A very interesting discussion was born in the Carry on Camping thread brought forth by SarahW:

QUOTE(SarahW @ Aug 19 2008, 04:02 PM)

The issue with the Deluminator, is that for 6.5 books it was a device to remove light. Then, suddenly, it developed the ability to detect the location of lost friends and also teleport the owner to them. I try to avoid the phrase, but lots of critics think of it as the worst type of Deus Ex-Machina.

Starlesswinter posted the following:

QUOTE(starlesswinter @ Aug 19 2008, 06:23 PM)

Oh, and the deluminator thing...it IS a deux machina, in my opinion, because its other abilities were not even hinted at before. When Jo foreshadows in that awesome subtle way she has, you can tell it was planned. But things in Deathly Hallows such as the Deluminator, each of the Hallows, the flesh memory Snitch (which I can't seem to find in Quidditch Through the Ages, hm...): these weren't hinted at whatsoever, and I don't buy that they were planned.

And davidenglish the following:
According to wikipedia deus ex machina is defined as follows:

QUOTE

It is an improbable contrivance in a story characterized by a sudden unexpected solution to a seemingly intractable problem. The term "deus ex machina" came to mean any inferior plot device that expeditiously solves the conflict of a narrative.

Several posters have discussed in insightful detail that many of the plot lines unearthed in DH were a bit unbelievable and were contrived by Rowling at the last minute. In addition, some feel that the things that we learn are improbable and we as readers were never given any hints in previous books in the series.

Others feel that Rowling did a brilliant job in interweaving her complex plot, and we learned everything we needed to know, as it was planned and Rowling succeeded in making her plot believable and enough plausible hints were given to the readers.

So, let's discuss deus ex machina as a plot device in the series, its pros and cons and remember to give canon evidence to support your theories

I would like to thank SarahW, starlesswinter, davidenglish, roonwit and all of those posters who have contributed to the discussions so far and who have inspired this thread

Actually, I tend to think that its other abilities simply didn't exist in the earlier books, and Dumbledore only added them when he was planning what he was leaving to the trio to help their quest, and needed a somewhat useful object to leave to Ron to help him return after he found the quest too tough.
When I first read it I am sure I had heard the idea of the snitch having a memory about who touched it somewhere before, though I have failed to find any reference subsequently. But the Hallows were definitely planned, because two of them are mentioned in previous books.

I agree with the idea of Albus modifying the Deluminator to work as a teleporter, in case Ron lost his way.

As do I The Deluminator was a creation of Dumbledore to begin with, so being so familiar with its magic, it is absolutely feasible that Dumbledore modified this object, and in fact I believe he very well did so. So, I can't say that this object reflected any deus ex machina, as the Deluminator was a very probable contrivance, and not some inferior plot device thought up at the last minute because of a plot hole Rowling had to correct.

I like the way you describe the gifts given to the trio, davidenglish; very insightful Ron certainly matured in DH and he was illuminated to his faults and weaknesses.

Well of course, Jo SAYS that she planned it all out, but where's the evidence? I'm sorry, but when it's clear she planned a lot of things toward the beginning and middle of the series (and some such as the subplots of Snape and a few Horcruxes at the end), there are no CLUES for this later stuff being discussed at all.

Where is the information about the Snitch's flesh memory in Quidditch Through the Ages or in the series itself? It's not there....and why wouldn't it be in a book about the history of Quidditch?

If she had planned the Deluminator to make a change later, don't you think she would have had Dumbledore use it to perhaps find the Dursleys rather than take away the lights at Privet Drive?

As for the Hallows being planned...

1) We were never told anywhere in the series that there were no such things as real invisibility cloaks or even hints that they don't last forever. Ron's heard of them, but he never once notices that there anything odd about Harry's?

2) The Resurrection Stone was only ever mentioned in book six (which is proof only that Jo planned that at least through the writing of HBP).

3) If the Elder Wand's bloody trail is all over the pages of history, why were there never any hints or mentions of this supposedly fabled wand? Not even in a saying or as a "swear" phrase? Not as a joke from Luna or in the pages or table of contents of the Quibbler?

4) If the wizarding world knows the Tales of Beedle the Bard so well, why did no one ever mention them in passing? Not Mrs. Weasley reminiscing about reading them to her kids? Not sitting on a shelf in Flourish and Blotts as Jo lists the books Harry sees?

If anything, this is Jo's way of taking items that had no further use to the overall story and making them into something new at the last minute; therefore, she was previously unable to hint at them. I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with that (and it's clever in a lesser way), but since Jo has always made a big deal out of her gigantic planning from the very beginning, and since there is sufficient evidence for many earlier things, why is there none for such seemingly important elements to the last and vital book in the series?

Just in case I get attacked for this post, I do LOVE this series, but I just don't have to think that Jo is the goddess of plot as well.

I won't attack you at all, starlesswinter, but I will politely disagree with you on several points if I may When Rowling says that she has planned all of these elements I believe her, however, as a reader I don't expect to find hints about them, especially if such a hint will spoil it later on. So, I don't think we need clues to verify whether or not Rowling planned these elements or not. The element of surprise and interest would be lost if I had an eye opener every time something was mentioned.

The important elements you point out to in your previous post: I will briefly mention:

1. Why would Rowling give us a hint about whether or not real invisibility cloaks exist? What would this have brought to the story? There really was no place for it. Very early on the reader probably knows that Harry's cloak is special, but of course how special it is can only be learned in DH. So why spoil this?

2. What more could have been said about the Resurrection Stone? And why do we the readers need to know its significance in earlier books? Having it mentioned in HBP is early enough and the storyline blends right into the conclusion in DH.

3. The Elder Wand; this was a closely guarded plot line. Why would I as a reader want to know all about it ahead of time?

4. Same goes for Beedle The Bard. Why did Mrs. Weasley have to mention it in order for readers to believe that these tales were popular and plausible?

And if something was taken at the last minute and elaborated on, then I have to give kudos to Rowling for being so brilliant!

So, these camping scenes to me reflect what others have said, and I like what ELC says about "relationships never being static". Even if the adventure slowed down a bit, nothing has been taken away from the plot; in fact, I believe it added many more deep and ponderous facets

I do think that she introduces us to the Deluminator in the very first pages of the book to keep us questioning and wondering in the back of our minds throughout the Series. I don't think it unusual to find that something rather ordinary has hidden talents, which aren't so obvious on first appearance.

My guess that taking the lights away on Privet Drive was to disillusion any Muggle, who might have been looking out the window at the time Hagrid was expected to make his appearance on the flying motorbike. It is much easier to think that "I must have been seeing things" or "I shouldn't mention it..they might think I'm hitting the sauce again ", when the action takes place in the dark, as opposed to being lit up. When a child complains of monsters in the closet, one common parental solution to get the child back to sleep is to keep a nightlight on. It illuminates or makes known to the child that they have nothing to worry about. On the other hand, when dealing with Muggles, it would be necessary to take away the light - keeping them safely in the dark about Magic and letting them get on with life believing: what I don't know won't hurt me!

By the time we get to DH, JKR had given us many clues to expect that the Deluminator had other properties. Rowling remains faithful to the concepts she introduces, through which we are meant to learn along with Harry, in figuring out for ourselves the most logical outcome - or at least where she was going with it. She spends a lot of time with potions and the principles of alchemy, inviting us between books to investigate further the real life references she drops casually (or not so casually) within each volume. The references to Nicholas Flamel could end up making a connection between The Philosopher's Stone and Sir Isaac Newton. Reference to Newton would bring you to Newton's Law of Motion (for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction), planting an idea which could make you wonder if the same principles apply to object in the Potterverse. Throughout the Series, there is an underlying theme of balance (male/female, body/soul, light/dark, black/white, give/take etc) which if the story is to remain true to itself, the answer must be "yes".




