Epilogue (was Re: Ron and Parseltongue)

[montavilla47]

No: HPFGUIDX 183543

> Carol responds:
> What I meant is that it's a mistake to expect the author, any author,
> to meet our expectations. We quite literally *can't* expect that
> because it's illogical and impossible for an author to do so even if
> she wished to do so. That's very different than my arbitrarily
> asserting without authority that we *may* not do so. 

Montavilla47:
You may be surprised, but I agree with you on this, Carol.  There
are things that personally disappoint me, but I don't think it's
JKR's responsibility to make me happy with what happens--
especially since there are roughly upteen billion other readers
with their own expectations out there and she couldn't possibly
please everyone.

If I can use a small example:  Just before HBP came out, I read
a fanfic in which sixth year Harry resumed Occlumency lessons
with Snape.  It was such a logical development of the set up in
OotP, that I came out of thinking that JKR would *have* to do
something similar, but subconsciously knowing that she 
couldn't, because it was very long story and barely touched on
anything else.  There was no way she devote that much space to
it.

And she didn't.  Instead, she accomplished much the same thing
(although stopping short of the resolution in the fanfic) by having
Harry get to know Snape through the Potions book.  Personally,
I was disappointed we didn't get more Occlumency lessons.  But at
the same time, what JKR did was brilliant.

So, I think readers will be disappointed if they think a story is 
going to a specific place.  However, they will forget that 
disappointment quickly if the story goes some place better.

Carol:
> I'm saying that we can't count the disappointment of our hopes and
> expectations (for example, my hope that Snape would live and that his
> motivation would be other than or more than love for Lily) as flaws.

Montavilla47:
Right.  I don't like we never got that scene in which Harry and Snape
"meet up" that JKR implied in her Melissa/Emerson intervew was 
coming.  But, I felt that Harry did come to a resolution about Snape
and the readers certainly know now where Snape stood.  So, I can't
claim that the plotline wasn't resolved.

Plus, I think JKR left enough wiggle room in Snape's storyline to 
read an expansion of his Lily-love--so that it may not have been
his entire motivation.

Carol:
> By the same token, her decision to bring in the deathly hallows plot
> is not, in and of itself, a flaw in the books, however much some of us
> (and I include myself in that number) may wish that she had not done
> so. The handling of the hallows plot itself, particularly its
> complexity and confusion and unresolved questions, is another matter.
> Of course, we can and (IMO) should discuss such matters as the
> development of plotlines and whether, in our view, they succeeded or
> failed, just as we have every right to criticize outright errors
> (Flints, math errors, inconsistencies) as well as the improbabilities,
> coincidences, and dei ex machinae (or whatever the plural is!) that
> abound in DH.
> 
> I would be very interested, in fact, in a discussion of real or
> perceived structural flaws.

Montavilla47:
Oh, can I start? :)

I'm not going to go on and on, actually.  I think the biggest
flaw was JKR's desire to push the resolution of every storyline
as far back as possible to create a boffo third act.

That's the way you're supposed to structure a film--set up in 
the first act, development through the second act, and a third
act that feels like a thrill ride.  

But it's not necessary in a book, and I think it hurt DH.  

Why, for example, did we have to wait until Chapter 30-something
to see Ron and Hermione kiss?  Frankly, I didn't care if we ever
saw that, and I thought that was pretty much all sorted out in HBP,
anyway.  That it wasn't, and was resolved in the middle of the 
battle because of some throwaway reference to elves didn't add
to the climax, it took away from all three storylines.  

Likewise, we didn't need the Percy storyline to resolve that
late in the plot.  There were many places that Percy might have
returned to the Weasley clan with more impact.  For example,
he might have come back when his brother was poisoned, or
at Dumbledore's funeral.  Instead, the storyline was extended
beyond reason and the reconciliation was rushed, becoming 
(to my mind) an annoying distraction from the preparations
for the battle and Harry's search for the Ravenclaw Horcrux.

