Harry's B-day Re: Riddle and Grindelwald in 1945

[huntergreen_3]

No: HPFGUIDX 109325

macfotuk wrote:
>> Always when JKR 'gets it wrong', and yes there have been LOADS of
examples, it is for the sake of the story.

Things like no first year had ever been a quidditch player before HP
is for literary impact, not factual accuracy so that someone
plotting back that Alicia Spinnet must be in year X is nonsense.
Likewise, the elder Weasley kids are long gone but totting up the
numbers doesn't make sense with Gryffindor not having won the house
cup for years. Why is Luicius so old producing his first-born
(Draco) when others must be so young (Percy as Minister of Magic
assistant and HP's own parents almost being teen pregnancy victims).

Lots and lots and lots doesn't match up in the interests of the
story which is, after all, what we love. All the aha! gotcha must
drive JKR mad or bemuse her mightily. <<

HunterGreen:
I think often times her 'getting it wrong' has more to do with 
overanalyzing it, rather than anything being wrong. For example, in 
the case of July 31st, 1991 being a Wednesday, and not a Tuesday as 
its said in the text, I would find it amazing if she had got it 
correct. Nowhere in PS/SS does it state a year, in fact nowhere in 
*any* of the books does it state what the current year is. The only 
reference to what year it is is a math problem done with the year of 
Nick's 500th Deathday Party in relation to the year of his death. I'm 
not saying that that's not accurate, just that I don't believe that 
she started the series with a specific year in mind. Therefore she 
only had a one in seven chance of getting the day of the week right 
in PS/SS, because the series wasn't dated by year then. It was 
considered 'present time' (based on Dudley having a computer and 
video games), but not by a *year*. I can't fault her for this, its 
the reader looking too hard.

Other things that you mentioned could just be the reader getting 
things wrong, or assuming things. It says that there hasn't been a 
first year *seeker* in a century, that doesn't mean there aren't ever 
first year chasers, keepers, and beaters (although a seeker seems 
like it would be most suited to a younger student than the other 
positions). The whole debacle with the number of years since 
Gryffindor winning the house cup not matching up with (Bill or 
Charlie)'s age, could just mean that they won last during (Bill or 
Charlie)'s second or third year and not since. Its us that's assuming 
it HAS to mean his sixth or seventh year, it doesn't say anywhere 
that it is.
When it comes to Lily and James' age when they had Harry, as far as 
the BOOKS (not outside things like interviews) are concerned, we can 
only guess in a five or so year-span (based on Sirius' near-in-age 
cousin marrying Lucius Malfoy who was 41 in OotP). Doing this big 
math problem based on an age she gave for GoF!Sirius (I think this is 
where this fact comes from) during an interview and coming to your 
own conclusion, is not something she's responsible for. I know most 
of what is said in interviews can be taken as truth, but I also 
remember that those are impromptu, not something that she necessarily 
thought deeply about or edited or had anyone else edit. I won't call 
something a book error until the error is 100% from the book (not 
something where the book and the interview contradict each other, 
like in the case of the number of students who attend Hogwarts -- she 
says a number that does not seem to be reflected in the text). I've 
done some writing myself, and I know sometimes what you think off the 
top of your head doesn't always work when you write it. 

Other things are indeed done for plot reasons. Like Harry not seeing 
the Thestrals at the end of GoF. The reason we are given is that the 
death hadn't "sunk in" yet, but we all know the real reason is that 
it would interrupt the story too much at the end of GoF (and it 
would, there was already enough going on without tossing that in too).

Also, we must remember, that at least when she was writing the first 
few books, I doubt she expected readers to be looking this closely at 
the facts and the timelines and all that. Clearly 100% accurate and 
sensical timelines are not something thats a priority to her. It's 
something that she overlooked. So far it hasn't been anything bigger 
than a day of the week being odd (like September first always being a 
Sunday), or Snape appearing to take a long time to alert the order 
when Harry went to the DoM, so I wouldn't worry about it. 

But that doesn't mean its not fun to discuss. (o;