Mysteries (was: Truth, Lies and GIGO)

Sat Apr 23 01:04:09 UTC 2005

Combining posts again

Kneasy wrote in:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1585 :

> Ah, yes ...... the Hat.
> Trust and truth go hand in hand in an ideal world, but nobody 
> claims that the WW is an ideal world.
> "Never trust anything that  can think for itself if you can't see where 
> it keeps its brain." Old Ma Weasley hands us a clue there, I think.
Is it 
> a coincidence that there's a fair few artifacts fitting this
description 
> swanning round the plot?
> The Diary
> The Marauders Map
> The Mirror of Erised
> The Pensieve
> The Sorting Hat
>

Neri: 
Ah, yes... again we are at the question of Truth. The truth is, until
Kneasy brought up this subject I didn't imagine that it's so developed
in the series. This time it's the Truth of magical devices, rather
than of characters. Do they lie?

>From the World Book Day chat
http://www.wizardnews.com/story.20040304.html :

Arianna: Can we believe everything the sorting hat says?

JKR: The Sorting Hat is certainly sincere.

And here's a quote regarding the Marauder's Map, this time from one of
the makers:

PoA, Ch. 18, p. 351 US:
"Everyone thought Sirius killed Peter," said Lupin, nodding. "I
believed it myself — until I saw the map tonight. Because the
Marauder's map never lies... Peter's alive. Ron's holding him, Harry."

Interesting how he words this, isn't it? He doesn't say "the map is
never wrong" but "the map never lies". Might magical devises in the
Potterverse, like the baddies, be obsessed with Truth?

Pippin wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1588

> I am not sure what you mean by "official" whodunnits.
> If you mean, things that Harry has explicitly wondered
> about, quite a few things on the what, why, how list
> don't qualify either.
> 
> Here are a few who's you may have overlooked:
> 
> 1. Who told McGonagall that Dumbledore would be at Privet 
> Drive?
> 2. Who killed the unicorns?
> 3. Who was the hooded stranger in the Hogs Head?
> 4. Who passed the Riddle diary to Lucius Malfoy?
> 5. Who is the half-blood prince?
> 6. Who was Voldemort's second in command?
> 7. Who owns the Riddle house?
> 8. Who removed Voldemort's wand from Godric's Hollow
> 9. Who sent the Fearsome Four after the Longbottoms?
> 10. Who told Dumbledore that the time of Harry's
> hearing had changed?
>

Neri:
Well, I actually used different criteria for solved and unsolved
mysteries. For the solved ones, I mentioned those that were solved in
a spectacular way, making them "official" in hindsight. Of course, you
can claim that some of your whodunit mysteries might achieve such
status in the future, but the point is: they didn't achieve it yet,
because as far as I can remember there simply aren't any whodunit
mysteries that lasted for more than one book and were already solved.

Well, we do have "who is the barman in the Hog's Head" but we don't
know that JKR hoped to solve it in a spectacular way. I hope not <g>.
Anyway I wouldn't classify it as a whodunit although it is a "who"
question.

"Who is the Half-Blood Prince?" I don't consider as lasting over more
than one book, since it was not presented in OotP. In fact we don't
even know that it will be a mystery at all. There wasn't any real
mystery who the prisoner of Azkaban was, for example. 

For the unsolved mysteries I used mainly the criterion that Harry
and/or one of the characters explicitly raises this question.
Admittedly, the questions of "what was the gleam in DD's eyes about"
and "what additional powers Harry got from Voldy?" don't fit this
criterion, but I think most fans would agree that they are central
mysteries nonetheless. OK, perhaps we need a better criterion for
considering an unsolved mystery significant. How about this one:
imagine for a moment that by the end of the series it was not solved
in a resounding way. If you'd consider this a major bungle of JKR then
the mystery is significant.

Regarding your mystery "Who sent the Lestranges after the
Longbottoms?" it was only presented after OotP and even then not in an
official way. It all depends on this "sent" word that was brought up
by a fan to begin with.  If using only the information in GoF and OotP
I think most fans would "officially" state this question as a why
mystery (see No. 16 in David's post): "Why did the Lestranges attack
the Longbottoms?" or, if you buy Bella's answer, "why did the
Lestranges think that the Longbottoms know where Vapormort is?" 

Regardless of your criteria, I think you'll find that "what" and "why"
mysteries overtake by far the classic whodunit mysteries in the long
run, while the whodunit mysteries ARE central within each book.

It's really not surprising if we remember one big limitation of
whodunit mysteries: the answer must be one out of a very limited list
of options. If there must be a big ESE then the list of suspects is
quite short, so you can get to the answer by a bit of elimination and
a little luck. Why, What and How mysteries offer a much greater
breadth of possibilities. They take us out of the cliché mystery
formula. This is where both the author and theorist can exercise their
creativity.

David wrote in
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_old_crowd/message/1587 :

> Wow!  Convergent thinking!  How deeply subversive of you! ;-)

Neri:
Do you mean to say that I'm following Cantor's advice? It was not
intentional...

> David:
> I would add (or break out some elements of 2, if you want to think 
> of it that way):
> 
> 13: Why did Voldemort lose his powers and nearly die at GH?
> 14: Why didn't he actually die at GH?
> 15. What's with the locked room in the Dept of Mysteries, then?
> 16. Why did the Lestranges attack the Longbottoms?
> 17. Why didn't Dumbledore (try to) kill Voldemort at the end of OOP?
> 
> That still leaves some other GH issues for no. 2 - who was there, 
> what happened to Voldemort's wand and so on.
> 
> I would categorise this excellent list as follows:
> 
> Not a mystery:
> 
> 4 (see separate posts by SSS and me).
> 
> Solved in the eyes of all but the most paranoid:
> 
> 3, 8.
> 
> Apparently solved but there may well be more:
> 
> 1, 5, 13.
> 
> Clearly posed by the text and requiring explanation:
> 
> 2, 9, 10, 11a?, 12, 14 (confirmed by JKR in a chat), 15, 16 (website 
> confirms), 17 (I wouldn't have seen that as a mystery myself unless 
> JKR raised it in a chat, but then I assume Dumbledore isn't in 
> favour of vigilante justice).
> 
> May never be explained, or may turn out to be a red herring, i.e. 
> not very clearly posed by the text:
> 
> 6 ('It's a magical link resulting from the failed curse'),
> 7 (None, and not mentioned again),
> 11a (Does he, in fact, spy?),
> 11b (It just happens that way).
> 
> Any more?  Do you agree with the categorisations?

Neri: 
I think we're already finding that establishing any "official" list
would be very complicate and potentially misleading (although I
personally agree with most of your categorization). There are many
if-then nodes, and the way we choose to state a mystery might lead us
astray when trying to solve it. I wouldn't actually presume to come up
with such a list. My original point was more to demonstrate that with
any reasonable list using any reasonable criteria, the "what" and
"why" mysteries easily overtake the classic whodunit mysteries in the
long run.

Neri