I do respect your opinion, but for the reasons I mentioned above, I think she is (if not a goddess ), most definitely a very talented Master in the Department of Plot Research and Development.

That would give away too much too soon. We like the rest of wizarding world are supposed to think it is just a useful gadget for manipulating light. In particular the Ministry isn't meant to know of its extra powers, nor is Ron, or he would most likely give the wrong reaction on receiving it. So it makes perfect sense that Dumbledore would conceal its extra powers (whenever they were added) so they would be discovered at the right time (and if for example Ron knew of its ability to find Harry and Hermione again, he might well have deliberately left it behind when he stormed out, because at that moment he didn't ever what to return).
However, we a sreaders should have been asking questions about the deluminator when we first saw it, because it is device with no strong reason for being there, or for appearing again in OotP, and as with the unexplained character in a murder mystery, that should have set alarm bells ringing.

My goodness, Starlesswinter, you've given us quite a bit of "work" to do here!
If I could perhaps understand you less directly than you intend, could I -- for lack of argument's sake -- offer you a lemon drop? Don't worry, I believe it is quite harmless. You see, the non-magic people in Harry Potter know nothing of "the wizarding world;" and in fact, many new readers about Harry Potter understand it even less. We therefore take it for granted that if you fancy lemon drops, you might accept one. Yet Professor McGonagal is not from "our" world, and therefore is not so trusting of this delicious treat.

The Deluminator (or "Put-Outer," as it was called in HP PS/SS and OotP), on the other hand, is a magic device. Is it the first such device to be introduced in the series?? Yet I believe the truly magical effect of this (literary) device is easily missed. Curiously, it is the beginning of a desensitization process. I dare say that we readers are the true beneficiaries of this "magic." Many of us are lulled into a state of "mis-believing." The normal and natural become absurd; and the unnatural and "unacceptable" now are common place. Thus we are "delusioned" into a state of ficticious rapture.


The Invisibility Cloak is a device of obvious religious significance (to Magic and Non-Magic folk alike), yet not to all cultures of readers. Indeed, don't we learn that on the night James and Lily Potter were killed (Harry Potter Day - 31 October), James did not have the Cloak in his possession? Rather, Dumbledore (by some "trick" of poetic justice) had it in his possession. Yet on what occasion did Dumbledore "return" the Cloak to Harry??? A Cloak to "hide" from Death. ( I wonder if it had been woven from mithril?)

Poetic Justice = The Right to Drive a Verse!

ELC

Well, I'm sorry to have to disagree with you again. As mentioned, Jo hinted at so much that had to do with the first half of the series, and no one picked up on these clues. It wouldn't have spoiled anything! Sirius Black was mentioned in passing in the very first chapter of book one, but no one thought he would become important. The diary was a Horcrux all along, but it was never suspected of being anything more than it was in book two. These are examples of hints for the overall arc of the story. Then there are also the individual book clues, which include things like Pettigrew's and Scabbers's missing finger (I have yet to find someone who caught this before the reveal) and also the four appearances of a beetle throughout Goblet of Fire, which later turns out to be Rita Skeeter. Such hints and foreshadowing are very clever because they do not give away the secrets by drawing attention to themselves. Therefore, I do not buy the idea that hints for Deathly Hallows would have given anything away or have been "eye openers" for the reader. Allow me to further explain in detail:

1. INVISIBILITY CLOAKS: Perhaps the reason this is so irking to me is that it almost feels like a cheat, as if Jo is changing the rules of her universe in order to fit the plot (When analyzing a novel, you must go with the evidence in the book itself, and not upon what characters might have done or said outside the pages). I am not, however, suggesting that Hermione had to walk up to Harry and say, "Oh, you know there's something strange about that cloak of yours, I've always noticed it. You do know, don't you, that those things usually don't last as long as yours?" No, that would be a clear giveaway for later importance to the story. Yet a simple mention by Mad-Eye that he might be late for dinner at Grimmauld Place because he had to purchase a new Invisibility Cloak (meaning in secret that his had begun to wear out of magic) would pass over the majority of readers' heads. Perhaps Winky or Barty Crouch Jr. could also have mentioned that the cloak Barty used to hide at the QWC was his second or third cloak. ("Master had one when he was young too!" sobbed Winky. "But never for something like this!") as an example of an effective hint. In fact, the use of both of these quotes would only strengthen the idea, for it would be quite a coincidence if Crouch Jr. and Mad-Eye both shredded theirs or had theirs stolen (or something like that).

2. RESURRECTION STONE: Perhaps you are misunderstanding me in this area. We readers do not need to know its significance in earlier books; we just need to be able to go back and see that there are clues there for us to see that the stone within the ring is the Resurrection Stone, even though we didn't catch them. In HBP, we are never told what the Peverell coat of arms looks like upon the ring, and explaining that it looked like a triangle enclosing a circle and a line would NOT have given anything away. Even the symbol's appearance on the UK book cover for DH would not have given anything away. Only when we read Deathly Hallows would it have made sense. Perhaps when Tom Riddle Sr. rides past the Gaunt shack as he tells his girlfriend how crazy Morfin is, he could have mentioned that while Morfin sits in the yard playing with his ring, he hears voices and talks to them. That would not draw any suspicion toward the ring; it would just drive the point that Morfin is a little crazy.

3. ELDER WAND: Again, we did not need to know that there was really an Elder Wand; we just needed to have the small hints. As I said above, this could have been done as "swear" phrase (for lack of a better term) in the wizarding world. Like the wizards say "Merlin's beard!", perhaps "Wand of Elder!" or something like that. I think I remember Ron saying a related aphorism or something like that, but it was definitely in the last book - not earlier. Hermione mentions that Professor Binns talked about the Elder Wand, the Deathstick, Wand of Destiny before, but do we ever read that scene? No. Perhaps after Binns tells the story of the Chamber, someone else could have asked to hear about the Elder Wand, and Binns would refuse. ("Let's get back to fact, Mr. Finnigan!" or something of that sort). We readers also never hear any clues about anything odd going on with Dumbledore's wand. (Perhaps when he hears Ron's wand has broken, Dumbledore could say, "I'm very sorry to hear it. I have been rather lucky with this one. It's never been broken while I've had it." Or perhaps during the Weighing of the Wands, Ollivander could see that Dumbledore's wand is not the same he had years before: "Ah yes, a rather unfortunate happening, but these things happen. A change of hand for the better, I think.") Also, while Harry looks over the table of contents of the Quibbler, there could be a story titled "Elder Wand: Proven at Last?", which would make the idea appear silly. Maybe the use of ALL these hints would draw a little notice, but a few definitely would not. This issue is also very irking to me, because the Elder Wand plays a big role in the defeat of Voldemort. Since the defeat of the Dark Lord is the overall arc of the series, why would something so vital to that plot only be mentioned in the last half of the final book, especially when Jo has been so good about hinting at significant things?

Someone once told me that perhaps Dumbledore being so brilliant was because of the Elder Wand, but there is no evidence for that, and Jo herself said that she saw Dumbledore as being "self-taught."

