World Building And The Potterverse

[Ken Hutchinson]

No: HPFGUIDX 167512

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:
>
> > Betsy Hp:
> > Yes, I agree that it's a different sort of mistake.  But, as Ken 
> > points out, it's the sheer number of a variety of types of mistakes 
> > that have started making me a bit nervous about JKR's ability to 
> > steer her ship.
> > 
> > I get the impression that you think JKR has *chosen* to make these 
> > mistakes, that's it's all part of keeping alive a mystery or a brave 
> > aesthetic choice.  I'm having a *really* hard time keeping that sort 
> > of hope alive.  There are *so many* mistakes on *so many* different 
> > levels it starts looking less like a cunning choice and more like 
> > sloppiness.
> 
> Pippin:
> 
> Anyone who decides to create a work of such size and complexity
> has chosen to make mistakes. Errors of logic and continuity are 
> inevitable -- or at least the probability that they will be introduced 
> is far greater than zero, no matter how carefully the author plans 
> ahead.  It amuses me that Tolkien is cited as the gold standard.
> It seems to be forgotten that he substantially rewrote 
> The Hobbit to make it mesh with LOTR, and as for continuity between
> LOTR and The Silmarillion, fugeddaboutit. If he's the
> ideal, JKR has *nothing* to worry about.
> 

Ken:

I cannot believe that JKR chose to make these mistakes. A certain 
number of mistakes are unavoidable and we would not criticize 
her for a normal amount of mistakes. The quantity and kind of mistakes
are jarring. Not killing but jarring. Many of the mistakes are the 
kind that *could* have been avoided if the timeline had been as
carefully planned out as she claims the plot was.

I don't think that Tolkien expected The Hobbit to go anywhere. It
wasn't volume 1 of 7. If anything he hoped its success would 
help him to sell a publisher on the idea of The Silmarillion. The
Silimarllion was not what the publisher wanted as a follow on
to The Hobbit. The Lord of the Rings then was Alternate Plan B.
He took a long time writing a relatively short work (compared to
Harry Potter). On the other hand it was written during a major 
upheaval in the 20th Century. It is not surprising that an old 
work that was never intended to be a prequel to the new work
would have to be rewritten to mesh with it. Constant revision was
Tolkien's style anyway, not that this is unusual among artists.

There is no point in criticizing the Silmarillion, Tolkien never
finished it. Even so I am not aware of major discrepencies 
between the two. It functions as the lost legendary past of the
Third Age and as is common with legends we don't expect it
to be consistent anyway. Incorporating it as is in  Lord
Of The Rings adds to the realism. It is consistent enough to
convey a sense of having an historical basis, spotty enough
to seem plausible as millenia old oral tradition. It really adds
to the depth of the story for most readers. Actually reading
the Silmarillion is not a step to be taken lightly as it forces
you to examine the bones the soup was made from, in 
Tolkien's own words. If Rowling publishes *her* notes
some day Harry Potter fans will have the same choice to make.

I have a friend who is an English professor at a local 
community college and a huge Toliken fan. She's read
Lord Of The Rings close to 150 times, way more than
me. We've both read the Silmarillion the same number of
times, 4. It is a rewarding but a very different sort of book
than most you are likely to read.

If JKR had a Silmarillion in her back pocket to serve as
the source story for Harry Potter the latter might be
more consistent than it is but I doubt it because I think
this inattentiveness to "maths" is a personal characteristic
that the author would have trouble overcoming. If, in a
few years she wants to write in this universe again,
writing a prequel could be rewarding for author and
fans alike. I'd vote that she write it in a period well
removed from the time period that characters in the present
series lived in though.

Ken