World Building And The Potterverse

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 167528

> >>Pippin:
> I never  noticed a problem with Charlie Weasley's
> age until  it was pointed out to me -- so it's no surprise
> to me that JKR didn't spot it. Some people notice stuff
> like that immediately -- they probably got a higher 
> score on the math portion of their SAT than I did. Good
> for them, but we're not all so gifted. Somebody who's
> good at math not only makes fewer errors than I do,
> he finds and corrects them more quickly. I can be
> just as careful in terms of the time and attention I
> devote to math, and still get poorer results.

Betsy Hp:
It does mean that any theories based on time (minutes, hours, days, 
years) are doomed to possibly end up in the "oh dear, maths" trash 
pile.  Was Lupin's 12 years *really* unaccounted for, or was he just 
hanging in the AU world where Charlie won a quidditch cup or two?

IMO, this kind of mystery solving is cheating.  JKR isn't laying out 
clues, she's saying things are how they are and any readers 
questioning here are obviously freakishly interested in math or 
consistency.

> >>Pippin:
> I didn't mean she was making mistakes for the fun of it.
> I mean, she knew that the circumstances in which she was
> writing would force her to produce errors in the text,
> just like GM knows that its business model will force the
> production of a certain number of defective cars.

Betsy Hp:
So JKR has set a certain amount of money aside to deal with the 
inevitable law suits? <eg>

> >>Pippin:
> Knowing that, IMO, she invented a style in which some apparent
> mistakes by the author would turn out to be misinterpretations
> by the characters  or tricks on the reader, tricks which would
> be obvious except that they're concealed by the overall pulpiness.
> I've already pointed out the examples in PS/SS -- are you saying 
> these aren't stylistic tricks but are pure coincidence? 

Betsy Hp:
Yes, for the most part.  Let's take a look at them.

> >>Pippin:
> <snip>...such as the narrator's unqualified statement that Harry's  
> parents died in a car crash...

Betsy Hp:
This one is neither a mistake nor an invention, IMO.  It's certainly 
nothing invented by JKR.  It's the first indication that the narrator 
is tied to Harry and will generally see thing his way.  But JKR's not 
the first author to ever tell a story this way.

> >>Pippin:
> ...Scabbers falling asleep immediately after attacking Goyle (which 
> makes no sense until we learn that he is not only not a real rat   
> but a "sleeper")...

Betsy Hp:
Why doesn't it make sense?  Because it's not normal behavior for a 
rat?  We already met the very not normal behaving boa contrictor, so 
it's not like we're expecting properly behaving animals, especially 
when they're interacting with wizards.  So I don't see any 
inconsistency here to be remarked on and later remembered.

> >>Pippin:
> ...and the switch in PoV which allows JKR to omit any information
> about when Harry regained control of his broom in relation to
> Hermione's attack on Snape.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Except keeping to Harry's PoV wouldn't have meant JKR *had* to give 
that information.  Harry's busy keeping himself from falling.  It'd 
be easy for him to miss exactly what Hermione did until he was back 
on his broom and observing the aftermath (Quirrel a bit ruffled, 
Snape putting out flames).

But again, changing PoV isn't a technique invented by JKR, nor is it 
something I'd label a mistake or an inconsistency.  So I don't see it 
as an example of a "stylistic trick".  It's more an aesthetic choice, 
and one that neither bothered me nor something I'd criticize JKR for.
 
> >>Betsy Hp:
> So JKR purposefully planned on her reader getting jerked out of the
> story in HBP? 
> <snip>

> >>Pippin:
> How jerked out are you?

Betsy Hp:
Pretty jerked out, actually.  I mean, it stuck in my mind (along with 
someone referring to Hermione *punching* Draco).  That I remember it 
says something, I think.

> >>Pippin:
> You still want to read DH, despite your fear that it might         
> disappoint you, right? And so do about a zillion other people.

Betsy Hp:
Oh, yes.  And I'm quite confident that your casual reader probably 
didn't notice the errors.  She did keep Draco's basic character 
consistent, so I'm fairly confident I'll enjoy DH well enough.  I'm 
just not sure the series is going to stand up to repeat reads.

> >>Pippin:
>  It does jar -- but just enough to make you aware that you 
> had some preconceptions about how Draco's story was going to go 
> -- and I think she did that on purpose.

