Hiding in the Iron Maiden at Borgin and Burkes
Posts: 326
Joined: 9:55pm December 30, 2006
Location: Portage, Indiana
|
QUOTE(davidenglish @ Aug 25 2008, 07:32 PM)  Well, when one considers that the mention of the finger in a box comes over 100 pages after the revelation that Scabbers is missing a toe and a chunk of his ear, I don't think JKR is writing a murder mystery. Yes, it is possible to figure out who Scabbers is from a number of expository statements. They are clues or evidence, but they are not foreshadowing. What is the significance of the missing toe connection being 100 pages after the first of the two CLUES were mentioned? Are they supposed to be right next to each other? If so, that would give the mystery away. If you want to be super literal here, the mention of the rat's missing toe alone does not raise questions and does not say "I will be important later" (is that what you mean by foreshadowing? If so, then you're right by strict definition, but it is still the most important element to the Scabbers/Pettigrew storyline), but it's not supposed to. It's supposed to be hidden inside the mess of other details. It is the key to that plotpoint. Without it, there would be no justification that Scabbers is Pettigrew other than the actual physical transformation. The rat's age is a clue to something being odd about Scabbers, but not a clue that ties him to Pettigrew. A reader can figure out the answer with the toe clue alone, but if the toe clue was not there, they would not be able to truly figure out the answer by the age factor alone.
When did it become a rule that in order to drop clues, the story must be a murder mystery? Again, are you speaking of foreshadowing as the deliberate placing of clues to raise questions? I don't believe that foreshadowing necessarily has to do that.
But for the purpose of this discussion then:
Your definition is FORESHADOWING: deliberate placing of information to raise questions in the reader so that they will be prepared for upcoming and revealing information. Most readers would use this information as a guide for further reading.
My definition is SUBTLE CLUE-DROPPING: the seemingly casual (but deliberate) placing of information to make sense of later-revealed plotpoints. Most reader would pass over this information without second thought.
I think the use of my definition is perhaps more relevant to Jo's writing style. Harry Potter is relatively unique in that it's "mysteries" are not always presented as mysteries until they have been revealed. Let me know if that's confusing. In other words, nine times out of ten, the clues to solving a mystery can be found in places that seem to have no connection whatsoever, and there might not always be a question about a given plotpoint until the facts that prove there is something odd are made sense of. Jo does not always come out and say, "This is the mystery, and you should be looking for clues about that", although that is sometimes the case (who put Harry's name in the GOF, for example). In the case of Scabbers, it is not presented as a mystery - there is never any question of Pettigrew being alive until the end, yet there are enough clues in the story for it to be possible that a reader would pick up on them and figure out that "yes, he's alive." This is why the clue-dropping is essential - it is vital to Jo's unique style of mystery writing. I hope I cleared that up somehow...let me know.
QUOTE I do not mean the literal Crookshanks chasing Scabbers, although that is there. However, there are the repeated Cat & Mouse themes of Black chasing Pettigrew, the Dementors chasing Black, Snape chasing the Marauders, the Ministry and Buckbeak. Ok, thanks for clearing that up. I agree, though that is the type of story, not the story itself.
QUOTE Well, all that those identifiers lead us to realize is that Aberforth is Albus's brother. It does not foreshadow the revelation that Aberforth makes. True, but I didn't say that it foreshadowed the revelation. There would be no need, because the connection with the two brothers isn't even brought up until book seven. However, I will call this foreshadowing (using your definition) because the use of three clues about a character while deliberately NOT giving away his true identity should and did bring about questioning as to who this barman was. Readers made the connection. This is also an example of clue-dropping (my def), however, because no big deal was made about this information. It was thrown into the mix. And this is an example of a blending of the two techniques.
QUOTE Well, no, not exactly. DH is studded with stories of being trapped and having to escape. Consider that the Seven Potters echoes Daedalus and Icarus' escape from the Labyrinth; Ariana's protrait represents the thread into the labyrinth of Hogwarts; and Ariana of the Labyrinth represents both the keeper of a prison which is also a dancing hall, which takes us from the depths of Gringotts to the Wedding. I'm sorry, but I still find this extremely stretching things. There are legitimate allusions in the series, such as Sirius (to the dog constellation) and Hermes (the messenger god). The idea of this Labyrinth is reaching for something that is not there. Gringotts=prison and Wedding=dancing hall makes enough sense, but you think Jo deliberately named the character Ariana because these two things happen to exist in the wizarding world? That's very doubtful.