4. TALES OF BEEDLE THE BARD: The idea that almost all witches and wizards know of these fairy tales is not hard to believe if you think logically about our world, but within the books, they are not even mentioned beforehand. That makes no sense to me. In this real world, one can find allusions to fairy tales all over the place - why not in the series? Sitting on a shelf in Flourish and Blotts or the Burrow would draw no attention. It would be no different than the early mentions of Sirius or the Lovegoods. In my opinion, this would be quite a simple one to setup.

5. DELUMINATOR: Perhaps you are right that the use of the Deluminator to find the Dursleys would give too much away. But its random new powers at the end seem just that: random.

Posted by momwitch: "By the time we get to DH, JKR had given us many clues to expect that the Deluminator had other properties." This might be true to expect that something would have other properties, but not the Deluminator itself. It's not fair to say that because other things were hinted at, it's reasonable that something that wasn't hinted at could hold secrets too. It's like taking into consideration all those wonderful clues in POA and saying, "Well, look what she did in the Shrieking Shack! She clearly planned that, so why couldn't Neville be the son of Dumbledore? I'd believe it!"

As for believing Jo, that's up to the individual to decide. I personally need the evidence for that. I love the series, and interestingly I once sided with all the "planning believers" once I read book six (in fact, I furiously defended it), only to completely change my mind once I finished Deathly Hallows.

Also, if I am completely wrong and Jo DID have all this planned, why would she not hint? I mean, she's usually so good at it, and surely she could have hidden the clues as seemingly irrelevant information as she always does.

I definitely see your point, davidenglish; this is not a "murder mystery" by definition, yet large sections of the book definitely revolve around various mysteries (the location of the Chamber, the person who put Harry's name in the Goblet, what lies behind the DOM door, what the definition of a Horcrux is, for example), and Jo herself said that Harry Potter is in a way a detective story. Perhaps I'm looking too much into this, but I feel a little defensive of this argument because so much is made about Jo "clearly planning" everything out - something she herself says - and I just don't see it. Just to be clear, I am not in any way trying to discredit Jo or to show that she is somehow not worthy of her praise. The stories are wonderful, but I think fans sometimes get a little too carried away in their perception of her creation of the series. Just my opinion.

As I explained above, I would not like "obvious" foreshadowing - just the ability to go back after reading the solved mysteries and find that the clues are there. I would not, however, like to be able to pick these out when reading the first time through; what would be the fun in that? In that way, I don't see how the hints would be problematic. What exactly do you mean by that? Jo's concept of foreshadowing in each individual book is brilliant, I have no doubt about that...but even that does not constitute clear evidence as an early complete plan. When finishing each novel, she could have simply gone back and added clues (I'm not saying she DID for each book. I actually do think that she plans a relatively large amount of each before she writes that one alone). It is in Jo's clues (or lack thereof) for the overall arc of the series that I have doubts about her awareness of future plot development.

1. INVISIBILITY CLOAKS - Still, Mad-Eye's remarks about Invisibility Cloaks are not tantamount to hints about the Hallow. We readers are told that there are types of cloaks, but there is a clear difference in having a distinction between TYPES of something and a distinction between whether or not something is REAL. Mad-Eye and Ron tell us only that cloaks are rare, which does not mean that only everlasting ones are rare. It means that all of them are rare, thus canceling out any reasonable "hint". You and I could have a discussion about different types of medicine that temporarily (and at various levels of effectiveness) get ride of symptoms of a disease, yet we know that at one point that disease will again show itself. Nothing we talk about would have to do with a permanent cure, because in our select dialogue we have no knowledge about that - nothing beyond the temporary (and in the case of reading a book, nothing beyond the evidence within the story). In the pages of Deathly Hallows, no one save Xeno believes in a real Invisibility Cloak.

2. RESURRECTION STONE - You said, "But JKR clearly had the idea long before and so wanted Harry's first caught Snitch to be caught in an unusual way". I'm sorry, for there is no in-text evidence for her early idea for the stone. She says that she planned it that way, but there is no evidence. What I was saying about the Peverell coat of arms is that it would not have hurt the story or given anything away to tell readers what the symbol looked like in book six. In fact, it would have made us gasp and later see the hint because the Hallows clearly fit the design of the symbol we previously read about.

3. ELDER WAND - In Deathly Hallows there is nothing that tells us that Dumbledore was great because he had the Elder Wand. In the Mugglenet/Leaky interview, Jo explained that Dumbledore's brilliance came from self-teaching; he learned it himself. Some readers may think that the new presentation of the character explains that his gifts were not his own, but again there is nothing to show this. So I do not see how this shows that Dumbledore's wand must have been special. I think nearly everyone expected wands to appear in some important form by the end of the series, but this expectation doesn't cover as a real foreshadowing of this particular wand.

4. TALES OF BEEDLE THE BARD - I don't see what other appearances of Wizarding literature, especially a comic book, have anything to do with this singular book. Literature is simply a part of the detailed world. The fact that books are there does not give us a reason to expect an important fairy tale to later appear. This would perhaps be a different case if something unusual kept cropping up, but books?

5. HORCRUX LOCATIONS - As far as these hiding places go, if they had first appeared in the book in which the Horcrux had been found or if there had been some other logical connection, then great. But the fact that a location is simply THERE in an earlier book is not a clue. Now, the early locket appearance at Grimmauld Place is a clue (despite being rather obvious in further readings), and Hagrid's remark about Gringotts being the best place to hide something besides Hogwarts is also a legitimate hint.

Edited by Moderator to correct color tags

The problem with the this is that it's from Harry's POV. So he knows about the Muggle Fairy tales, when he arrives intot he Wizarding world he's grown past reading fairy tales. In fact he isn't really that big a reader for that matter. So I'm not surprised he never looked into this type of book since most of the books he has been reading either deal with Quidditch or School. Why would Ron bring up the subject of the book before now? There's no reason for this book to really be mentioned. Though I guess it would have been nice to see the title of it laying on a book shelf in CoS. That doesn't ruin the story for me though.

But it's not a first person narrative, and other examples of foreshadowing are on a subconscious level. All of Jo's effective hints work this way. And technically, it's not from Harry's point of view, as there is a clear narrator separate from Harry who describes the setting in a way in which Harry would not necessarily do. There are also various opening chapters that have little or nothing to do with Harry.

There was "no reason" for Sirius Black to be mentioned any earlier than POA, to hear the surname Lovegood, or to hear that Trelawney had made two real predictions before OOTP, but they were there....

This doesn't ruin the story for me either, but similar hints could have been done.

starless winter - I totally agree with you about the way that JKR's planning for the end of the series wasn't what it was for the earlier books. The thing is, that a lot of it could be avoided. I'm also a fan of the series. Even though she wasn't the best writer, she was definitely a compelling story teller. I found her world fascinating, the stories enjoyable and the characters flawed and all the better for it.

While I find the opinions of some of the other posters very interesting, I think it's a mistake if too much interpretation is necessary to understand, or rather believe some of the plot . We prove that this isn't just a children's book (I certainly won't see 13 again!), and the purpose of these threads is to enable us to discuss the series at a certain level. However, these books aren't only for us. 8-12 year olds are the target group and should not be excluded from the story. Previously, JKR was excellent at making things work on two levels. Straightforward for children, more open to interpretation and discussion for those of us who are older, have read more, can apply certain analogies etc.

