[HPforGrownups] Re: At least respect JKR

[Troels Forchhammer]

No: HPFGUIDX 109486

At 05:46 09-08-04 -0400, Cathy Drolet wrote:
>Samnanya-
>"And how exactly is Nick's deathday of 1492 one of her biggest
>mistakes? How can you say that the date is not CRITICAL in oop or
>later books?"
>
>
>DuffyPoo:
>First of all, I will only respond for myself, and not to the whole
>rant you posted.  What I said and what HunterGren said, was
>intelligent, whether YOU think so or not.
>
>As to my comment regarding 1492, all I was saying was, if JKR hadn't
>put that - or any - specific date into the text, all this speculating
>about birthdays, dates the story started, etc, ETC., would not be
>possible.

Not to mention that the whole plethora of conflicting date information
would be a whole lot less confusing -- there is, in the rest of the
books -- nothing that implies that any specific year is intended, and
actually the dating based on Sir Nicholas' deathday cake is one that
is particularly inconsistent with the rest of the dating evidence.

>  I never, once, indicated - or certainly never intended to - that 1492 is
>not, or may not, become very important.  Nobody knew which 'dull, grey
>Tuesday' JKR was referring to in PS until we were given 1492 as reference
>in CoS.    That is ALL I am saying.

If you don't wish to indicate that, then I will.

I do think that putting a specific year on Sir Nicholas' deathday cake
was a mistake, and I am, for myself, convinced that Rowling does not
intend for the books to occur in any particular span of years, but
rather that they occur in some generic 'about now' of our time.

It is, IMO, very noteworthy that in OotP she avoided at least two very
obvious 'opportunities' for confirming the dating when she quoted a
text /except/ for the actual year, where she gave a relative date in
the narrative text. The death of Regulus Black is one example, the
other I'm thinking of is the prophecy record, about which we're told:

   "In spidery writing was written a date of some sixteen
    years previously, and below that:
        /S.P.T. to A.P.W.B.D.
            Dark Lord
        and (?)Harry Potter/"
(OotP-34 'The Department of Mysteries')

An obvious chance to settle the dating issue once and for all -- all
she had to do was to give the actual date instead of the relative date
as Dumbledore later repeats the relative dating ("On a cold, wet night
sixteen years ago").

If anyone's interested in the various clues to the dating, the best
analysis I have seen is, in all modesty, my own, which can be read at
<http://www.hogwarts-library.net/reference/Harry_Potter_timeline.html>
and
<http://www.hp-lexicon.org/timelines/timeline-mapping-tf.html>

>I have a great deal of respect for JKR.  While I believe she is a very
>intelligent woman and a good writer, I don't think she walks on water,
>as some people do.

Rowling is, IMO, a brilliant story-teller, and she has, with the Harry
Potter books, told us a beautiful and captivating story. I have seen
criticism of her language, which I don't feel competent to evaluate,
but this has come also from critics who admire the story and what she
has otherwise achieved.

>She is able to make mistakes.  She says herself she is no good at maths (and
>I admit, to me, that translates to dates as well).

;-)

Dare I mention the question of the number of students at Hogwarts?
<http://www.hogwarts-library.net/reference/Student_Number.html>

Rowling's sub-creation is wonderfully detailed, and in general quite
consistent, but there are some definite weaknesses in the consistency
when it comes to matters generally dealt with in the natural sciences
(and math).


It must, I agree, be possible to both respect and admire Rowling for
her wonderful gift of story-telling, the skill and devotion that she
has put into the magical world of Harry Potter, while at the same time
recognising the weaknesses in the stories. It does not detract from the
stories to point out the inconsistencies or weaknesses; rather I feel
that it emphasises her strengths since they are obviously more than
sufficient to overcome what weaknesses the story and the sub-creation
has. While I have, in the above, referenced two of my own essays on
two of these weaknesses, I would never have devoted the time and passion
(and, let me face it, obsession) on such works without feeling that the
books are still wonderful despite these weaknesses, and still worth both
my devotion and obsession. In short: revealing the weaknesses puts focus
and emphasis on the strengths.

Troels Forchhammer