[HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore's age

[Random832]

No: HPFGUIDX 176749

Cathy Drolet wrote:
> 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.

No. That was the action that led to there being a basis for people to 
pick at dates. But, the series doesn't _depend_ on dates, _BECAUSE_ it 
would have worked perfectly well without it. It's a footnote. It's not 
the least bit important to the plot. Just because it's there doesn't 
mean that the books _DEPEND_ on it and would fall apart without it.

> 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.  

And, that a contemporary date is mentioned does not mean that the series 
"depends" on having a coherent timeline for all past events, some more 
than a century ago. Not a single birthdate is mentioned (even Harry's is 
only implicit) EVER. Apart from the month and approximate time of month 
of Harry's, and arguably the timing of Hermione's relative to her 
year-mates, no-one's birthdate is the least bit important to the plot. 
Hell, the relative ages of anyone older than Harry never has any 
significance, yet everyone keeps picking and picking at the Bill/Charlie 
age thing, Molly not remembering Hagrid, etc - But we don't get any 
important plot revelations based on the number of years that passed 
between Charlie's birth and Percy's, or a bit of information that Molly 
remembers from before Hagrid was hired, or anything like that. It's 
simply NOT RELEVANT.

> It was JKR's decision to include a date that would start the whole ball rolling (pardon the pun). 

I'm not seeing how you can jump from "a date was mentioned" to "the 
series depends on dates". And no-one's birthdate _is_ mentioned, except 
in so far as Harry's (alone) is mentioned without the year and we can 
deduce the year.

The most egregious problem that _actually could affect the plot_ if 
given the chance, is the timings of the full moons. But even then, an 
author is free to simply not keep track, and choose it (along with the 
position of mars) for dramatic effect rather than historical accuracy, 
and it doesn't make the story any weaker.