World Building & The Potterverse -When it Rains, it Rains

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 167309

--- "Ken Hutchinson" <klhutch at ...> wrote:
>
> ---  "Zara" <zgirnius@> wrote:
> >
> >> Ken:
> >> Fictional works don't have to be set in any specific
> >> year and stories that don't span more than a year 
> >> can't have some of these issues. But when an author 
> >> does take the time to mention these details I expect
> >> her or him to get them right.
> >> 
> > 
> > zgirnius:
> > So Rowling should not have let Nick name the year of
> > his death, in your view. 
> 
> Ken:
> 
> Actually no, I rather like having the stories set in a
> specific time period. It is just that having done that 
> she should have sat down with a calendar while she 
> plotted out each book. It wouldn't have been difficult
> to make the plots match the calendar. In any event a 
> story that spans seven years cannot have months start
> on the same day of the week for several years running 
> no matter what the starting year is.
> ...edited...

bboyminn:

Just a few general comments that I've been meaning to 
make. The first and most important point is 'Artistic
License'. Artistic License says an author can play fast
and loose with the truth, as long as it is not glaringly
obvious. 

No fiction, especially fantasy, author can reasonably 
expect that anyone other than a hyper-overly-obsessed 
fans or a genius savants are going to know or spend the
time to find out /if/ specific details are actually true. 

For example, if an author needs it to rain, then it rains.
What author can reasonably expect readers to stop reading
and go check with the weather service to see if it 
actually rain on the night of 'the Hut on the Rock', and 
what does it matter? She needed to set the mood of a 
'dark and stormy night', and so she did, as would any
other author. If an author needs a full moon for a 
particular story, then there is a full moon, and that is
that. If an author needs Mars to be 'bright tonight' then
it is bright tonight. 

The key to 'world building' isn't precision in every 
little detail, it is merely believability in the flow of
the story. I believed it was raining on the night of 'The
Hut on the Rock', regardless of whether or not it rained 
in the real world, and that is what counts.

As a tangential example, in 'Enders Game' we have near
lightspeed travel with no explanation of how. As you 
probably know the energy consumption as you approach the
speed of light becomes astronomical, it increases in the
exponential extreme for every increment of new speed that
brings you that much closer to the speed of light. Yet,
where did they get all this impossible energy. Later in 
the books, they have faster near-lightspeed travel, with
no explanation of the mammoth source of energy to provide
such speed. No explanation either for the source of all
the food necessary to sustain years of space flight. Yet,
I don't care; I don't care because the story was not about
the dynamics of lightspeed travel, it was about a character
in a world. The author needed near lightspeed travel, and 
so he had it, no explanation needed.

When true faster than lightspeed travel enters the story,
in the context of the story, it is believable, even though
it is scientifically EXTREMELY unlikely.  

JKR needed school to begin on an assumed Monday and so it
does. When I read about the first day of school, trust me
I am not rushing to the calender to see if it really is
a Monday. True, I might do that later in group discussion,
but /as I read/ the day of the week is irrelevant. In
every work of fiction there is always compromise toward
artistic license. Like I said, if an author needs it to
rain, then it rains; simple as that.

In a sense, because all things occur in a /fictional/
world, they are in an alternate universe. In our 'universe'
magical spells, hypogryphs, unicorns, giants, and dragons
are not real, they are a 'not real' and school alway 
starting on a Monday. Yet, still I don't care. I'm not
interested, as I read, in picking at the details; I am
interested in the flow of the story and how captivating
it is.

OK, later, after I've read, the hyper-overly-obsessed fan
in me comes out and checks into those details. But that is
all for fun and curiosity, it has nothing to do with 
whether I enjoy the book in the moment. And, enjoy and
believing the book in the moment is the true test of
'world building'.

A flaw in 'world building' is only a flaw if it is so 
glaringly obvious and jarring that you are drawn out of 
the story by it. As long as you are compelled to keep 
reading, it doesn't really matter if Mars was /really/ 
bright that night, or if the moon was /really/ full that
night, or if Dragon /really/ exist.

Thanks, I feel better now.

Steve/bboyminn