Buying a Half-Kneazle
Posts: 527
Joined: 12:24pm January 7, 2007
|
QUOTE(starlesswinter @ Aug 26 2008, 04:30 PM)  Again, what is your definition of foreshadowing?
I do think it would be good for discussion to have an agreed upon definition of foreshadowing, also an agreed upon definition of deus ex machina.
The problem is that as I read through this thread I see insistence on foreshadowing (or clues) for things that are not essential plot points and that therefore do not necessarily conform to the idea of deus ex machina.
For example, the fact that the snitch has flesh memory is not necessary to know in order to accept that information when it is presented later. The plot importance, since starlesswinter wants evidence of arching plot planning on JKR's part, is that the method of catching it was established in the very first book and THAT is the moment that has resonance later - not the fact of flesh memory but the way that flesh memory behaves. Harry nearly swallowing the snitch has no apparent meaning at the time - it's amusing, silly almost, and a clever way of keeping Harry from super-man status by making his first quidditch win almost accidental. The deeper purpose of it from a plot point of view does not become clear until the seventh book where Harry can not only keep the message of the snitch from the Minister but JKR can have use the literary weight of the kiss, of the breath of life, of all the cultural history that is carried by the action of pressing something to your mouth. So what was brought up as an example of deus ex machina is actually a strong piece of evidence that important plot points were planned from the beginning.
QUOTE My mistake on the literary term. But still, this reasoning you have is very shaky. It's just that so many things are labyrinthian in these stories and in just about any fantasy/adventure tale. I mean, you cannot have a story like that without having winding paths from which to escape and make sense of. I listed four from Lord of the Rings, all of which are more labyrinthian than a confusing biography.
Ariana is a real name. I could see your reasoning working if this character had an invented name that was close to Ariadne, but Ariana is a normal, if not exactly common, name. I suppose Harry is a reference to Harriet Tubman because he helps the muggle-borns escape from the ministry as Tubman helped the slaves?
David's point, I think, is that there are layers of literary technique going on in the books. JKR does use clues, often just within the books themselves, clues that relate to puzzles and mysteries. She also uses far more subtle and less direct methods, often relating to themes and large plot events (there are multiple references to death in the first Grimmauld Place chapter directed at Sirius. They are small enough that the reader does not leap to the conclusion that Sirius will die in the book - unless they are warned by the out-of-book comment by JKR that someone important will be killed). Then there are allusions which deepen and enrich the books - some of them aren't always subtle, but many are. David's reference to Ariana is actually valid and consistent with JKR's other classical allusions (Ariana is a variant of Ariadne, that's where it comes from.). Did JKR intend the allusion? David has presented some excellent arguments for it and the book can be read that way.
Foreshadowing can be any of these things - it can be fairly obvious clues (RAB), it can be more subtle hint dropping (Harry's use of parseltongue on the snake in the zoo, his use again in CoS and the knowledge at the end that he has a piece of Voldemort's soul in him) and it can by the use of allusion and symbolism. JKR makes use of all of these techniques and one is not more valid than another.
QUOTE But Harry doesn't even try it, knowing full well it is a way to contact Sirius, even if he doesn't know its specific function? It's a type of lazy writing (though not blatantly so) that could have been entirely omitted from the story, giving the Aberforth connection room for a more plausible device than "oh, here's this object sitting around, I think I'll use this in the last book."
Yet the mirror is established as a communication device which is how it is used in the last book meaning that the deus ex machina argument is invalid - the mirror was planted and explained before it was used! The fact that Harry acted stupidly is not relevant to the plot device. Simply not agreeing with Harry's actions (which are, poor Harry, entirely true to character) does not invalidate the use of the mirror.
QUOTE And it's not like these are my firm, personal philosophies about life here. We're talking about a magical world and the depiction of death through paintings, ghosts, and spirit figures. I just happen to find the depictions somewhat inconsistent, that's it... I'm not stating some heartfelt life lessons to which I was always adhere in every aspect of my life.
I find that interesting. In my view it was entirely consistent. Bear with me.
First, death is established as a major, possibly THE major theme in the books right from the first chapter. Harry's parents are killed and everything happens as it does because of that fact. This gives Harry an immediate and very intimate relationship with death - the loss of his parents has cost him a happy childhood. In that same book we are introduced to the complexities of death in the wizarding world - there are ghosts which immediately lets us know that death is not the end for wizards, that there is some sort of "after" world. Then, most importantly, we actually meet Voldemort in his "soul" form which again underlines the Harry Potter world view that the soul has meaning and existence without the body.
The second book plays a little with the idea of death; the petrifications are like a "little death." Harry puts himself in mortal danger but at this point he doesn't really know what that means. His means of rescue though is important - a pheonix, a creature who dies and revives endlessly. None of this furthers the concept of death as the Harry Potter world sees it but it does expand on the theme of death.