There was a total chaotic feel to the battle that I think was
good.  I loved most of the details, but disliked how over-
stuffed it was with "big" moments.  (Much as I personally
dislike Molly's Bitch line, I don't really mind the moment
itself, because it really is just a supporting moment and adds
to what is going on.)

Carol:
> On another note, I don't rank small errors in math (which we all know
> that JKR is incapable of performing, even to the extent of determining
> the age of a given character at a given time) on the same level as
> inconsistencies, such as the handling of Unforgiveable Curses in GoF
> as contrasted with their handling in DH.

Montavilla47:
I'm going to praise JKR here, because I think that one of the real 
strengths of the series is that it made readers want to do all those
things teachers make you to do stories--for fun.  It was *fun* to 
work out timelines and try to figure out how much older Lucius 
Malfoy was than Snape.  I had great fun trying to figure out 
how long it took Harry to get from Hogwarts to London in OotP, even
if, ultimately, it didn't make much sense.  

It was fun to tease out the alchemical symbolism and try to see if 
there were secret messages being sent in the Droobles Bubble Gum
wrappers.  Or if Hermione was experimenting with love potions on 
Harry and Ginny in HBP.

It was more fun than I can say to contemplate such theories as 
ESE!Lupin ad ESE!Minerva.  JKR gave us an extremely rich 
tapestry to work with--Flints and all.

(Having read the court transcripts for the Vander Der Ark case,
it tickles me to no end that the word "Flint" was introduced into
testimony and legally defined.)

Carol:
> An author has an obligation
> to check her fictional facts and get them right and to maintain a
> consistent attitude toward what she presents as evil, whether it's the
> WW's treatment of House Elves or Harry's sudden right to use
> Unforgiveable Curses. Her failure to define Dark magic clearly and
> consistently is, IMO, one such failure. Another is the inconsistent
> depiction of wand properties and wand loyalties. 

Montavilla47:
I'm glad to hear you say that, because I'm genuinely unsure whether
the inconsistency is accidental or intentional.  I feel like its a failure,
but there is that possibility that it's all a massive joke on the reader
and that somewhere JKR is laughing herself silly on how seriously 
we all took that "Dark Magic" stuff.

Carol:
> But her choice to
> kill a particular character in a particular way or to reveal only a
> tantalizing glimpse of the WW in her epilogue, leaving many questions
> unresolved (a *good* thing, in my view--I'd rather *not* know what
> happened to every character) is her decision, which we're free to like
> or dislike, but which can't objectively be called a flaw in the
> construction of the book, only an authorial decision that some of us
> would have preferred that she didn't make.

Montavilla47:
Agreed.

Carol:
> Now personally, and this has nothing to do with my previous post, I
> prefer to analyze the books rather than criticize them, in the sense
> of finding fault. I'd rather analyze character development and
> motivation or literary techniques than point out flaws. That doesn't
> mean that we "can't" (or rather, *may* not) criticize the books. Of
> course, we can (may). I just think that it's a good idea to
> distinguish between our personal preferences, what we wish JKR had
> done, especially in the last book) and actual flaws and errors in the
> books (of which there are many, some minor and some not). Her
> "failure" to meet our expectations (and I'm not quoting anyone here)
> is not a failure at all, only an unwillingness on the part of some
> readers to accept the story that she chose to tell. (Their disliking
> it does not, of course, make it "bad" writing judged by objective
> criteria. And even the extent to which objectively determinable flaws
> mar the work is subjective.) 

Montavill47:
Well, hmm...  I think people have been pretty good at distinguishing
between their personal expectations and the "flaws."  And it's been
very helpful to me.

For example, I thought the lack of resolution to the Slytherin/other
houses divide was a flaw.  Magpie's posts have helped me see that
that wasn't so much a flaw as authorial choice.  (Although JKR
has muddied that by saying that the Slytherins returned to fight
when that definitely isn't in the books--if she intended to have
them return and forgot to put that detail in, is that a flaw?  Or 
are her statements irrelevant?)