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

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 167361

Shelley wrote:
> <snip> All authors make errors-
> that's what editors are for! If you have to blame anyone, blame the
editors who checked over her work for errors before it was sent out.
God knows that any textbook has to be reprinted several times to get
all those errors. Practically any written work at all shows the
humanity of it's author. Heaven forbid that anyone be "careless"!
(Gasp, what do you mean, you're human???)
> 
> Personally, none of the mistakes you talk about make any difference
to the plot. Plus, the year 1993 isn't in canon anyway, so I feel the
fans are being a bit misleading by trying to match Harry up with
actual years to determine how old he would be for this year, 2007, or
to line Harry's first years in the books up with our calendar years to
see just which days that Halloween or Christmas would fall on. I agree
with Steve- as I read this series, I am not rushing to any calendar to
see if the day she says something falls on lines up.
>
Carol responds:
Speaking as a professional copyeditor, I'm afraid you're putting too
large a burden on the editors. Ultimately, the responsibility for the
content of the books belongs to the author, who is free to accept or
reject the copyeditor's corrections. Unfortunately, it's unlikely that
the same person has copyedited all six books (so far) in either the
Bloomsbury or Scholastic editions, and it's not the copyeditor's
responsibility to check for inconsistencies within the series, as
opposed to those within a particular volume. (Now, if I'd copyedited
them, I'd have pointed out a few that caught my attention and queried
them, but, alas, I don't have that privilege. And even if it were, it
would be JKR's job, not mine, to fix the inconsistency if she so desired.)

As for whether such errors are important, I think it's entirely
subjective. Some errors jar me as a reader, and I'll think, "No,
that's just wrong!" and I'll head for some other book to find the
contradictory passage. It *did* bother me that Lupin transformed at
both Halloween and Christmas. That just doesn't fit with the 28-day
cycle for a full moon. And it bothered me that he transformed when the
moon came out from behind a cloud rather than when it rose. That was
just plot manipulation, that was. (I also wonder what happened to
Lupin during all those other months and whether Snape substituted for
him more than once. Surely, all his other transformations didn't
conveniently occur on weekends.) But since I enjoy the books and care
about the characters, I try to ignore the inconsistencies, or figure
out ways in which Charlie Weasley could "really" be only three years
older than Percy and still win the Quidditch Cup, or plausible reasons
why a "legendary" Seeker who could have played for England could lose
the cup year after year. It is, after all, not only a fictional but to
some degree a fantasy world; JKR is, after all, writing for herself
and for children. To some degree, she's stuck with established
patterns from previous books (e.g., the DADA curse) that have to play
out from year to year. And, whether I like it or not, she's given a
ghost who died in 1492 an Elizabethan ruff and a Jacobean hat. (She
shold have made it his 400th Death Day rather than his 500th, which
would have helped a little. And in SS/PS, he hadn't eaten in 400
years, so she should have stayed with that idea. Again, if I were her
copyeditor, I'd have pointed out those details, but if the copyeditor
of CoS is a different person from the CE for SS/PS, he or she can't be
expected to recognize such inconsistencies.) Now "minscule" for
"minuscule" (SS) and "site" for "sight" (HBP) are definitely the
copyeditor's fault, but copyeditors are human, too (as I know all too
well).

So, ultimately, we can accept the books as written, hoping that the
more glaring errors are eventually edited out and the more obvious
inconsistencies corrected (Percy's silver badge being identical to
Ron's red and gold one has already been corrected, for example) or we
can let the inconsistencies bother us. We can willingly suspend our
disbelief or we can spend our time trying to work out a "fix" that
satisfies us or we can complain about JKR's world-building skills and
eye for detail and memory and math skills and logic not meeting our
expectations. We can stop reading the books if it bothers us
sufficiently. (Evidently, it doesn't, or we wouldn't be here.)

I, for one, am not bothered by the Time-Turning in PoA now that I
understand that time was not changed--Harry had *always* come back
from the not-very-distant future to cast that Patronus, and Dumbledore
had *always* figured that out and sent him and Hermione to save
Buckbeak, Sirius Black, and themselves. But once is enough. If she
does it again, it will feel--to me--like a deus ex machina.

As for the inability to conjure food and money to solve the problem of
poverty, I think we find the answer to that with Leprechaun gold.
Conjured money isn't real and doesn't stay around. Conjured furniture
lasts as long as its needed and is then swept away. Conjured food
would taste good and feel substantial as it was eaten, but it would
have no nutritional value and the eater would soon be hungry again.
Wizards, like Muggles, require real food, some of which is grown in
the Hogwarts or Burrow garden, but some of which must be purchased.
>From whom, and how, and whether Squibs and Muggles are involved, I
leave to others to worry about.

At any rate, we can't help our individual reactions to the books or
what bothers us about them. And we have every right to express our
opinions, or our feelings, about what we consider to be inadequacies.
And, ultimately, it *is* JKR's responsibility to correct (or explain
away) any real inconsistencies in the books.

As for explaining how magic works in the WW, I'd rather she didn't. I
don't want her to bring in the physics of an AK spell. In the unlikely
event that I wanted to read about physics, I'd consult a textbook. Or
more likely, a website or "Physics for Dummies."

I do agree, though, that authors are human. All authors make mistakes.
Shakespeare placed books and clocks in ancient Rome, for crying out
loud. And one of my favorite books of all time, "Moby Dick," is
seriously flawed from a technical perspective. (I do wish, though,
that some modern copyeditor would catch and fix that annoying
reference to Second Mate Stubb as the third mate. I've never seen that
corrected in any edition.)

Carol, who reserves the right to feel annoyed by errors and
inconsistencies that *somebody* should have caught just as others have
the right to complain about the political and economic and scientific
inadequacies they find in the books, which most of us enjoy despite
their perceived inadequacies or we wouldn't be discussing them