to realize that nonconsensual 
possession could occur in the WW.  So CoS doesn't have any elements 
of a "fair" mystery, IMO.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/170909
> >>Magpie:
> I think it's that she doesn't do classic mysteries because they    
> aren't solved by Harry and they really can't be solved by the      
> reader. They're recognition dramas like Jane Austen, where stuff is 
> happening and then when Harry gets info it all looks different upon 
> re-reading--which is a good thing, because people generally don't   
> re-read mysteries. There's little point once you know who done it. 
> There is reason to re-read this kind of thing.

Betsy Hp:
I think that's exactly it.  I call it a twist, but "recognition 
drama" works too.  Because it is about suddenly "recognizing" who the 
real baddie is, and often who the real goodie is.  And it's always a 
reveal about character, isn't it?  I'm really becoming more and more 
convinced that character is JKR's thing.  It's certainly what keeps 
me coming back to the well. <g>

So it's not that the Potter books aren't plotty.  I mean, yes, it's 
the plot that turns the page. But I don't think it's JKR's strength.  
Which is maybe part of the reason she went for such a passive hero?  
And maybe also why she went with such a judgmental hero?  

She didn't want someone out there *doing* and *causing* because JKR 
isn't really into that sort of action tale. But she did want someone 
making snap decisions about various characters and just really 
sticking to his guns, because JKR is interested in exploring why 
those sorts of judgements are made and are they correct and how do 
you figure out if someone is good or bad.

Because in the end, the plot of Harry Potter is pretty straight 
forward.  But the characters, that's where the twists occur.  That's 
where the excitment is.  And the characters have to be less than 
dynamic, because it's taking seven years for Harry to get an accurate 
read on them.  JKR can't afford to have them change all that much. <g>

Anyway, all my opinion of course.

Betsy Hp