Betsy Hp:
Um, no.  It jarred enough to make me aware that I was more up on what 
occured to Draco better than his creator was.  Which, rather than 
doing anything about my preconceptions about *Draco*, did do 
something about my preconceptions about *JKR*.  (What could seem a 
soon to be clever plot twist was really just a screwup on her part.  
Maths isn't her only issue.)

> >>Pippin:
> She wants you to see that your preconceptions about Draco failed to 
> predict what he was capable of. It makes Dumbledore's error in     
> failing to imagine that Draco could smuggle in DE's more credible, 
> no?

Betsy Hp:
No.  How on earth would it have done that?  I *loved* Draco's story 
through out HBP.  He did exactly as I'd have expected him to do: 
prove himself a creative and intelligent problem solver, not nearly 
as bad-assed as he liked to think himself to be, willing to push 
himself to the edge to protect those he loves.

It's not Draco's fault JKR couldn't remember the hand of glory scene 
properly.  Nor does it say anything about his character.  I was just 
grateful that that bit of technical screw-up didn't mean JKR totally 
rewrote his character (as she did with say, Ginny).

> >>Pippin:
> IMO, she hasn't got to resolve the technical issue of how
> Draco got  the hand. She just has to resolve the state of things
> between Draco and his father, and then it won't matter, any more
> than it matters how he got the Peruvian Darkness Powder, or
> how the Twins got their hands on contraband before
> they met Mundungus. It might make an intriguing bit of
> fan fiction, but there's no thematic necessity for this info, IMO.
> We don't, er, need to know.

Betsy Hp:
Right.  Which is why it's an example of a mistake rather than a 
stylistic choice.  It's a mistake that jars a reader out of the story 
without adding anything to the story at all.  It's a question never 
answered that wasn't meant to be asked in the first place.

> >>Betsy HP:
> I do think Dumbledore was badly mishandled. (frex: While I can
> accept that magically there was no surer way to protect Harry than
> sticking him with the Dursleys, that oddly rude little lecture
> Dumbledore gave the Dursleys in HBP shook my acceptence that any    
> sort of wizard interference would have put Harry on the street. It 
> was an odd choice on JKR's part, IMO.)

> >>Pippin:
> The point is, Dumbledore couldn't *know* how much wizard 
> interference it would take to put Harry in the street. He'd
> be guessing, and he knows as well as we do that some of his
> guesses are wrong. 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Which is why it's an odd choice on JKR's point.  She's showing us 
that Dumbledore could have kept Harry from being as underfed as 
Dumbledore noted him to be.  But, in a bizzare moment of timidity, he 
instead decided to do nothing.  Until Harry was eleven that is.

But Dumbledore is shown making weird decisions all over the darn 
place.  What was up with his treatment of young Tom Riddle?  Why did 
he slam the Slytherins so badly?  Did he really mean Harry to almost 
die in his first year? Etc. etc.

Honestly, I think the best way to handle Dumbledore is sort of like a 
god in a Greek drama.  He'll do things when he wants, how he wants, 
with whom he wants.  It's all very  haphazard and illogical and 
actually fits with Harry being more of a lucky hero than a gifted one.

> >>Pippin:
> It does make it harder to treat the books as chicken soup for
> the soul.
> I don't, I can't, read the books for comfort any more. Umbridge, 
> and Sirius's death took that away. DH may bring it back, or
> not. I think that tension has been created purposefully too.
> I'm not so sure JKR wants us to be able to lose ourselves in
> these books -- read them, learn from them, enjoy them,
> yes, but use them as mental comfort food? "It does not do
> to dwell on dreams and forget to live, remember that."

Betsy Hp:
I generally don't read YA, so I don't know how the Potter books 
measure up.  Umbridge is certainly not the worst villain I've ever 
read; and Sirius's death is certainly not the most tragic.  And while 
I do see them as great opportunities to discuss various philosophies 
and ethics, I wonder if JKR meant for them to be so.

Does she mean for me to see Hermione as a particularly disturbing 
girl, quite willing to physically maim those she dislikes, and beat a 
boy she claims to care about?  Does she mean for me to see Hagrid as 
a bigoted loose cannon?  Does she mean for me to see the WW as an 
example of some of the worst things human nature has to offer?

If she does (and she really, really might; DH will tell us for sure) 
than well done her.  Especially for turning expectations on their 
heads. 

But I still think the books are meant to be a bit of an escape, a 
nice armchair adventure where good will triumph over evil.  I'll be 
interested to see if they're meant to be something more.

Betsy Hp