An acquaintance is a teacher, and found that some children have been seriously unimpressed by some of the ideas in Deathly Hallows. The average 10 year old isn't going to fall back on in-depth analysis, to try to explain things, and they shouldn't have to. They simply need it to work at the more basic level, as a story, and sadly it's here that JKR has lost them. Apart from the shippers (shudder!) they apply common sense - or try to. I had some fascinating conversations with him and was interested in how their opinions corresponded with mine (what does that say about me?!).

The Deluminator was one of the most unbelievable items, because it's new abilities were totally unrelated to its existing ones. I'm sorry, but I find talk of Ron being 'illuminated' somewhat tenuous. Especially as, if you asked any fan, they'd call it a 'put-outer' up until Harry's 17th birthday meeting with Scrimgeour. Maybe she thought by changing its name, it might make the sub-plot in DH slightly more credible. However it doesn't help the 'I had it all planned' argument very much - why would the name need changing if she knew where it was all going to go from the start?

If she wanted to remove Ron from the story why not use the mirror better? As it stands, in Book 5, Harry gets a present from his father substitute. I understand that he didn't want to lead him to danger (ironic) but he wasn't tempted to take a peak? At least keep it close by. Talk to him on a regular basis in times of calm when he understood how desperate and lonely Sirius was? Then just apply some self discipline and not use it if there was trouble? Indeed, why didn't Sirius want to have a run-through with him to make sure he understood how it worked?

When Harry was positive that Sirius had been captured, he didn't once think of it, even when Hermione was trying to calm him down? When they were planning how to talk to Sirius, when he was walking into Umbridge's office, when he was waiting for Kreacher to reply - there were too many opportunities for it to be feasible that he never remembered, no matter how upset he was. The way it was written, the mirror made him look a bit of a fool, not a cool-thinking, future Head of the Aurors. At the end, he comes across it when it's too late and simply throws it away with little guilt - after his desperation at Cedric's death. The way it was written, Harry didn't come out of it very well.

It'd have been better if Remus gave it to him at Kings Cross at the end of Book 5. With a touching little note about how much Sirius missed him and how this way they could always be in touch, and how Sirius would always keep the other one close by (like Harry should have done).

That would have been upsetting and touching, rather than make my eyes roll. Perhaps Harry could have even refused to take it when Sirius first tried to give it to him. Then he could feel upset, wishing he'd taken it, but not look quite as silly for not thinking of it lying in his trunk when he did need to contact Sirius.

Remus could also give him Sirius' own mirror, which was in his things at Grimmauld Place, and Harry could give it to Ron so that they could keep in touch over the holidays. 18 months later, if Ron should find himself separated from Harry, there'd be no problem with using the mirror. If it hadn't been mentioned for a while, it'd have the element of surprise, but would lack the undesirable element of 'no way!' , as it'd had already been established. It's not the best solution, but it'd be better than the Deluminator's sudden inexplicable powers. In Malfoy Manor, Harry could simply call for Dobby. I know some people think it'd be thoughtless of Harry to involve the House Elves, but he was frequently thoughtless, to a near fatal level. The mirror proves that in Book 5, using Sectumsempra with insufficient understanding of the potential result proved it in Book 6, and breaking the Taboo proved it in Book 7.

I have other examples, of things that aren't so blatant as the Deluminator. Little ways that things that were in Book 7 could have been foreshadowed earlier, and therefore wouldn't come across as if they'd just been thought of and introduced in Book 7 to solve problems. I'll return later!

I agree completely. She has crafted one of the most enjoyable stories I've ever read, but I don't think her execution was exactly amazing.



Very good point! I hadn't thought of that, yet it seems obvious.

I also had problems with the mirror, and it would really strain things if all of a sudden Jo announced that she had to have Sirius give Harry the mirror so that it would later end up in Aberforth's hands for yet another deus ex machina moment. Completely unrelated to each other... And to be clear about something, there are relatively few of these moments in each individual novel. In fact, I think each is pretty well planned as a singular story; it is mostly when I look at the bigger picture that the deus ex machina appears.

I think, if anything, the point here is that Jo's wizarding world and overall storytelling arc lack internal consistency.

starless winter - I totally agree that the inconsistencies are more obvious when looking over the series as opposed to within individual books. I still think that Prisoner of Azkaban is one of the best children's books I've ever read. Plus JKR then let us know that all the time-turners were destroyed, so that we wouldn't wonder why they weren't used later.

I have to disagree with those who suggested that using earlier books to introduce objects necessary in Book 7 would have necessarily spoilt the surprise - that wouldn't be the case if it was well written. JKR managed it with the locket. When it was mentioned in Book 5, I doubt too many people immediately thought it was of great relevance. And even if they did, they'd have had no idea of how it was important. I was impressed with how simply and effectively she introduced it to the story.

I also don't think it can be argued that she ever decided that it was too late in the game, or unnecessary, to give these types of hints. At the end of Book 6, she gave some obvious ones away. Leading to many people on websites such as this, being sure of what objects the Horcruxes were, that Harry was one (I know, technically he wasn't) where the tiara was, and most of all who R.A.B. was.

When Harry found the note in the not-Horcrux, JKR could have signed it, not with initials, but with a crest. Then when they were at Grimauld Place, and he went into Regulus' room, he could have recognised it on something else and realised that Regulus was their man! That way, people would have been speculating during the two year wait for Book 7, about lots of people - even Snape. The way it was, vast numbers of people had a very good idea of his identity - how many other characters had the initials R.B.?

Invisibility Cloak - When Harry is showing the cloak to Ron in Philosopher's Stone, Ron is saying he'd really like one. Then Harry reads the note saying it belonged to his father. Ron could say "No way! Invisibility cloaks start fading after a few years. This one still looks brand new - it must have been really expensive!" Then Harry could feel unsure that it belonged to his Dad (as in the book), yet proud that his father owned something so special, and such a good one. I doubt readers would automatically start waiting for the Cloak to be part of a greater plan, they'd just think it was a particularly good one. The cloak was already more then integral to the plot just as it stood. Yet looking back, we'd realise that we'd been given a clue that it was special.

Perhaps Xeno could also mention that whilst the cloak was stronger than any other, it was not infallible (thus stopping awkward questions as to why Moody saw through it). More that it was permanent, unlike other cloaks, as well as of the best quality.

Tales of Beedle the Bard - When Hermione is petrified in Book 2, Harry and Ron are visiting her. Harry says that Muggles believe people in this state can hear things around them, so Ron starts to tell her the Story of Three Brothers. When after a couple of lines, Ron says "Then they met Death himself" Harry shuts him up, saying that that the story is hardly ideal, considering her situation. The next line could be along the lines of {Instead, Harry told her the Muggle story of 'Cinderella' with a sulky Ron heckling him all the way. "Cinderella? What's that - a disease?"} The whole thing would only take a small paragraph, and we'd have been introduced to the existence of special stories for magical children. That's all we needed just then - not necessarily the Bard's name, certainly not the history of the Peverells, just the existence of the stories. It'd have looked totally pre-planned, but given nothing away. No way would anyone have predicted the Master of Death story line from that!

