![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackWith puzzles or mysteries, there's a big benefit to consuming ones that are just on the edge of what you can work out.
But what it took me a while to realise was that the same applied to a lot of stories (and maybe real life as well). Like stretching your comfort zone, stretching your understanding by reading things you can follow but only if you work at it, is useful because it gives you practice at understanding things, and *feels* good because it feels like you worked things out.
Not all the time! It's good to read things you can follow easily, for various reasons, and to read things that are beyond you occasionally to see what you can get out of them. Lots of book-loving or precocious children are like these, hoovering up stories they only partly get, but getting a lot of out it.
But there's some particular techniques that rely on the same process, but because they can fail with too much understanding just as much as too little, they only work for some readers.
What Harry Potter Got Right
People love to affectionately and sometimes not-so-affectionately make fun of the Harry Potter books for the heavy-handed-ness of some of the foreshadowing. People say, oh, the character called "Remus Lupin" is a werewolf. Gosh, really *sarcasm*? Did the parents know that was a risk when they named their son Wolf Wolfson?
But really, if you're pitching at pre-teens, that's about right. I think, even amongst highly literate children, the ones who are automatically familiar with latin roots are probably a minority. Yes, I know people who mostly know people who DID know all that from an earlier age, may not believe me, but I think that's probably a more accurate assessment. And even of the children who DO know the meaning of "Remus" and "Lupin", there's probably more who are *vaguely* familiar and think "wait, that meant wolf in the other book, does it mean the same thing here" than ones who know the meaning exactly.
Honestly, even as an adult, I didn't really question the name because I don't usually think in etymologies of names, just accept them as face value, even though I know there's plenty of people who once they know the meaning can't really see the name any other way.
But, the point of foreshadowing is to give clues that make people think "maybe", or think "oh, of course" when they look back on it. If readers don't notice at all, that's usually ok. If it's too obvious, that often undermines the plot (it is possible to make that work but you can't do it all the time).
So, how could JKR have done it differently? I think making the foreshadowing more subtle would have removed more readers from the "sweet spot" than it added. And yes, it was annoying to read for anyone who did know it, but the books are pitched at children with an average level of latin, sometimes that means they're less enjoyable in some ways for other people.
Mysteries, allusions
There's a similar problem with mysteries, except there's not much to be done about it -- some readers will find a mystery obvious and others won't notice it at all, and there's not much you can do.
The same for allusions. They similarly want to be suggestive, not overt. If you say, "this character is like Jesus", you get more arguments, whereas if you manage to hint it without saying outright, people get interested in the idea without explicitly considering it. Like, your brain can only hold so much at once, so if you keep getting hints that line up with something you thought on and off, you feel clever for noticing, but if you just get hints for something you already thought was obvious, it feels like it's just saying so, often wrongly.
Watching media from another culture has often been interesting and sometimes confusing, when you realise you're picking up on different cues than seems to be expected. Sometimes I've watched anime, and thought "wow, I'm missing a lot here". Sometimes I've watched anime and thought "you just slapped a bunch of cross imagery in there but your character isn't like Jesus at all".
I've been watching FMA, and I don't know how this worked in the original, but in the english translation I think that when it turned out that the military dictator called "The Fuhrer" might have been a bad guy, I felt like this didn't really come as a sweeping revelation.
I have sometimes passed through the sweet spot -- had a book I loved and thought was so clever, but then as I got more experienced at reading, thought it raised a bunch of hints that didn't go anywhere, and had to rely on my memory of what I'd previously emotionally engaged with to remember what I liked about it.
Sarcasm, jokes, in-jokes, flirting
The same applies sometimes in the real world: various forms of communication are built on being understood only with difficulty. There are good reasons for this, because sometimes our brains just appreciate that, or it deftly solves a social difficulty. But that deliberately ambiguity obviously also creates a lot of difficulty for many people and in many situations, when people should avoid it. As with fiction, there's a "best for the audience", not a universal "best".
