Odds and ends :: CoS 5

[pauraque_bk]

-Happy birthday, robkaiote!

-In case anyone hasn't seen, there's a new election animation up at JibJab. And yes, it's slashy. John/John otp!!

-The "unpopular fandom opinions" meme seems to be going around again. I don't know if this is an unpopular enough opinion to count, but I'll tell you something that bugs me: I don't like it when writers complain in public about certain kinds of feedback. Maybe some folks get enough reader response that they feel they can afford to be picky, but not everyone is so fortunate. I think seeing that sort of complaint can put readers off feedbacking anyone, ever, for fear that what they say won't be adequate or appreciated. Comes under the category of "ruining it for the rest of us", in my book.

*

For me, the highlight of Chapter 4 was the suggestion by eponis that Lucius was also being manipulated by the diary. Fic, please?


CoS 5: The Whomping Willow

Harry gave a hollow laugh. 'The Dursleys haven't given me pocket money for about six years.' (55)

What does a six-year-old need with an allowance?

Also, the Grangers are shown in Chapter 4 changing Muggle money for wizard. You'd think Harry would get wise to the fact that he can do the opposite next time he's in Diagon Alley.

'Aaargh!' said Ron[...] (60)

This got a bad laugh from me. The onomatopoeia is bad enough, but "said"? She can do better, and she will, but it'll take a few more books. (She also attributes to Ron a gratuitous "AAAAAAAAAAARGH NOOOOOOOOOOO!" in PoA.)

'Can you believe our luck?' said Ron miserably, bending down to pick up Scabbers the rat. (60)

Scabbers has nothing to do in this book, but has been mentioned several times already. JKR doesn't want us to forget about him. Also, this entire chapter exists the way it does to introduce the Willow for PoA.

For a few horrible seconds he had feared the hat was going to put him in Slytherin, the house which had turned out more dark witches and wizards than any other -- but he had ended up in Gryffindor, along with Ron, Hermione and the rest of the Weasleys. Last term, Harry and Ron had helped Gryffindor win the House Championship, beating Slytherin for the first time in seven years. (61)

And what's Hermione, chopped liver? Leaving her out after mentioning her just a sentence before seems strange... if it means anything, perhaps it's that Harry doesn't have as strong a sense of them as a group of three as he will later, but is more focused on Ron, with whom he's been friends longer.

This bit of exposition also corrects Hagrid's assertion from PS/SS that *all* dark wizards come from Slytherin.

'Silence!' said Snape coldly. 'What have you done with the car?'
Ron gulped. This wasn't the first time Snape had given Harry the impression of being able to read minds. (62)

Which he isn't, here, but of course we now know he can. Perceptiveness on Harry's part, clever foreshadowing on JKR's.

'[...]I believe your father works in the Misuse of Muggle Artefacts Office?' [Snape] said, looking up at Ron and smiling still more nastily. 'Dear, dear ... his own son ...' (62-63)

Another scene that plays startlingly differently in the movie. Movie!Snape seems genuinely agonized that the boys have posed a security risk. Book!Snape is "cold", but also smirkingly delighted at the prospect of getting them into trouble (in the film, that role is transferred to Filch). When Dumbledore refuses to expel them, Snape looks "as though Christmas had been cancelled" (64).

There was a long silence. Then Dumbledore said, 'Please explain why you did this.'
It would have been better if he had shouted. Harry hated the disappointment in his voice. (64)

What's going through Dumbledore's mind here? Why is he so gravely disappointed by this incident? What the boys did was stupid, but certainly innocently-intentioned... Or does Dumbledore believe they were showing off, as Snape does (62), and as it's suggested that McGonagall does (65)? Doesn't want to see Harry's fame going to his head?

[Dumbledore:] 'I must go back to the feast, Minerva, I've got to give out a few notices. Come, Severus, there's a delicious-looking custard tart I want to sample.'
Snape shot a look of pure venom at Harry and Ron as he allowed himself to be swept out of his office, leaving them alone with Professor McGonagall, who was still eyeing them like a wrathful eagle. (64-65)

She then leaves them alone in Snape's office to eat, which seems somewhat presumptuous. Snape is very definitely treated as the other teachers' junior in this scene, which of course he is.


Past re-read posts are here.

Comments

[atdelphi.livejournal.com]

For a second I thought you were saying that images in movies are more objectively true than words in books, and was about to go on a rant that involved Fight Club and some other things, but now I see you weren't saying that, so I'll belay. :)

*grin* No, I definitely wasn't saying that at all (though I would have been interested to hear the rant) - only that in the books we're aware that we're reading from Harry's POV, whereas the way it's presented on-screen is as though we're a fly on the wall.