Elder Wand - The whole issue of wandlore is massive when discussing Deus Ex Machina, and I don't have time to go into it now. A the most basic level though, perhaps Olivander could touch briefly on the Elder Wand when discussing wands in Book 1. That seems a good place, seeing as wand lore is already being discussed. Plus Luna's dad (again) could explain that while the mythology around it said it was infallible, in reality it simply increased your powers tenfold. Then not only would it still make sense that people were willing to kill for it, but it would also prevent those tricky questions as to how Dumbledore managed to beat Grindlewald. If it was unbeatable, it didn't make sense, but this way, all Dumbledore had to do was reach an incredible level, which we know he did, where he was so much better that he could over come him (and it)

The problem with the camping scene (sorry!) was that because I didn't find it as engaging as the previous books, my mind started to wander. That was when I really noticed the things that I'd have previously ignored. Things that seemed to suddenly appear, specifically to solve problems in Book 7. The locket proved that she could introduce a soon to be vital item subtly, with some style. Harry thinking he saw a dragon in Book 1 at Gringots proved the same (and left people in no doubt that that scene at least, was always planned). I just feel that some other things weren't as well handled.

My problem with having foreshadowing explaining that the Hallows weren't really infallible and the corresponding idea that therefore we should be told things about them (and flesh memories etc etc) earlier is that it's explained in DH that the Tale of the Three Brothers is a legend that arose around 3 objects. The objects themselves didn't really belong to Death; they were powerful things made by powerful brothers and a story arose around them that made them seem better than they really were. So making a big deal of the cloak and the wand etc etc in other books (and really enough fuss was made of the cloak; you can't say it was ignored in the other books) to me would have made the whole thing far too contrived. There are enough 'oh wow' moments for me ... any more, like 'oh gee that's that powerful wand that Ollivander mentioned in book 1' would just have felt overdone. I think there can be too much detailed set-up, and the gentle use of familiar things in new ways doesn't feel 'improbable' or 'too convenient' in this world.

I don't tknow. For me a Deus Ex Machina has to be something that can't possibly exist within the rules of the world, so if a spell had caused Dumbledore to come back to life to explain it all and sort it out that would be a Deus Ex Machina. But using things that have previously been introduced in a new way to me doesn't count. The snitch was clearly discussed in book 1 ... the way Harry caught it was dwelt upon. Just because no-one then went 'oh, see snitches have flesh memories' doesn't mean it's improbable. The way it comes up is entirely plausible given that we know Harry and Ron aren't big readers and Hermione got the knowledge out of a book. The fact that there are shown to be several wizarding versions of muggle books means that a wizarding book of fairytales is entirely probable and so caused me no concern when they came up. It was obvious they would exist because wizard household hints books and cookery books do. Everything that can be seen as a Deus Ex Machina has some solid basis in at least 1 previous book, so it all makes sense within the world and none of it seems contrived (at least to me). It's possible that I have immunity to this type of 'deus ex machina' (in quotes because I don't see them as such) because I had the misfortune to read Peter F. Hamilton's Knightsdawn Trilogy, which has an actual Deus Ex Machina (yes, an actual sleeping God) swoop in and save the day. It was so contrived, so much an 'I have no idea how to get myself out of this mess' solution that someone utilising small details from earlier books in different and bigger ways really doesn't phase me at all.

Well, I'm sure your teacher acquaintance's anecdotal evidence is interesting, but we have many children's librarians at the LL and I've not heard that 8-12 year olds were complaining about the storytelling of DH. Indeed, Prof Alan Jacobs of Wheaton College gave an excellent review of DH in Christianity Today, calling it "the greatest pennydreadful ever written". He certainly doesn't think the story lacks for interest for the tween reader.
Well, the Put-Outer or Deluminator is not named before the reading of the Will, is it? I believe it's always the narrator who calls it a Put-Outer. Besides, the name Deluminator is simply a latinate word for Put-Outer.

It's not truly a deus ex machina in that it is introduced to us during the reading of the Will as something that might well have other properties. Each of the bequests has a hidden property. We also know that it is specifically an unique invention of Dumbledore's and not something one can simply pick up at Diagon Alley. (And it is the first magical device we ever see in the books; something Jacobs also finds significant.)

It's a gadget Ron would find cool to own. That it is actually useful and specifically tailored to help him is inherent in the Will's purpose. And it only leads Ron back to the location where the other two are, it doesn't reunite him. That would be the Silver Doe. But even the Silver Doe is not really a deus ex machina because it has appeared to give the illusion of divine intervention. The sword has been planted and Prof Black has been eavesdropping on our Trio.

I don't see really see the point with Sirius' mirror either. It again is there to prove there's no deus ex machina. It doesn't answer Harry after Sirius dies and Harry thinks the blue eye is the late Albus Dumbledore. He is somewhat disappointed to discover it was Aberforth and not a miracle from beyond.
It seems you really want things telegraphed not foreshadowed. But I'd find that just as contrived. It is the casual way that elements are reused and recycled by JKR that has always surprised and delighted readers.

8-12 year olds might be the target group, but I hardly think they are excluded , because she writes in such a way that encourages their natural childhood imperatives in learning through play. In the much shorter and quickly moving first two books, the characters were described to allow easy identification. As the characters become more multi-layered and dimensional, the books expand along with that process, adding more details and progressively learning that things aren't always as they seem upon first impression.

I can certainly see that a child who identifies and roleplays with the character of say, Hermione, would do as much as they can to feel authentic in that process. That would include reading as much information they could on any subject that Hermione has a documented and confirmed affinity for. I do think that any serious Hermione Roleplayer would take the initiative after reading the first book, and learn as much as they could comprehend about logic problems, get a rudimentary understanding of chess, and make a brief investigation into alchemy and Nicholas Flamel. They might also feel a thrill when discovering, just like Hermione, the information they are looking for is in the Restricted Section, perhaps fueling a desire to discover where else their Real World intersects the Potterverse.

I do agree that the switch between "put-outer" and "deluminator" was a bit of a jump, but my guess is that JKR gave that item a simple and straightforward name at first to correspond with the comprehension levels of her young readers as they develop. For example, suppose a teacher is giving a lesson on identifying leaves and seeds for different species of trees for fourth graders. Would it be better for her to introduce a specific acorn as coming from an Oak tree or Quercus robur ? They are the same thing, but one is the common name, while the other is a botanist's term which further identifies in more detail, which kind of oak it comes from. At that age, knowing that acorns come from Oak trees should be good enough - there will be opportunity for them to investigate the particulars at a later time, once the basics are mastered.

SarahW - I do agree with you on most parts, but I think that some of your examples might be a bit too obvious. Readers might easily catch on to the foreshadowing. But thanks for your support on this issue!

Harry's Horntail - I don't see how you can say that too much setup is a bad thing? If it's very subtle (like all Jo's best clues), why on earth would it be bad? I'm willing to bet a heck of a lot that IF Jo foreshadowed to the level that some fans wanted her to, the majority of readers would be very impressed with her plotting skills. Just the fact that there is so much in the first half of the series and relatively little in the final half is proof enough that she only vaguely knew where she was headed. Why would she NOT foreshadow such "important" plot points? Like I said many times above, no "big deal" would have to be made about these things - simply a sentence or a few words would suffice while remaining effective. The fact that almost nothing was hinted at is what makes this unbelievable to me. It makes no sense to me.

I found it unbelievable that Harry didn't know about flesh memories. He plays Quidditch and read Quidditch Through the Ages (which he says was an interesting read.) And again, it's not as if someone had to immediately tell Harry about flesh memories after he caught the first snitch. (See my Invisibility Cloak example in an earlier post). Doing so would be an obvious "Oh, look at ME! I'm a CLUE!" There is no reason that this simple little information could not have been thrown into any given conversation (more or less) throughout any earlier book.

