A sandwich

[Annemehr]

No: HPFGUIDX 178726

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Geoff Bannister" 
<gbannister10 at ...> wrote:
 
> Geoff:
<snip> 
> What I am raising an eyebrow about  is Annemehr's comment:   
> 
> "Why, yes. Well, one doesn't insist on "subversive" and certainly
> not "questionable," but, yes, every sentence *should* be there for a
> purpose, and you know we are going to seek it. That's how finely
> crafted literature is written. And if a story is not so finely 
crafted, 
> then each sentence will be thoroughly critiqued, you can be
> sure."
> 

Annemehr:

Well, a mere raised eyebrow is a lot less emphatic than "Hell's 
Bells!" ;)  But I do think that the ideal is for every sentence to 
have a purpose, and that it's appropriate for the readership to look 
for it.  And, you know, the author has to actually write each and 
every one; why would she bother, unless she had some purpose for 
each?  Granted, some are there to carry a deeper meaning while others 
merely set the scene or inject a bit of humor, but those are all 
worthy purposes.

But it's a poor work of fiction indeed that has lines that are only 
meant to be filler.

That's not to say that I expect perfection from the author, nor that 
*each* reader is going to examine *every* sentence.  You are free to 
ignore the one in question, as you said you had until this thread 
(your post #178644).  

But this particular thread is about a sentence that jumped out at 
quite a few people and that (as I pointed out in my last post) has 
prominence both of placement in the book and as the final word of a 
rather large story arc.  Besides that, obviously quite a few people 
have found it perplexing.  That's why I don't understand your 
reaction to the thread being "Hell's Bells" -- i.e., it certainly 
looks as though you believe that the thread is either unworthy of 
existence or inappropriate.

(Ref. your post #178632: "Hell's bells! Do we have to seek a 
subversive and questionable meaning in every sentence of the books?").


Geoff:

> I don't think that JRRT went through EVERY sentence with a fine 
> toothcomb. Don't forget also that there were inconsistencies in 
> "The Silmarillion" which Christopher Tolkien never successfully 
> eradicated before it was published in 1977.
> 
> JRRT is exceptional. There are many, many authors, including, 
> inter alia,  C S Lewis and JKR who have let inconsistencies in 
> but many readers are prepared to let through for the sake of 
> getting on with the reading. Real life can be a bit like that 
> sometimes!   :-(
>

Annemehr:

Well, again, just because some inconsistencies are to be expected, 
doesn't mean the readers can't be attentive to the whole book, and 
examine all of it for meaning.  Minor inconsistencies are often 
ignored by many, or remarked upon just for fun, and then we move on.  
On the other hand, apparent inconsistencies of theme and ideas have 
to be examined and either resolved or judged problematic (or, more 
probably, both, depending on who you ask!).

As an example of a minor inconsistency, toward the end of OoP, when 
the students are studying hard for OWLs, there is a line about 
Parvati making her pencil case zoom around the table.  The line's 
purpose is to help set the scene: the students are all working 
uncharacteristically hard, partially illustrated by Parvati 
practicing Charms.  The inconsistency which jumped out at *me* is 
that she has a pencil case, when they always use quills at school.

But, you know, there will never be a thread about this line, because 
the inconsistency doesn't really matter: it doesn't hurt the story, 
it doesn't carry a deeper meaning, and the line itself still succeeds 
in its purpose of scene-setting.

Still, there is at least one reader who hasn't *ignored* that line. :D

The line about Kreacher getting a sandwich is different.  Perhaps it 
is possible that one could see it as mere scene-setting also, but it 
is clear that many readers found there was much more to it, and not 
because they were nit-pickily poring over every sentence looking for 
something to complain about, but because it jumped out at them at 
first reading.

I'm just saying,
1) ANY line in the book is worth attending to, to see what intention 
lies behind it, and

2)It's not at all suprising to me that the sandwich line has been 
much discussed, and I think it's appropriate that it has.

Anyway, regardless of whether you paid any attention to the line 
before this thread came up, in post #178644 you yourself found a 
positive meaning in it when you said:
"To me, it was just an indicator of the fact that, after having hated 
Kreacher
through OOTP and HBP, Harry was reminding himself that he had crafted
a new relationship with Kreacher, which had given the latter something
of a new lease of life."

Well, that's fair, and worth saying, and if you had continued to 
ignore the line, you never would have said it at all. :)

Annemehr