Things that you wish were in the Harry Potter novels

[Geoff]

No: HPFGUIDX 192017

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky <bart at ...> wrote:

Bruce Mull:
> > One thing that JKR truly got wrong is the OWL system. There are seven 
> > required magical classes: Astronomy, Charms, Defense Against the Dark 
> > Arts, Herbology, History of Magic, Potions and Transfiguration. With 
> > the possible exception of History or Magic, each has a Theory and a 
> > Practical OWL. Thus, there are at least 13 OWLs here. In addition, 
> > beginning the third year, students take at least two classes from 
> > Arithmancy, Ancient Runes, Care of Magical Creatures, Divination, 
> > Muggle Studies and Numerology. Admitedly, Arithmancy and Numerology 
> > should be part of Divination, but they are listed as separate studies. 
> > These would each have both a Theory and Practical OWL, as well. Thus, 
> > at least 4 more OWLs. The point is, each student would have to sit at 
> > least 17 OWLs -- possibly more. [Not to mention any nonmagical classes 
> > which there would most certainly be, but which are never mentioned.] 
> > Therefore, how can the 12 OWLs of Percy be considered good? Also, have 
> > you attempted to organize these classes into a schedule? It cannot be 
> > done -- certainly not with the teachers listed -- but even if you add 
> > more teachers, there are conflicts with the story line which cannot be 
> > resolved with the single/double class system; unless, like the Room of 
> > Requirement, they come and go at different times. I would have like to 
> > have seen this system better thought out.

Bart:
> First of all, we don't necessarily know all the courses that were 
> taught. Secondly, nobody is expected to take all the classes; that was a 
> major plot point of POA, so I'm surprised that you don't remember that. 
> Also, based on Harry's and Ron's results, there are not separate OWL's 
> in theory and practice; there is only one OWL for each subject. So 12 
> OWLs is pretty impressive.

Geoff:
I have said several times over the years that I accept the willing suspension
of disbelief quite often when I enjoy a book and frequently let things which 
could irritate me pass me by. For example, I am a railway fan and often wince 
because someone gets it wrong - the wrong time period or the wrong location
for instance, but if it does not affect the scheme of the story line, I try to put it
to one side. 

I agree, there are times when the smooth flow of a story can be disrupted by 
badly researched data or plain sloppy writing. I know that Alla and I share a 
liking for "To Serve Them All My Days" by R.F.Delderfield which is about a 
teacher at a public school in the West Country from 1918 to about 1940 and 
I do grumble about this book because there are places where his timeline is 
completely haywire.

However, there are times, as I said earlier, where the mistakes are only noticed 
by someone who has an interest in or is involved in that area. I am a retired 
Maths and Computing teacher, having taught at a senior school in South 
London for over thirty years. One of my jobs in latter years was being  a member 
of the timetable team producing each new annual scheme in time for the 
Autumn term. As you say, there are always a number of conflicts which led to 
a lot of head scratching to get a final result so I can see the possible anomalies 
which you have pointed up. However, since the timetable has very little impact 
on the overall story and probably goes over the head of most readers, my 
feeling is to ask whether it is worth agonising overmuch about the problem?