It's not that a book of wizarding fairy tales is improbable; in fact, it's nearly the opposite. They are perfectly probable, which is why I'm so baffled why they (even the title alone) could not have been mentioned by any character prior to Deathly Hallows.

davidenglish - The things you mention are perfectly fine in Deathly Hallows. They are foreshadowed in that book alone, and that's ok. But what SarahW and I are speaking of is on the level of the entire series. We simply wanted to know that Jo planned the overall arc to the level of detail that she has for each individual book. As for the mirror, it's more that its first use and later use are completely unrelated. I mean, this is of relatively little importance to me; I dont' really care for the mirror. But Aberforth's use in DH is a bit of a deus ex machina, as he just happens to be the only one in the village who hears the Death Eaters, the one shopowner right next to where the trio is, and also Dumbledore's brother. This I find interesting as well, for there were plenty of early hints that the Hog's Head barman was Aberforth, yet he truly did not amount to much in this book. He saved Harry in Hogsmeade and sent Dobby, but nothing of real significance to the plot.

This is a top example for me that Jo did not have a detailed plan for her future story. Aberforth is not crucial, but he was foreshadowed many times. The Elder Wand, for example, is crucial, but it was never foreshadowed. So let's say that Jo knew all along that Aberforth would show up (so she hinted) but not that the wand would (and so she had no reason to hint).

momwitch - I don't agree with your reasoning behind the name change; that's pure speculation. To say so would imply that Jo is still writing mainly for the select group of readers who were young when the books began. It is true that the book mature, but the changing of proper terms in the world is a bit lazy and doesn't defend the "I planned it all out" argument at all. I suppose it's possible that she did this, but I don't really think it's a great move.

Another example of this is the Trace; this magic is frequently talked about in just about every prior book and never once given a name. Then, all of a sudden, it has one. And it's fine that Jo can "change her mind" - it's her world - but it just doesn't give the impression that everything was thought out well before anything was written. By the seventh book, the world is no longer consistent.

bold mine

You are correct, starlesswinter, a guess is pure speculation! But I do think that JKR encourages her readers' guesses and speculations and sought for a means to promote it, evidenced through this exchange between Dumbledore and Harry at King's Cross:

DH, Scholastic, p 710
bold mine

The King's Cross chapter has been likened in other threads as Harry's confrontation with the Wisdom aspect of himself, with Dumbledore personifying that essence as a tangible source. This moment is the culmination of 7 years of learning within the Wizarding World of Hogwarts...which implies a progressive movement towards this critical moment of self-realization. The contemplative monotony of the camping is re-visited through the section which I bolded, emphasizing the growth that Harry has achieved in this time, yet juxtaposed with the restlessness which Voldemort's soul particle still exhibits...Voldemort is not wise and has not reached this point - it is also something which he understands not, and which contributes to his ultimate downfall.

I do believe that JKR was a teacher (of French, wasn't it?), and most good teachers move in babysteps to facilitate their students in reaching a point of true learning, or mastery, like Glinda the Good says to Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz: "You wouldn't have believed me, you had to learn it for yourself." Taking guesses is just one step in that process. A guess can later be a proven as a "bad choice", but you have to commit to something, based upon your own speculation - and not someone else's, this is true courage. Without it, it would be unlikely this point of realization, or wisdom, will ever come...that is the real measurement of what has been truly learned.

starlesswinter - Always willing to agree with someone who can greatly admire JKR's work, yet also be disappointed by some of the later plot holes and Deus Ex-Machinas used to fill them.

I actually think my previous examples were ok as methods of introducing items that would later become key. (The exception being the Elder Wand - I have no idea how to introduce that, but then I'm not an author!) The idea being that even if a reader did notice that there was something special aout them, they'd never be able to predict how and why. Unsubtle foreshadowing is far better illustrated by JKR at the end of Book 6, with RAB and revealing maybe too much information about the Horcruxes, when we then had 2 years in which to unravel key parts of her plot.

Harry's Horntail - you said that "a Deus Ex Machina has to be something that can't possibly exist within the rules of the world." I agree that that is one of the worst type of all. Well I see the Elder Wand as just that. We saw people disarming each other throughout the series, both in practice and in earnest. There was never any hint that they lost power over their wands. Then suddenly that's exactly what would happen. I found myself putting down the book and picking up Book 1 to check Olivander's original speech. No mention. This caused even more disquiet amongst certain fans than the Deluminator. At least that simply grew a new power. The apparent changes to wand lore changed what was previously accepted as a rule of JKR's universe.

JKR has given various interviews since Book 7 was published, with more details of wand lore and other things relating to DH, but it still doesn't tie together. Plus, for the vast majority of readers who don't read her interviews or go on line (surely more than 90%) they have to go (as should we) by what's in the book. I don't mind if she gives interviews to discuss who ended up with who etc (yawn!), but things relating to understanding the actual plot should be in the book. That's her legacy. A child born today, should be able to pick up the series in 2019 and enjoy it without having to Google her old interviews.

As with other problems, it was also relatively easily settled. At Shell Cottage, Olivander, whilst stating how wands usually behave, could also state that The Elder Wand, driven by the hunger for power or something, behaved differently to other wands. Then he could explain that if you overcame it's holder forcefully, then you became its master etc. All the arguments/confusion over wand lore would be eliminated. We could still keep all our existing understanding of how it worked, and simply add a new rule that pertains to 'Master Wands'

It'd still be a new concept, introduced late, but as Deus Ex-Machina go, that would be far preferable to completely changing the rules of her own world. An act which is totally incompatible with a story that's been planned from the start.

In fact, in Book 1, Olivander could say that the majority of wands chose their owner and stay loyal, and leave it at that. Then, when devoted fans started to look back at wand lore, JKR would have that loop hole as well, having allowed for the fact that some wands behave differently.

David English - I don't want things telegraphed - that's exactly what JKR did when mentioning R.A.B. and who couldn't work out who that was? I really made it clear enough in my previous post, that I thought that was a mistake. My issue was that some things weren't foreshadowed AT ALL. No hint in 6 Books, then suddenly vital to the plot. That's when the mumbles of Deus Ex-Machina starts. I'm not 'delighted' by items being recycled in ways that I perceived as not being credible, especially if this recycling is 'casual' and therefore not sufficiently thought out.


Sorry, I don't have time to discuss 'The Trace' which I also believe changed more than once throughout the series. By Book 7 it was completely different in order to facilitate the story at the time. However I have enjoyed being part of this discussion.

Well, we don't know that Harry doesn't know about the properties of Snitches. The line in the book says Harry and Ron were surprised by Hermione's interjection as they "considered Hermione's Quidditch knowledge negligible." Indeed, Hermione is simply thinking like Hermione, using logic. Presented with the problem "Why would Harry's first Snitch be a perfect hiding spot?" She can see the usefulness of the flesh memory. It isn't a question of Harry not knowing this, but of not thinking that such an enchantment, used for one purpose, could be used for another.
Again, the point is that they are fairy tales. The point is that they are supposed to be trivial, childish, inconsequential. Scrimgeour is the one who raises the questions of codes and secret messages. She spends much of the camping studying the tales for codes and secret messages and finds the emblem of the Hallows. However, it's the interpretation of the tales that's more to the point. Indeed, it is Hermione who, when presented with the prospect of the Hallows being real, values the Cloak most of all. She's the one who has understood the metaphor and it is she who acts to protect Xenophilius before they escape.

