Dumbledore's age

[Cathy Drolet]

No: HPFGUIDX 176735

Random832:
>>Why not just NOT write a book that depends on mathematical formulas, 
birthdates, etc.? I'm a bit confused with your assertion that the HP 
series _does_ to any significant extent depend on such things.<<

I'm not sure what you're saying but I'll try to explain myself. She made the series depend on dates when she dated CoS.

I believe JKR started the whole dating-of-the-books/I'm so bad at math saga when she wrote, in CoS: "Well, this Hallowe'en will be my five hundredth deathday," said Nearly Headless Nick. (Can Ed, pg 99) followed by: "and, in pride of place, an enormous grey cake in the shape of a tombstone, with tar-like icing forming the words, 'Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington died 31st October, 1492'."  Prior to that, no one could really say that the events of PS took place in this year or that year.  But because of that one date, Potterites everywhere knew that October, in Cos, was meant to be 1992.  

If she had written something, perhaps, as she did in OotP: " 'Regulus Black'.  A date of death (some fifteen years previously) followed the date of birth." (Can Ed, pg 104) the whole backdating of the story, trying to figure out exact birthdays, days certain events took place, etc., could not have happened.  It was JKR's decision to include a date that would start the whole ball rolling (pardon the pun).  

Then, of course, she created a timeline that was included (I've heard) with the DVD of Philosopher's Stone.  If she didn't want the series dated - brought down to numbers - have people checking mooncharts and star charts calendars, etc.,  - she should have not started it in the first place.  That is all I am saying.  

She could have saved herself - and Potterville - a world of trouble, if she had never written "1492".  

CathyD


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]