Hiding in the Iron Maiden at Borgin and Burkes
Posts: 326
Joined: 9:55pm December 30, 2006
Location: Portage, Indiana
|
Seriously, davidenglish, nearly all of your comments make no sense to me... Most are coming off as, "Jo wrote it, so it must make sense. How can I doubt it?"
QUOTE Clue? What kind of silliness is this? This is simple exposition. And, yes, people can go back and see it was Peter Pettigrew, but it isn't possible to have figured this out beforehand as we aren't given the necessary information until it is obvious.
What kind of silliness are YOU talking about? Of course it's a clue! And it's the best sort of clue because no one catches it. In a mystery story, the writer doesn't place the clues there so that they simply raise questions; he or she places them there so that it is POSSIBLE, even if incredibly difficult, to figure out the answer to the mystery (if they weren't there, it would be cheating the reader). Yes, it was perfectly possible to figure out who Scabbers was before the ending of the book. We were told at the beginning that the rat had a missing toe. Immediately after "The Marauder's Map" chapter, we are told that all anyone found of Pettigrew was his finger. Hellooo? Perfectly possible to put two and two together.
All your talk of the meaning of foreshadowing and of clues is horribly obvious as to where the story is headed. Why on earth would you want your readers to pick up on the clues the first time through? It would give it away! Subtly placed hints that only make sense after the story is finished is mightily impressive and is the mark of a great mystery writer.
I'm curious as to what your definition/example of a "clue" is. Pick one from Harry Potter. And what do you think of the hints Jo did place in the series? I suppose you think those were tacky and unnecessary as well?
QUOTE Sorry, it is made perfectly clear at the Magical Menagerie that Scabbers is an ordinary rat with no special powers that, nevertheless, shouldn't have lived more than three years.
I'm sorry, I didn't make that very clear. What I meant by Scabbers's age is that the age alone does not tie the rat to Pettigrew. It might, to a careful reader, raise a vague question of why he is so old. But that alone is not a clue that the rat IS Peter Pettigrew. Like I said above, the toe is what distinguishes him, what makes it possible for the reader to figure the answer out, and what proves that Jo had that storyline planned out. Without the toe clue, there could be any magical reason why Scabbers is so old (a potion or a spell, for example).
A clue does not have to raise itself up and say "you better pay attention to me cause I'll be important later", although it can do that. Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that Scabbers's age is NOT a clue; I"m just saying that the toe is far more significant.
For the others in this thread, what do you think of the toe?
QUOTE . That is, in fact, the story of PoA in a nutshell.
The story of PoA is a cat chasing a rat?....alright. That's but a small part in the narrative. The story is about Harry trying to hold a grip on the past as that view keeps changing, and to make sense of the past and who is he now by dealing with the ongoing story that began with his father and his friends. PoA is my favorite book, and I certainly do not read it for a cat chasing a rat. I read it because it deals heavily in the past and for the way Jo ties her clues (yes - clues) together at the end.
QUOTE What is this? Creative Writing 101? No, Aberforth's scene is unimportant from the point of view of exposition. Instead, it is a form of recognition scene. Aberforth's eyewitness testimony is the revelation that Harry has been seeking. Aberforth may have but one star-turn in the final book, but it's the crucial revelation and could have come from no one else.
Why is this Creating Writing 101? Because I'm being literal rather than pandering to what readers are supposed to emotionally respond to? I'm sorry, I didn't find this emotional, and there's nothing wrong with me because of that. Aberforth is a literary satellite in that he adds texture to other characters but he is not essential to the main plot. Important on a thematic level, but is he absolutely necessary to move forward in the story? I find that it is the situation Aberforth was in that makes him important. There isn't really anything about his essence of character that adds to the plot.
On foreshadowing involving Aberforth:
1) We are told by Albus that Aberforth got into trouble for playing with goats. Later in OOTP, when Harry enters the Hog's Head, it smells like goats.
2) In "Lord Voldemort's Request", Dumbledore tells Riddle that he is "merely friendly with the local barmen".
3) In OOTP, Aberforth's appearance is "vaguely familiar" to Harry.