And I don't think I meant to imply that the movies carry more weight than the books.

*ponders*

I think what I meant to say is that if Alan Rickman portrayed Snape solely by his canon lines, we'd have nothing more than a rather 2-dimensional and over-the-top 'mean teacher.' In the books he gets more scenes, we get to see more extensively how he interacts with others (Dumbledore, McGonagall, Filch, Remus,) and we also get Harry's inner thoughts on him - all which make Snape into a more fully realised character for us. The movies don't have that opportunity, so I can see why they might attempt to make it seem as though Snape has other concerns than just being mean to Harry. Not that he's not all about being mean to Harry in the books, but at least there we get the slowly developing picture that it's more about what Harry represents than who he is :-P

..that's not to say I actually like what they did to Snape in the movies. Especially PoA. Don't get me started on PoA.

I'm sure I wouldn't have re-read it on my own either, without y'all to discuss it with.

Well, I'm glad you did. I haven't read CoS since GoF or OotP came out, so the discussion on the house-elves alone made for fascinating stuff :-)

[pauraque]

in the books we're aware that we're reading from Harry's POV, whereas the way it's presented on-screen is as though we're a fly on the wall.

And what I'm saying is that that isn't necessarily true, it's just your assumption. It isn't as easy to tell in a movie when we're in "third-person-limited" and when we're not.

On top of that, I'm also saying that even if the filmmakers did intend to show us a more objective picture of Snape, we aren't under any obligation to take that picture into account!

[atdelphi.livejournal.com]

And what I'm saying is that that isn't necessarily true, it's just your assumption.

Hm. That's a really good point. I suppose that in this case - as there are no scenes without Harry in the movies - we could say they're as equally from his perspective as are the books. Like viewing a pensieve, perhaps. It's definitely partly my own bias (especially as a writer, I think.) When I read the books, I'm very much aware of everything being filtered through Harry's perspective - of JKR being the real narrator behind this unreliable one. Whereas with film, I consider it to be straight from the filmmakers to me, with no intermediary.

Then again, in discussing the books I've come across people who take Harry's POV as gospel (leading me into endless arguments over whether or not Squibs can see Dementors,) which seems comparable to the way I view the films. I wonder if viewers of the movie who are involved with filmmaking themselves are as naturally critical as I am with the books...?

But at any rate, I definitely agree that we're under no obligation to take the filmmakers' vision into account. I don't consider the movies to play any part in canon - they're almost like fanvids or fanart in a way. Pretty interpretations, but quite separate from the real thing :-)

[pauraque]

Whereas with film, I consider it to be straight from the filmmakers to me, with no intermediary.

I have no experience with filmmaking myself, but I am very interested in the process, and when I analyze a movie I do consider POV. Of course there are movies like Secret Window and Fight Club where tricks of POV are everything, and then also subtler examples like Lost in Translation, which I think invites you to ask why each scene is present in the movie... in other words, why the characters remember these particular events so vividly.

I definitely see the HP movies as fan art. I don't think we can do otherwise without driving ourselves crazy trying to figure out how much JKR actually approved. It seems to me that she's very wisely not tried to micro-manage the filmmaking process, letting them produce their own interpretation without worrying that it isn't exactly like the book (or exactly like the previous movies, as we see with PoA).

my two cents

[caesia390.livejournal.com]

I think you're both right. I think that Harry POV in the books is more along the lines of single-person (dual when you count Rowling) story-telling - we know exactly what the point of view is, exactly what biases the character has. To achieve an identical effect in the movies, I think you'd get something much more stylized, much more characatured. Something very surreal, obviously from a single point of view and probably somewhat unsettling to watch. I think that the film-makers intentionally toned it down. Harry's POV is indirect here - the audience must see an eleven-year-reacting disproportionately -to an adult situation, but not totally, as the audience is themselves assumed to be significantly composed of children.

However, the movies are not completely objective - they strongly reflect the tone of each books if not all the particulars - and more strongly, perhaps, each film-maker's bias.

Chris Columbus tells kid stories (poorly). Cuaron wanted to indicate the onset of coming of age.

The movies are not canon (NOR SHOULD THEY BE!) but rather interpretations, and each interpretation reflects different things the film makers had drawn out of canon and wanted to portray.

(I think Alan's really too old to play spastic-spitting-mad-with-rage PoA Snape anyway)