Realism (was Re: Weasley Poverty

[xcpublishing]

No: HPFGUIDX 123765


va32h:

> I don't understand why a book series that is based primarily on the 
> notion that there is an alternate world full of people with magical 
> powers is criticized for not having enough cold hard realism.

I don't think anyone joined this list to criticize JKR or the novels 
for lacking realism, we joined because it's great fun to dissect 
every single line of the books; to look for clues; to spot 
inconsistencies or mistakes; and to examine every single nuance of 
every single character, whether realistic or not.  I, personally, did 
not care for the first two books and only read the third one because 
someone had bought me a four-book set.  But after reading Prisoner of 
Azkaban, I began to sit up and take notice.  I think it's because JKR 
began to incorporate a lot more "realism" into the stories.  I'm a 
fantasy reader and I like my fantasy to have good "bones" - the story 
can be as fantastic and outlandish as the author can make it but 
there had better be good background behind it.  If pink and purple 
flying unicorns suddenly appear in downtown Manhattan, I would like 
a "realistic" explanation or I will throw the book across the yard 
into a tree.  All fiction relies on the reader's ability to suspend 
their disbelief and accept everything the writer is telling them.  I 
had trouble with the first novel because I could not accept the idea 
that a child had lived in a cupboard and wore oversized clothing for 
TEN YEARS and not a single person was even nice to him - he had no 
friends, no mentors, no confidants.  That just didn't 
seem "realistic" even for a fantasy novel.  Yet I had no trouble at 
all in book three of accepting that a man could turn into a dog, 
track down a man that turned into a rat, and had spent the last 
twelve years imprisoned in a place where horrible creatures sucked 
out his life essence because there were "realistic" explanations for 
all of these things.  Catkind also mentions consistency, which can 
either add to or destroy the realism.  If a spell works a certain way 
in one book, it had better work exactly the same way in the next book 
(or have a darned good reason why it doesn't) because the reader has 
already stretched the limits of credibility just by accepting that 
the spell works at all.

Nicky Joe