[HPforGrownups] Re: Potterverse timelines just don't fit the RW (was: JKR has updated her site today -- WEBSITE SPOILER!)

[Jordan Abel]

No: HPFGUIDX 158331

On 9/14/06, hickengruendler <hickengruendler at yahoo.de> wrote:
>
> > Dave:
> >
> > That's Why I have always asserted that it is pointless to try to
> > assign definite RW dates to the events of the books, e.g. Harry was
> > born in 1980.  Things just don't work out -- full moons on the wrong
> > dates, anachronistic Playstations, etc., etc.  And now I think we
> can
> > add this as a further example.  I think the best we can do is talk
> in
> > terms of a "BCWE" ("Before Current Wizarding Epoch") and "CWE"
> > ("Common Wizarding Epoch").  One might debate what event to use for
> > "Year 1", but for our purposes it would probably be Harry's birth.
> > So then for example Book 6 would take place in the years 17 - 18
> CWE,
> > and Riddle first opened the CoS in, um -- 38 BCWE (Am I right?? --
> > Maybe to ease the arithmetic we could assume Wizards have a "Year 0"
> > even though Muggles don't...)
> >
> > --
> > Dave
> >
> > P.S. I think the only reason Nick's cake said he died in 1492 is
> > that's such a familiar date to people -- I think it's just as
> > likely that Nick has lost track of the exact year he died, and
> perhaps
> > has celebrated his "500th Deathday" for some years now...
>
> Hickengruendler:
>
> We do however have another definite date by now, even though it
> appears outside of the books. On the Black family tree, Draco's
> birthyear is given as 1980, meaning that's Harry's birthyear as well.
> Obviously it doesn't fit will several details, but no year fits. And
> what especially doesn't fit, is that both in GoF and OotP September
> 1st is on a Monday. Jo just doesn't pay attention to this. That's why
> I tend to see the year 1980 as Canon while overlooking the
> inconsistencies.

1980/1991, though, is apparently a very poor fit for the data. About
the only thing going for it is authorial intent, and it's even more
clear that the author's _real_ intent was to leave it ambiguous so
that the story would be timeless. There is evidence that she was
working from a 1991 timeline, but there's also evidence that she was
using "as she writes" dates (Flamel's age) or just not caring
(weekdays, full moons)

See http://www.hp-lexicon.org/timelines/essays/timeline-mapping-tf.html
for a detailed treatment of this issue

-- 
Random832