In the third book (which is in my view the last of the three "childhood" books for Harry's relationship to death - he still reacts to it as a child) Harry puts himself in the role of killer (again, the journey is from being a victim through his parent's deaths, taking action and facing death and now a further step, imagining himself as the perpetrator or actor) thinking he will avenge his parents. His choice not to kill (which is not a clear choice - it's a choice not to kill Crookshanks, the innocent) is then expanded by his choice not to let others kill. This introduces the idea of the wholeness of the soul which will become so important later.
The fourth book, the hinge book, moves Harry from that childish, almost fairy-story relationship with death into a harder, adult relationship. He sees Cedric die - it's brutal, fast, and meaningless. That scene is vital to the exposition of death in the Harry Potter world. The act, the moment of dying, happens like that. It isn't always heroic, it doesn't always further a cause - it's often simply being in the wrong place. The gruesome rebirth scene adds as well, there is horror in Voldemort's return to flesh, horror in what he has done to the body that he seems to value so much. What JKR is exploring is timor mortis - not only the fact of it but the why of it. Even wizards who have clear evidence of a further existence, of the continuation of intelligence, fear death and value life.
The deaths of Sirius and Dumbledore progress Harry even further as he learns about loss and guilt and pain. Dobby's death (and Snape's and Dumbledore's of course - as we have to learn later) bring in sacrifice.
So what is said about death in these books? It is not the worst thing that can happen (per Dumbledore, expressed most strikingly by Voldemort, learned by Harry through his own sacrifice). It is not the end of everything (known from the beginning as we see the ghosts, continually touched on with the veil, Harry's discussion with Nick after Sirius dies etc) and yet when it happens it is still deeply painful for those who remain. It seems to me that this message was in the first book and grew consistently through the last.
QUOTE Have you ever seen a person wallowing in despair because he or she faces death? It's different when you're in danger; if you are being hunted or attacked, are you just supposed to stand there and say, "I should die here and not fight, because I accept death"? No. An elderly person, however, may say, "I'm not ready to go yet", but that doesn't mean they don't accept it. It merely means that they wish they had more time to spend. Who other than Voldemort, a character of fiction, seeks immortality? I doubt that many people, though I'm sure there must be some somewhere, "rage against the night" forever because they know they must die someday. Everyone is initially afraid of death, because it is the greatest mystery, the fear of the unknown. But that doesn't mean that everyone or even most people cower at the end of their lives because they know death is coming.
Actually, I have. I had a very dear friend, quite young, who was diagnosed with a horrible and very rare form of cancer. From the moment she was diagnosed until the moment she died she was terrified - horrified of her own death. She did cower, she was afraid and she never, ever accepted it.
My grandfather, elderly, fought death with all his strength. He also never accepted that he was dying, never giving in.
There are endless reactions to the fact of mortality. Harry Potter explores some of them and I think the exploration is done with great consistency.
QUOTE I've always had the impression that we've been told her view on death repeatedly since the very first book. "Death is but the next great adventure", "there are things worse than death"...
I'm not arguing at all that the walk through the forest was a denial of previous commenting on death. Quite the opposite: it elevated Harry's status for sure. Yet I just don't agree that it accurately represented the OTHER characters deaths as they were previously portrayed (other than appearing happy). Perhaps if we actually deliberately saw that there was an emotional distance between paintings, ghosts, "spirit figures", and so forth, this issue wouldn't irk me so much. It's irritating to me that these things CAN be fixed with a just a little better attempt at writing.
I'm not sure I understand you here. The paintings were consistently shown as being rather clever recordings of the people depicted. They cannot change or evolve. Dumbledore's painting, which stretches this the furthest, apparently simply gave advice based on a previously chosen plan - it does not create it simply repeats and reacts.
The ghosts are essential since they show the existence of soul and a "something" after death. Nick's conversation with Harry after Sirius's death talks about his pale imitation of life. The fact that he chose to remain gives him no joy and quite likely gave no comfort to those he loved. This is expanded further when the resurrection stone is explained in the fairy tale - returning the dead to life is a torment to them. Death is a permanent barrier, trying to avoid it causes grief.
The "spirit figures" - do you mean the comforters that Harry conjures in the forest? They seem entirely different to ghosts and paintings to me! Just as paintings seem different to ghosts. I guess I don't understand your problem with them. They have no reality in the physical world - when Harry drops the ring they disappear. When he chooses to return to life in King's Cross he knows he is losing them again, and although he knows there is something (whatever the reader chooses to believe it is) after death he still feels pain and grief at the loss of his loved ones in the battle. That's the burden of mortality, the whole thing, timor mortis for ourselves and for our friends and family and that burden is a burden of the physical world, a burden which Harry shouldered with full knowledge (again, the moment I see as his second sacrifice) after being given the choice to set it down.
This post has been edited by Henrietta: Aug 27 2008, 02:44 PM
|
Aug 1 2008, 05:47 PM
