World Building And The Potterverse

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 167373

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > The more magical and fantastical your premise, the more rooted in 
> > logic you need to be if you've a hope of creating a viable, 
> > believable world for me.  JKR wants us to believe that the WW is 
> > a real place.  I don't.  And yes, it kills some of the magic for 
> > me.  I don't really care about Voldemort's effect on the WW      
> > because I don't buy that the WW exists.

> >>Pippin:
> I'm not sure she does want us (ie adult readers) to believe the WW
> is a real place. I think she honestly feels that if you're old      
> enough that it matters to you whether the numbers add up or the    
> economy works, you're old enough not need to believe in magical    
> wonderlands in order to appreciate their uses. 

Betsy Hp:
Like Neverland? No, I don't buy that idea.  Because while Neverland 
was filled with the glorious lack of logic of young childhood or 
specifically young boyhood (as I recall, there's a wonderful scene 
where the lost boys stalk the pirates who stalk the red indians who 
stalk the lost boys until they all go to sleep to start up again in 
the morning), JKR has a world where children grow up to be young 
adults who worry about passing their tests so they can enter into 
their desired career.  Ain't much magical or wonderland about that, 
IMO.  That's what I'd call cold, hard realism.  (Nothing colder or 
harder than looking for a job.)

We also have the powerful adult figure shown up to be only human in 
the end.  And the evil super-villain makes a cunning use of politics 
to sway people to his side.  Again, none of that strikes me as very 
wonderland-like.  

> >>Pippin:
> As Harry slowly comes to realize that the WW isn't any refuge 
> from the problems of the Muggle world, the reader realizes
> that JKR is using her fantasy landscape to explore some ethical
> thought problems, and to create a fable about adolescence,
> both of which entail a certain lack of realism.

Betsy Hp:
Which is where the magic part comes in.  Just as in the movie "Pitch 
Black" the sci-fi element is used to set up the "really, *really* 
stranded in a really, *really* hostile environment" premise that the 
characters are set loose in.  I agree that using sci-fi and fantasy 
to explore ethical and philosophical issues is a perfect use of 
either genre.

And, if this were a short story, or even just a short book, I 
wouldn't expect JKR to do much more than quickly sketch the barest 
bones of background in.  But this is a series.  A series wherein the 
hero should become more and more aware of the realism of his world as 
he grows, as children do.  But Harry doesn't.  And I suspect it's not 
because Harry is stupid or incurious (though sometimes he does seem 
to be both) but because JKR can't be bothered.  It's not that I need 
to know every single detail.  But I would love to think the details 
are actually there. 

> >>Pippin:
> <snip>
> But in the Potterverse, we're expected to accept JKR's
> limited alternatives as given. Harry can be safe and miserable
> at the Dursleys or happy and short-lived anywhere else, because
> JKR wants to explore that dilemma. That in the real world 
> people would want to know why Child Protection Services
> wasn't doing their job is irrelevant.

Betsy Hp:
This is where you lose me.  Because I *do* accept that the blood-
protection was the best protection Dumbledore could hit upon to keep 
Harry safe.  That's not what bothers me.  So I don't think you're 
really addressing the issues I have with the series (not of course 
that you need to <g>).

What bothers me is exactly *what* is Dumbledore's power within the 
WW?  How did he get it, how does he maintain it, what are its 
weaknesses? He's able to sweep away the orphaned baby of a well-known 
couple with nary a comment.  How?

In what ways do the Muggle world and WW interact, as they must do?  
What involvement does the MoM have with that interaction and what 
about it so bothered various pure-blood families they decided to turn 
to terrorism to further their view-points?  And where do were-wolves 
(and other "lesser" species) fit in?  Why would they join with 
the "bigoted" side?  

Why the attachment to Ancient Roman culture? (Latin spells, pure-
blood names, those darn robes)  What attachment is there, and how is 
it formed and maintained, to modern British culture?  How connected 
are the various magical folks to each other?  IOWs, just how much of 
a "world" is the WW anyway? (We've had contradictory info on this: 
the Weasleys' ignorance of Muggle ways, an almost pure-blood nobility 
vs. the Muggle world having a record of Mrs. Bones, the Weasleys 
being so isolated from other wizard families and the nearby Muggle 
village.) 

I have seen fans put a lot of effort into answering those sort of 
questions.  My favorite example is the essay, "Expecto Patronus: or 
how the wizarding world really works"
http://community.livejournal.com/hp_essays/7250.html

And when I first read the above essay I thought the author had 
figured out JKR's real overview of her world.  But as the books 
continued, I realized that it was merely a good explanation for the 
unexplainable.  JKR had no such over-arching scheme in mind.  It was 
all what JW calls "shesezso".  So instead of a deep and rich culture, 
steeped in its own history and traditions, we've got a somewhat moth-
eaten curtain we'd do very well not to look behind.  Which I 
personally find a bit disappointing.

(As Ken says, it'd be nice to see another writer play in 
JKR's "world" and maybe give it some much needed meat and bones.)

> >>Shelley:
> But this sort of analysis is rather pointless, isn't it? I mean, in 
> most stories we read, we don't care to go reread it a million      
> times, plot out calendars and dates and triple check to see if the 
> author got everything exactly correct. It's a little unfair of us   
> to say to Rowling, "hey look, lady, since your series is SO        
> popular, we are holding you to a higher standard than we do any     
> other author we read."
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I know you're more addressing the math side of this particular 
question, but I do have to say that this sort of analysis is 
*everything* for me.  When I enjoy a story I *do* reread it a million 
times.  When I first read SS, I immediately flipped to the beginning 
to read it again.  That's how I know I've found something I like.

But the series itself isn't standing up to my kind of reading.  I had 
to almost *make* myself reread HBP.  I'm not rereading the series (as 
of yet) because the idea doesn't excite me.  I'm afraid of finding 
more flaws than re-entering an enjoyable and fun world.

[Brief aside for continuity rant: Oh my God!  Draco's darn hand of 
glory!!  What the heck was up with that?!?  One of the most pivotal 
and character defining scenes for Draco developed around Draco *not* 
getting that hand.  And then all of a sudden, in HBP he *has* it?  
And *Ron* knew about it?!?!  Gah!!]

Now of course, none of this comments on the fact that the series *is* 
so popular.  I've pre-ordered DH, so I'll be boosting JKR's numbers, 
and I'm sure it'll break records.  What I *do* wonder about is its 
staying power.  Once the story is fully out there and the mystery is 
gone, will Harry Potter take his place beside Peter Pan and Frodo 
Baggins?  Or will the continuity errors and incohesive world building 
cause Harry to go the way of the pet rock or monchhichis?

Betsy Hp (stunned to see Lupinlore and I in agreement on something, 
though I'm betting I lost him on the "okay with the blood-protection" 
thing <g>)