Well, Aberforth is not a deus ex machina. The Trio arrive at Hogsmeade near the spot where Harry and Dumbledore disapparated the year before when they went to the Cave. That was next to the Hog's Head. There is a curfew and I'm sure many villagers are peeping through their windows. But once it's clear that it is Harry in the street, who is there but Aberforth to save the Trio?

I'm sorry, but I must disagree with you about Aberforth. He's the key to the Deathly Hallows. He's the only living witness to the death of Ariana. And his tale of the duel between him and Gellert Grindelwald is central to understanding Dumbledore and his philosophy of love. It was empathy born of remorse.

Aberforth is crucial. He is at the heart of understanding Harry's mentor. And it is essential we hear Aberforth's story. The Elder Wand? Well, we know that Dumbledore's wand must be powerful as he was the only wizard Voldemort feared. But, once it is understood, it's use is almost an anticlimax. Indeed, that's what JKR wanted. The showdown, she said, was decided by two teens wrestling without the use of magic. And Harry returns the Elder Wand to Dumbledore's tomb where it will cease to be unbeatable.

If Harry knows, then why don't we know as well? So Harry is allowed to know some things and let the reader be aware, but, when the plot calls for it, not others?


This could have easily been done by the title being brought up and then dismissed by any character. I don't think your point about them being "trivial" holds up very well, because the very idea of foreshadowing is that the reader will initially find whatever is foreshadowed to be trivial - to be of no importance to the plot - only to later uncover that it IS important.


What? I don't understand...


It is Aberforth's STORY that is crucial, as he was merely a witness to his brother's doings. I don't think that if his role in the Dumbledore/Grindelwald tale were taken by another character, the significance of the role in DH would be much - if any - different. He is there to tell about Albus. The focus on "The Missing Mirror" chapter is Albus and how the Ariana story affected Albus. I do think he is important to book seven alone, but he's not crucial to the tale...and definitely not to the overall arc the series.


Again, I don't know how anyone comes to this conclusion. Since when has power been demonstrated by the wand itself? Has the wand not always been a vessel for the power within the wizard? Just because Dumbledore was ripped to shreds in book seven, it does not mean that his greatness and his power was never his own.


Ever since finishing Deathly Hallows, I've thought that she should have saved some of the Horcrux information for the final book. For being a setup for DH, book six didn't really do its job - the Horcruxes almost took a back seat.


Haha, fair enough!

When you speak of speculation, however, I think there's a difference between speculating in terms of plot and differentiating in terms of the conception of the plot.

I'm really enjoying that we can all be serious and mature when arguing here, too. Just thought I'd add that in.

Um, well, yes. This is not a first person narrative. Although the narrator remains focused on Harry most of the time and can move in and out of his mind with ease, she is still an omnescient narrator. And we don't know everything Harry knows. We certainly don't see all of the Quidditch games or practices. We don't sit through every class. And we don't get to read the Daily Prophet except when the narrator chooses.

The narrator often chooses to allow us to see more than Harry sees. She occasionally allows us to see things Harry can't see, such as Snape at Spinners End. And sometimes we are limited to what Harry sees. But we never see or know 100% what Harry sees or knows.

On the matter of a snitch's flesh memory, why would we need to know this? Has there been a disputed catch during the story? No. Is the plotpoint so important that it saves the day? No. All the trick does is reveal what Scrimgeour suspected, that something is hidden in the Snitch. (And we ought to recall that Harry nearly swallowed his first snitch, so we might anticipate what it takes a few moments for Harry to realize.) Alas, Harry's kiss doesn't open the snitch. Not then.
I think that would be telegraphing a plot point. We are told by Ron that they're fairy tales. And neither Harry nor Hermione have ever heard of them, so why should we. And, of course, what would be the point of knowing something before them. The fact is that Hermione doesn't know if the book contains a code or secret message ~although she eventually finds the sign for the Hallows marking one of the tales. But then we are actually treated to a reading of that tale. Are we not to be as utterly bewildered by it as the Trio? Of course we are. It's as Ron said when he returned, Dumbledore knew what he was doing.
Merely a witness??? He is both the only eyewitness and a suspect. And it's not just about Aberforth, but about Ariana of the Labyrinth and the Fall of the House of Dumbledore. The family is destroyed in quick order. And Aberforth never recovers from that incident; he was as destroyed as his father, mother and sister. And, no, it isn't all about Albus. It's about the concept of Love and the Greater Good and Death. And the story of Aberforth and Albus are threaded throughout the tale.

It is Aberforth who catches Snape listening at the door and who keeps Albus informed of who Tom Riddle came with when he applied for the DADA job. And, sadly, it is most likely Aberforth who accidentally killed his sister Ariana. Aberforth reveals the meaning behind the second Biblical epitaph. And Aberforth is cast as a kind of Rick from Casablanca
Ah, of course Dumbledore was the greatest wizard of his age. And that had nothing to do with the Elder Wand. He defeated Grindelwald. And we really don't know how he did that. But we've been treated to snippets of wandlore in all seven books. Wand and Wizard are linked. The wand chooses the wizard and the Elder Wand always chooses the victor. Mind you, wands are a bit of a red herring. I agree with the KC Dumbledore that the Elder Wand is the least of the Hallows.

BTW, I don't see how Harry could have used Sirius' two-way mirror. He didn't open the package until after Sirius had died. And Sirius had only said it was something that would let him know if Snape was giving Harry a hard time. Harry suspected it was a distress signal or some such emergecy hailing device. He was never aware that it was a two-way communication device.

Again, the mirror's use was to underscore that Sirius was dead. And later to reveal that the watchful eye ~and it's no accident that the eye is in a triangle~ was not Albus but Aberforth. That is, it was not divine intervention but human intervention that sent help.

I myself said these very words in this thread.


But I'm not talking about unimportant, silly information here...


I've just said many times that the foreshadowing does NOT need to be an obvious moment. Future important information does not need to be revealed along with other important plot points. Scabbers's missing toe is revealed when Ron buys his rat tonic - an event of little significance to the plot. No one thinks anything of that until they finish the book. This could easily have been done when, for example, Oliver Wood is explaining to Harry the rules of the Quidditch balls or when James is playing with the snitch in Snape's worst memory (explaining why it doesn't fly away).


How on earth do you come to that conclusion? What I've described is the nature of foreshadowing. It's how Jo's effectively done it for other plot points.


We've both said that it's not always from Harry's point of view... Anyway, my POINT is that Harry's never heard of them, and that makes no sense to me.


It's a good thing there was that chapter "Spinner's End" then, so that we wouldn't know about the Unbreakable Vow before Harry.


It's good to know someone knew where they were headed.


Where did this "of the Labyrinth" title come from?

The "depth" of Aberforth's character does not make him important. He is still there to make sense of his brother; in other words, he wouldn't be in this book if not to serve the story of Albus and the idea of the Greater Good. I think the concept of Love is clear enough without the addition of Aberforth, and don't get me started on the flimsy way death is handled in the series.


So...how does this serve your argument that Dumbledore's wand must have been special?


Well, of course he didn't; that would make Harry smart.

Sorry, my mistake.
I'm sorry, but I find foreshadowing one of those overused words ~and often misused. It's something of a minor literary device that's been elevated to special status by Hollywood hacks.

The fact is there is no need to mention flesh memory as there is nothing for us to work out or remember until the reading of the Will. Such information would be extraneous and would likely have readers expecting some dispute on the Quidditch pitch. And why would that be? The flesh memory merely advances us to the real puzzle, What's in the Snitch?

