Re: Dumbledore's Death Denial Club

In message
<news:1124252259.766147.85910@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
"Dark Magic" <slbilan@xxxxxxxxxxx> enriched us with:
>
> Tim Peters wrote:
>>
>> G
>> O
>> F
>>
>> A
>> N
>> D
>>
>> O
>> O
>> T
>> P
>>
>> A
>> N
>> D
>>
>> H
>> B
>> P
>>
>> S
>> P
>> O
>> I
>> L
>> E
>> R
>>
>> S
>> P
>> A
>> C
>> E
>>

<snip>

>> A difference is that their (supposed) deaths occurred in the dim
>> past.
>
> How past does it have to get before it's dim?

As it 'not seen through Harry's eyes', I'd say.

Harry is the absolutely reliable witness (though not, in particular
while Dumbledore was alive, always a reliable interpreter of his
observations). Other first hand accounts are generally also trustworthy
-- the exceptions being so few that it isn't worth the effort to
consider them, but second-hand accounts are far more suspicious.

Sirius's eye witness account of the death of Crouch Jr was of course
completely true, though his interpretation of it wasn't up to standard.

<snip>

>> I'm not arguing that Sirius's death was 100% convincing within
>> the book,

If you don't, then I will.

Sirius' death was completely convincing in the book. We had both Lupin
and /Dumbledore/ confirm it -- and the latter even outright. Harry's
eyewitness account of Dumbledore's death in HBP is only barely as
convincing as that (but it /is/ that convincing, because he is the
absolutely reliabel eyewitness).

In the end it is rather a question of understanding the way Jo puts
things in her books, and in both cases the accounts in the book proper
is completely convincing on her terms.

>> and I'm certainly unhappy that sometimes JKR has to let interviews
>> explain what the books _should_ have explained better.
>
> Amen!

Well, I can certainly agree with that, though /I/ don't blame the books
....

>> For another example of that, there's the whole "a Pensieve
>> memory reports objective reality, not the memory-holder's
>> subjective impressions" business -- the books don't even begin
>> to make that point, only her interviews do.
>
> That too.

What are you on about?

I'll happily agree that the books don't make the point as clearly as it
is done in the interview, but it was, IMHO, quite clear that the scenes
in the pensieve are objectively true already after OotP. I argued as
much shortly after the release, claiming that the events in Snape's
Worst Memory must be objectively true, but that the interpretation we
were being led to put on these events might not be reliable, just as
the interpretation we were being led to believe of the scenes in
Riddle's diary had not been correct, even if the events themselves were
objectively true.

<snip>

> Great. Terrific. Lupin is certain. Dumbledore is certain. Nearly
> Headless Nick is certain. But *why* are they certain? I'm sorry
> but Harry comes off as either being uncaring or just a nitwit for
> not asking some pretty damn basic questions people ask when
> somebody dies.

I cannot agree entirely with that. Harry was, when Sirius died, an
almost sixteen-year-old boy, who was told by two adults he has learned
to trust implicitly (we can always discuss whether that trust has been
merited, in particular in Dumbledore's case, but I don't think we can
question that Harry did trust Dumbledore's judgement implicitly) and of
course he doesn't begin to question them -- that would have been
completely unbelievable of a boy his age and in his situation.

> How did they die? What killed them? Where's the body? Did they
> suffer?

Why should he ask any of that -- he saw it himself!

<snip>

All this is, IMHO, not a matter of Jo's ability to tell the story, or
to make her points in the books. This is rather a question of us
picking the story completely apart, and then finding ourselves with a
lot of pieces that we don't have the competence to put back together,
so we blame Jo -- but if we'd stop for a moment before we pick it her
story apart, then we'll see that she has actually managed to put the
pieces together to a story that, largely(*), fits together quite nicely
without any need for fantastic extra explanations.

(*) 'largely', because of course there are continuity errors -- she
even admits to it herself, but these are never in the major department.

--
Troels Forchhammer
Valid mail is <t.forch(a)email.dk>

My adversary's argument
is not alone malevolent
but ignorant to boot.
He hasn't even got the sense
to state his so-called evidence
in terms I can refute.
- Piet Hein, /The Untenable Argument/
.

Loading