QUOTE And DH involves several journeys into a maze or labyrinth followed by a narrow escape.
Every adventure book has this, and therefore this allusion is not valid. I would not ever justify an allusion if I had a character called "Alice" in the wizarding world because the world happened to be magical like "Wonderland".
QUOTE Well, I am not sure what you mean by being "emotionally held responsible for any deaths in the series". It sounds vindictive to me.
Take Sirius's death for example. It was Harry's fault in a way, yet there is no weight on himself or to him by others that is truly emotionally resonant. The only weight from the death is the loss itself.
QUOTE The portraits in the Potterverse are not alive. And Prof Black is and always has been a two-dimensional figure, he's not exactly fleshed out.
Of course they're not alive, but we never see any evidence (apart from being locked in a painting) that you can't converse with them and hold a conversation. Why should we have to go by what Jo says outside the books? Phineas Nigellus can obviously think (he disapproves of what Dumbledore does), act (help in an urgent mission in OOTP), and have feelings (his reaction to Sirius's death). James, Lily, Sirius, and Lupin are still THERE and SPEAKING to Harry as if they were alive. To say that they are not literally alive has no relevance. Functioning organs and flowing blood do not make a person behave like a human being. Even if for a few minutes, these supposed lost ones are "alive", and for me personally, that marginalizes death.
It's wonderful that Harry gets to see his parents again (who wouldn't want to?), but as far as the theme of death goes, I don't think these frequent reappearances are consistent.
QUOTE I don't understand your nihilistic view of death.
That's me, the one out to attack any point J.K. Rowling makes...yes, that was sarcasm.
If anything is nihilistic, it's the new portrayal of death at the end of the series. It completely ignores what death was previously supposed to stand for. Why on earth would Jo kill Sirius the way she did (her explanation being that death just happens and that there is not always a closure and a teary deathbed farewell) and then bring him "back" while totally contradicting her initial reasoning?
QUOTE Just curious, you said no main characters were killed except Dumbledore. So, you don't consider Snape or Voldemort main characters? Or Sirius?
Yes, Voldemort was a main character, but he's evil and has no relevance to this issue. You expect the main baddies to die, and they do. True, Snape counts, but his death isn't as emotionally resonant as other main deaths would have been. Sirius is more or less a central character (sort of), and I believe he is degraded to an extent. He spends the entire book five whining and bickering about how bad his life is (not without reason, but it's still annoying). In fact, ninety percent of his role in the series is to show up, become another father figure for Harry, and subsequently die so that Harry won't have any one to turn to in the future. What did he give to Harry, other than being a temporary "father"? Harry learned nothing important from Sirius about James that he didn't already know; he already revered him. Even if Sirius was there to give an example of meaningful death, he was still a tool.
Furthermore, Lupin became a self-doubting, confidence-lacking (dare I say it) fool in the last book, and then he was killed. Would many readers not have felt more sorry for the character that appeared in book three? - not the one who was reduced to a means of exposition until just before he was killed?
Even Dumbledore's death loses some impact because we learn that he was a cunning manipulator, and even by the end of Deathly Hallows, readers are not given a clear redemptive reason why Dumbledore was too much beyond this new vision.
As for Parseltongue, there's a reason it's so rare... If it could be learned, it would not be rare. Why do you think Riddle had to possess Ginny to open the Chamber? Because she couldn't speak it herself; HE had to do it for her. If she could learn it, wouldn't Riddle have just written the word in the diary?
QUOTE(roonwit) I don't see how that affects the storyline of Chamber of Secrets, because in order to open the chamber you have to hear someone else doing it so that you have something to copy.
But that's exactly what affects the COS storyline. If you merely have to hear someone else speak the language and then mimick it, what was the point of making such a big deal of Harry's ability to speak it? Because it was easy for Harry? And there were enough similarities between Harry and Riddle; I doubt the exclusion of the Parseltongue would lessen the point Jo was trying to make.
--------------------
Aunt Petunia's Number One Fan!
|
Aug 1 2008, 05:47 PM