I'm sorry, but I find this insistence to have the reader prepared for everything that happens, whether there's a need or not, to be hamfisted and distracting. When a flight attendant points out the emergency exits, it does not foreshadow a crash even if a crash occurs. And yet novice writers are taught to "foreshadow" as if this was like adding salt & pepper. Too often it just telegraphs were the author is going with a story and diffuses suspense.

Take Scabbers. The missing toe is unimportant. It serves to identify him. The truly suspenseful element is that he is far too old to be a real rat. What is he? And as we begin to suspect the question proper to be Who is he? The missing toe serves to identify him.
Ariana is a variant of Ariadne. You now, she of the Labyrinth. And, of course, the question of who was Albus really is the labyrinthian question of the book.
Oh, well, if you want to be reductionist, everyone is there to make sense of Harry Potter. Or JKR's childhood. Or death. If you think death has been handled in a flimsy way in the series, then I can only say that this is the parting of the ways. I think we have completely different interpretations of the books and their meaning.

But not if done properly... Improper and unnecessary "foreshadowing" would be hinting that the trio were going to go camping, that they would be returning to Gringotts in the last book, or that Sirius would die by an image in a crystall ball or dream. You are talking about events. But I am not speaking of things that happen here (there is no reason to hint at events); I'm speaking of uses, identities, functions - things of that nature. What would you call this if not foreshadowing?

You're right: the flight attendant example is ridiculous, but that's hardly the same thing.


The missing toe is far from unimportant. The fact that it identifies him is what MAKES it the most crucial element. It's what allows readers to go back and see that "yes! of COURSE it's Pettigrew! Why didn't I put the missing toe thing together?" Without it, readers would think, "Well, that's random." In other words, the fact that Scabbers is old has no relation to Pettigrew. He could simply be a magical rat. Were Scabbers never revealed to be Pettigrew, there would no evidence other than that crucial toe to prove the two were the same. Speculation perhaps, but no solid basis. Thus the toe is the most effective clue.

You seem to view foreshadowing as the placement of something that produces vague questions for the reader and for the answer to be revealed later. However, the best hints are the ones that pass right by the readers.


That's exactly the type of thing a bad foreshadowing would do.

This is along the same lines as Ron being "illuminated". As SarahW said: tenuous.



Harry is the main character, and therefore anything in the books should be helping to serve his story. Snape does so, yet he is crucial because he directly affects the plot and has an arc of his own that is intertwined with Harry's. Aberforth is on a lower level entirely: important as exposition and as a savior in one book alone, yet small in the epic tale.

Death is meant to be a fleeting thing; in one second, it's all gone, and you can NEVER EVER directly connect with that person again except through your memories and through your heart. The big message of book seven was that you must accept this. And yet Dumbledore can talk with Snape through a painting (contrary to what Jo may say, these are not catchphrases) and to Harry in a dream. Phineas Nigellus can communicate with whoever, directly affecting the plot. Harry can call his parents, Lupin, and Sirius back to the mortal world and have a conversation with them. These things only marginalize the power of death in the series because it is no longer permanent. There is nothing in the books that shows readers that there is anything different between having someone next to you and having someone in a painting. I don't care what Jo has to say on the matter; no example tells us otherwise. No main characters are killed except Dumbledore (but he of course planned it); about fifteen secondary ones are, though, but only after/just before being degraded. No character is emotionally held responsible for any deaths in the series. Even Harry, who should be partially responsible for what happened to Sirius, is only briefly angry at himself, and no one ever blames him for it. These characters (as we read them) and some readers are protected from the true weight of death. Even the planning of Dumbledore's death, while serving the "embracing of death" theme, does little to help the other side of things, which is that Harry's grief over the fleeting nature of his mentor's demise was over something that was never fleeting at all and that, in a way, cheats the idea of death as it has been presented in the series.

bold mine

I think this is a near perfect case of foreshadowing. Why is the Snitch called, well, a Snitch? What does the Snitch tell? The whole game of Quidditch revolves around dodging obstacles, to eventually lead the Seeker towards capturing the Snitch! Every seeker looks for answers, and you have to find the elusive, golden, one, to even have a chance to learn what it is you are really seeking. The winning seeker has the answer in his hand (or in Harry's case - it is inside him), but once you have it, how do you use it - what is it really for?

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. It is, of course, the clue that Sirius uses, but we don't know that.

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. What is foreshadowing is that a rat that seems to be more than a rat is attacked and pursued by a cat that seems more than a cat which has emerged from the highest cage. That is, in fact, the story of PoA in a nutshell.

I'm sorry, but there is no foreshadowing involved with Aberforth. I think you need to expand your bag of literary devices and techniques. Ariana/Ariadne is an allusion. And DH involves several journeys into a maze or labyrinth followed by a narrow escape.
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.

Well, I am not sure what you mean by being "emotionally held responsible for any deaths in the series". It sounds vindictive to me. Of course, I don't know what your experience with death has been. I've had a rather close contact with death in the past few years and found the series captured my feelings perfectly.

The portraits in the Potterverse are not alive. And I was not disturbed by Snape's conferring with Dumbledore's portrait as the two had gone over much of this in life and so I don't see that anything unexpected was being said. And Prof Black is and always has been a two-dimensional figure, he's not exactly fleshed out.

The figures of Lupin, Sirius, James and Lily that Harry calls while facing death are not ghosts or the living dead. They are within Harry himself. If one cares to write down the words said by each, one will find that James and Lily hardly speak at all and Lupin and Sirius say what Harry hopes they'd say. Harry can accept this phantom resurrection because he himself is about to die and join them. Where? Well, tellingly, Harry doesn't ask. He's not concerned with death but with dying and leaving the living.

The KC Dumbledore may well, as you say, be a dream. And, of course, does being entriely in Harry's head make it any less real? Nothing the KC Dumbledore says is unknown to Harry. Indeed, the KC Dumbledore keeps prodding Harry for the conclusions that Harry seeks.

I don't understand your nihilistic view of death. I don't think readers have been protected from the true weight of death or that the idea of death has been cheated. Indeed, the theme of the final book is that one's feelings and perceptions of the dead continue to change and evolve. Even death is not permanent. The Dumbledore that Harry saw killed atop the tower at the end of HBP becomes a stranger in DH, but reemerges as an equal.

Just curious, you said no main characters were killed except Dumbledore. So, you don't consider Snape or Voldemort main characters? Or Sirius? And I'm bemused by your suggestion that the secondary characters are "degraded" just before or after being offed by JKR. That's a very waspish opinion.

I posted a long time ago about all the plot holes in DH, but the biggest deux ex machina of them all has got to be Ron faking Parseltongue. I don't think I saw that mentioned here yet...

Never in the previous six books were we given any indication of any kind that such a thing was possible. Parseltongue is one of the things that set Harry apart and made him different from other wizards; it was also one of his links to Tom Riddle (and an indication that he was indeed a Horcrux). To take that away and make such a rare ability so trivial that it could be faked really not only undermined the story but brought JKR down a few notches as a writer, IMO. I was very, very disappointed at such a weak solution to a very real problem.

Gads, over a year later and I'm still upset about it. I mean, the Fidelus Charm gaffe was bad enough, but that could be explained by the fact that maybe JKR didn't realize the limitation she'd imposed on it previously. This one, however, was deliberate. I thought it was weak, contrived, and totally lacking i