But what it took me a while to realise was that the same applied to a lot of stories (and maybe real life as well). Like stretching your comfort zone, stretching your understanding by reading things you can follow but only if you work at it, is useful because it gives you practice at understanding things, and *feels* good because it feels like you worked things out.
Not all the time! It's good to read things you can follow easily, for various reasons, and to read things that are beyond you occasionally to see what you can get out of them. Lots of book-loving or precocious children are like these, hoovering up stories they only partly get, but getting a lot of out it.
But there's some particular techniques that rely on the same process, but because they can fail with too much understanding just as much as too little, they only work for some readers.
What Harry Potter Got Right
People love to affectionately and sometimes not-so-affectionately make fun of the Harry Potter books for the heavy-handed-ness of some of the foreshadowing. People say, oh, the character called "Remus Lupin" is a werewolf. Gosh, really *sarcasm*? Did the parents know that was a risk when they named their son Wolf Wolfson?
But really, if you're pitching at pre-teens, that's about right. I think, even amongst highly literate children, the ones who are automatically familiar with latin roots are probably a minority. Yes, I know people who mostly know people who DID know all that from an earlier age, may not believe me, but I think that's probably a more accurate assessment. And even of the children who DO know the meaning of "Remus" and "Lupin", there's probably more who are *vaguely* familiar and think "wait, that meant wolf in the other book, does it mean the same thing here" than ones who know the meaning exactly.
Honestly, even as an adult, I didn't really question the name because I don't usually think in etymologies of names, just accept them as face value, even though I know there's plenty of people who once they know the meaning can't really see the name any other way.
But, the point of foreshadowing is to give clues that make people think "maybe", or think "oh, of course" when they look back on it. If readers don't notice at all, that's usually ok. If it's too obvious, that often undermines the plot (it is possible to make that work but you can't do it all the time).
So, how could JKR have done it differently? I think making the foreshadowing more subtle would have removed more readers from the "sweet spot" than it added. And yes, it was annoying to read for anyone who did know it, but the books are pitched at children with an average level of latin, sometimes that means they're less enjoyable in some ways for other people.
Mysteries, allusions
There's a similar problem with mysteries, except there's not much to be done about it -- some readers will find a mystery obvious and others won't notice it at all, and there's not much you can do.
The same for allusions. They similarly want to be suggestive, not overt. If you say, "this character is like Jesus", you get more arguments, whereas if you manage to hint it without saying outright, people get interested in the idea without explicitly considering it. Like, your brain can only hold so much at once, so if you keep getting hints that line up with something you thought on and off, you feel clever for noticing, but if you just get hints for something you already thought was obvious, it feels like it's just saying so, often wrongly.
Watching media from another culture has often been interesting and sometimes confusing, when you realise you're picking up on different cues than seems to be expected. Sometimes I've watched anime, and thought "wow, I'm missing a lot here". Sometimes I've watched anime and thought "you just slapped a bunch of cross imagery in there but your character isn't like Jesus at all".
I've been watching FMA, and I don't know how this worked in the original, but in the english translation I think that when it turned out that the military dictator called "The Fuhrer" might have been a bad guy, I felt like this didn't really come as a sweeping revelation.
I have sometimes passed through the sweet spot -- had a book I loved and thought was so clever, but then as I got more experienced at reading, thought it raised a bunch of hints that didn't go anywhere, and had to rely on my memory of what I'd previously emotionally engaged with to remember what I liked about it.
Sarcasm, jokes, in-jokes, flirting
The same applies sometimes in the real world: various forms of communication are built on being understood only with difficulty. There are good reasons for this, because sometimes our brains just appreciate that, or it deftly solves a social difficulty. But that deliberately ambiguity obviously also creates a lot of difficulty for many people and in many situations, when people should avoid it. As with fiction, there's a "best for the audience", not a universal "best".
no subject
Date: 2019-07-04 05:26 pm (UTC)