Nearly all adventure books are studded with stories of being trapped and having to escape. I don't see what makes DH unique to this "labyrinthian" treatment. Lord of the Rings, for example, has many examples of this (Shelob's Lair, Moria, Emyn Muil, Dead Marshes). If perhaps, the sphinx in the maze (the labyrinth in GoF) was name Ariana or was given a creature name other then "sphinx" which tied in the name Ariana, then you'd have a legitimate allusion. But simply because DH contains a "prison" (Gringott's is a bank...) and people dance at a Wedding (there's a real dance hall in GOF) doesn't make Ariana of the Labyrinth an allusion. I think you're reaching for a level of depth in this series that simply isn't there.
QUOTE Harry's fault? And nothing truly emotionally resonant? So that rant in Dumbledore's office was just more teen angst nonsense, eh? I dunno. You'll have to explain this "weight" to me as it sounds more like hot air and likely to be weightless. It's partly Harry's fault because the plot ordered him to be stupid in order to move the story forward. He didn't check his mirror and didn't think logically about the situation. Please don't try to tell me that I want Harry to be some faultless, god-like character in the story. I think the mirror situation is horribly stupid, and I don't buy the "he was just told to use it if Snape was bullying him" excuse either. If someone gives you a phone number so that you can call them to catch up and chat, would you NOT call them in an emergency simply because of the original reason for which you were given that number? It's not as if Sirius would have told Harry, "Here's this mirror, just in case Voldemort ends up possessing you and you need to check on me." It's flimsy logic in order for the story to work.
QUOTE So, what the heck do you mean here? The four are not real. Sirius makes it clear that they cannot be seen by others and are part of Harry. If you cannot accept a poetic image and demand socialist realism, okay. But don't expect anyone to want to read it. Harry knew his parents were six feet under in that cold graveyard in Godric's Hollow. Seeing idealized images of them before he faces death doesn't maginalize death, but makes life's briefness bittersweet. I understand that the image is meant to be poetic, but it sacrifices the meaning of death as a finality (despite living inside a person) for an emotional moment. (Don't get me wrong: emotion is one of the most important elements within a story, but you shouldn't have to sacrifice function in order to prove that point, unless that's your theme or something.) I know these people are not real by definition, but being human does not come from flesh and blood - it comes from thought and emotion and experience, and this is what makes the INTERNAL duration of the dead such a powerful thing. When one brings them into the physical world (whether other people can see them or not, and whether or not you can put your hand through them) it takes away some of that internal potency. When one can literally see the people before their eyes and can speak with them, the inside memory of them loses importance. Making the internal external is a contradiction, in this specific case.
QUOTE I can sympathize with your bitter disappointment over characters dying in ways that failed to meet your romantic expectations. However, I think that's consistent with the storyline. Harry is the hero of an anti-heroic epic. I wasn't saying that I wanted romantic deaths, for that is in a way what we readers were given. Sirius's death in OotP was supposed to be un-romantic, but Harry's final farewell to him in DH (as a spirit-image, whatever it's supposed to be) turned into a "proper" farewell you would find in a romanticized tales. He was allowed to say goodbye (not literally saying the words, but he was given the literal closure that one doesn't always get in real life.)
QUOTE And I think your jaded view of Dumbledore can be explained by not understanding the revelation of Aberforth. No, I understand the revelation. All I'm trying to say about Aberforth is that readers can perfectly understand Jo's point about love and death in the series without hearing what Aberforth has to say. There are numerous examples about that. He contributes to it, but he's not essential to understanding that theme.
I have a question about death now too: A big deal is made about having to accept death. In the real world, what can you do OTHER THAN accept it?
This post has been edited by starlesswinter: Aug 26 2008, 12:10 AM
--------------------
Aunt Petunia's Number One Fan!
|
Aug 1 2008, 05:47 PM
