[the_old_crowd] Re: Themes and theories

[Sean Dwyer]

On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 02:59:00AM -0000, nkafkafi wrote:

> Neri:
> I definitely don't agree that JKR sucks at tight plot construction. I
> think she's extremely good at it. However, her plot IS extremely
> complex, and she also took upon herself a very strict limitation 
> that (almost) everything must be described from Harry's POV. Under
> these very difficult conditions JKR sometimes performs less than
> perfect, but IMO she has never bungled significantly.

Technically there will always be errors, the test is whether the art is so
good you never (or prefer not to) notice. Tolkien's work is full of weird
little inconsistencies that arise from rewriting chapters 30 or 40 times and
subtly changing viewpoints and styles each time.

Of course I don't expect JKR ever to edit her work like Tolkien did later with
the Hobbit and LotR. And the Potterverse is essentially mapless, which saves a
lot of trouble. But yes, I do expect there to be artifacts of the process
lying in and around the canon, it happens with most authors, except maybe
Robert Pirsig who seems to be have been an exceptional planner (5 years of
rolodexed cards before he wrote a word).


> BTW, I once set a challenge to the HPfGU members, to find any series
> that has more characters than HP, but is still written mostly from the
> POV of a single character. I don't think there were any serious
> takers, although this was in part because I was immediately banished
> to the OT list. Any takers now? 

Gee, Tolkien maybe? That's technically 3 people (Bilbo, Frodo and Sam)
filtered through at least 3 editions and as many generations; but it's hard to
think of anything similar with huge panthenons of characters and a relatively
narrow POV. There are many things they never understand and have obviously
been given second or third-hand and many later additions to the text, as was
the purpose of Tolkien's fictional scholarship. It's quite easy to tell which
parts those are: edit out anything where a hobbit was not present (you lose at
least a quarter of the book at a rough guess).

Potterverse is different, literally being Harry's Universe. Increasingly the
question becomes not, 'how much does Harry know?' but 'how many of the
blindingly obvious questions should he have asked?' It will be infuriating to
learn that basic and important knowledge of the Founders, for instance, has
been sitting in the history books oft quoted by Hermione, and hitherto ignored
by Harry. Something of that nature is more or less likely I fear.

> We are back again to a question that was recently asked here: is it
> possible to identify the big themes before the series is over? I've
> pointed out in the past that Betrayal is much less of a theme than
> many fans think it is. In particular, betrayal has had a surprisingly
> low bang quotient in books 1-5. Actually, can anybody recall a single
> big bang in the series that was produced by betrayal? The BIG bangs
> are produced by possession (Voldy->Quirrell, Riddle->Ginny) and fake
> identity (Peter!Scabbers and Crouch!Moody). Personally I find it
> difficult to understand why so many members take it as a given that
> we'll have a super bangy betrayal of the Light side in books 6-7. I
> won't be surprised if we'll have a Podmor-size character betraying the
> Order, but more likely some bangy trick of the metamorphmagus/imperius
> sort. 

Well yes, if JKR's gaffe about Christian themes is anything to go by. That
bothers me more than most suggestions, because I'm wondering how far Harry's
POV is going to extend. I don't think JKR intends to resolve the WW's problems
by book 7. I think it more likely that if Harry survives, he's going to tell
them to sort it out themselves. And go and play Quidditch professionally :)

-- 
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."