Student Numbers

[naama_gat at hotmail.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 13094

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny & Bryce Linsenmayer <pennylin at s...> 
wrote:
> Naama wrote:
> 
> > To me it reads like a simple statement of fact, albeit imprecise. 
But what is the problem
> > with imprecision in this context? The reader does not need to 
know
> > whether there are a 100, 102 or 97 tables. So "about 100" is 
quite
> > adequete here.
> >
> Well, of course it would be silly to say that there were 97 tables.
> But, why not say there *were* 100 tables (I'm sure JKR didn't have 
it
> worked out that there needed to be 97 tables with 11 seats each to 
seat
> every guest she imagined at the Ball).  Why include the "about"?  
If it
> *is* the narrator stating that fact, why qualify the reference?  
The
> narrator *knows* how many tables there are, right?  I just don't 
think
> the "about" qualifier makes it irrefutable that there were in fact 
100
> tables.
> 

I've thought about the about (see what you're doing to me, Penny? 
<g>) and I've come up with a thought that is interesting and new for 
me, but really very theoretical and obstruse. Be Warned.
It seems to me like this - its not only that "about 100" conveys 
enough information necessary in the context; the 'about' also creates 
the correct context for the reader. That is, the 'about' is a hint 
for the reader that the exact number of tables is not an important 
detail. It serves the narrative by creating the right emphasis or 
de-emphasis. 
To return to the point. My conclusion would be that the 'about' 
doesn't *qualify* the reference; its job is to de-emphasise the 
importance of the detail (which is different from saying that the 
detail is incorrect!). In which case, there *were* about a hundred 
tables at the Yule ball. ;)

 
> > My point was different - it was that the number of
> > students at Hogwarts isn't something she could have conceivably
> > skipped thinking about in years of fleshing out an imaginary 
world
> > whose center is Hogwarts. To me that would be a slip up on a
> > completely different scale than local, plot related 
discrepancies, no
> > matter how important they are. IMHO, of course.
> >
> So, how do you explain the internal discrepancies about the number 
of
> students?  I agree that she probably could not have depicted every
> student in Harry's year if there are indeed roughly 142 of them.  
That
> wouldn't make sense at all.  But, why the 20 broomsticks & 20 
earmuffs?
> This strongly suggests to me that Harry's year is only about 40-50
> students (50 assuming that the Ravenclaws are as much as double the 
rest
> of the Houses in terms of number of students in Harry's year).  
Hey,
> maybe that's why they don't have classes with the Gryffindors.  
They
> need all 20 earmuffs and all 20 broomsticks.  :--)  So, would 
Harry's
> year be *that* different in terms of class size?  I just don't buy 
it.
> 

Like I already said, the evidence in the books *flatly* contradicts 
the 1000 students statement. The only point I'm (trying) to make is 
that we can't just dismiss JKR's 1000-students statement as a simple 
mistake. Because it can't be a simple mistake. JKR *must* have 
thought about the number of students at Hogwarts. Therefore when she 
makes a statement about the number of studnets, it can't be a spur of 
the moment thing. Is there a solution? No, there isn't, its a 
paradox! A lovely, lovely paradox! (where on earth have I read 
this?!)

Naama, who wonders - do mental homes have internet access??