Harry Potter News and Commentary
I’ve finished a Philosopher’s Stone re-read. Some things about the book have bugged me at every re-read (I still love the book, of course). Before I could post on it, the Eating Words blog hit the first thing that bugged me, and a good conversation as resulted. Check out the conversation here.
I’m moving on to Chamber tomorrow.
Previous post: Deathly Hallows: 784 Pages!
Next post: Hog’s Head PubCast #20: The Snape Surprise
Joivre on Tell Us a Story
Red Rocker on Tell Us a Story
Tom on Friday Forum Reminder
Arabella Figg on Tell Us a Story
World Storytelling Day Stories on March 20th is World Storytelling DayRed Rocker on Tell Us a Story
Travis Prinzi on Tell Us a StoryJoivre on Tell Us a StoryRed Rocker on Tell Us a Story
korg20000bc on Tell Us a Story
Loading ...
{ 23 comments… read them below or add one }
Upon rereading, I noticed some of these contradictions and many other things I’d missed before. Obviously even the best of writers make mistakes. In our eager quest to find last-minute clues we’re more likely to notice these inconsistencies. But do they really matter in the scope of things? I’m still enjoying rereading each book. It keeps me happy and into Harry until book 7 is released. Can’t wait!
Travis, it sounds like you’re channelling Jodel from the HogPro forums. hee. She too points out a few of the mis-steps JK has shown in not cooking her world well enough. They aren’t huge mistakes. I’d ,much rather those glitches, than say a huge contradicting plot device once the story is done.
But these inconsistencies are annoying. I wish JK would have had the villigance of say a Tolkein. Ah well. Her stories are still nothing short of superb.
Michael, unfortunately I’ve not had the time to read a lot at the hogpro forums.
I agree with both comments here – they aren’t huge mistakes at all, really. We could say she doesn’t have Tolkien’s vigilance, but she’s certainly more consistent than Lewis! And I still love all three series.
Keep in mind: Tolkien had to correct parts of The Hobbit too after he finished the LOTR, because of continuity problems.
The public image of Rowling is that of a woman who figured the whole HP-series out in detail long before the first book was published. I think these errors or at least inconsistencies (I noticed them too, they’re hard to miss after reading the last three books) prove that in reality, she had a whole lot to figure out after the release of the first books… I reckon it’s an inevitable part of a huge creative process such as this. Who could blame her?
(Oh, and in addition to your post in the wandless magic-thread (thanks for the link, very interesting!): not only Tom Riddle Jr. performed wandless magic at a very young age, but Harry too, as we find out in PS. Made glass disappear in the zoo, grew back his own hair, blew up Aunt Marge, etc… Another proof for the ‘twinship’ between Harry and Voldemort that John Granger noticed in his books.)
Anton, I agree with you. I wasn’t posting this to be critical of Ms. Rowling. She’s a genius, and with a series this detailed, there were bound to be inconsistencies here and there.
Yeah, Harry’s wandless magic I include under “accidental magic,” since he didn’t deliberately do the things he did. I’m not sure any of this is a “twinship” issue, though, other than perhaps in Rowling’s presentation of the two. It appears accidental magic from young wizards was normal enough, since Hagrid asked Harry whether he ever made anything happen when he was mad or afraid. It’s not something that is only characteristic of Harry and Tom.
Not blowing my own trumpet but I’ve been posting for the better part of a year about wandless magic but couldn’t get anyone to bite.
I’m sure Rowling didn’t have all the details for all her books worked out when the first one was published. I’m also sure that the publishers wanted to see if Philosopher’s Stone sold well before they asked her to write more. It would’ve been great for fot her to then say “Well it just so happens…”
Just the length of the book speaks volumes too. I reckon she could re-write it at 3-4 times the length if she wanted to. It really is a bare-bones excursion into her excellent series.
Matthew
I’ve just read some of Red Hen’s essays and have spoken to her over at the HogsPro forums and let me just say I was feeling quite depressed about the series after hearing what she had to say. She’s a real nit picker that one. I now respectfully disagree with her. I mean, who compares Harry Potter and Moulin Rouge? No the HP series is not perfect but she says the entire story is based on shallow and recycled plots, and will no doubt lead to a melodramatic ending. She has found the smallest of inconsistencies and makes Jo out to be this very bad writer. She has gone as far as saying that Jo is not even an author and more of just a story teller… don’t get me wrong I love the ladies work but if the HP series has any imperfections, they are ually quite small… I’m not about to blow up small inconsistencies and view JK’s work as tainted. HBP had a few inconsistencies but perhaps those are more clues… as Jodel has pointed out as well. I use to really value her work but now I find it borderline… overly critical. She says she judges Rowling’s work with a logical mind and uses basic pshycology to put her opinions fourth but as she doesn’t have any degree in those ears, her work to me has as much basis as anyone else’s.
Wow, I hope that didn’t come off as mean… End rant.
Story telling is an art which has been around longer even than the written word. When our ancestors gathered around the fire at night, it was the village story teller who used her words to transport them to a brighter and more dramatic world. The visits of the story teller would be anticipated eagerly. Children and adults would hang on every precious word, and dream afterwards about the characters who came alive around the fire. So much like us, now, counting down the days to the release of the next (and sadly, last) book, conjecturing feverishly about what will happen to Harry and Voldemort and Snape, and lining up outside the store so we can be the first to read – the story.
Just a story teller? I can think of no higher praise for a writer than to be called that.
Michael, well, let me tell you – you don’t have to feel bad for not being a huge Red Hen fan. I read a couple theories of hers and pretty much stopped right there. The reverence for her theories in fandom belongs in the Department of Mysteries, really. It makes no sense to me.
I once attended a seminar on story telling: it’s importance in our history and it’s value in teaching. One of the lecturer’s points was that people really LISTEN to stories. He gave us a challenge. The next time were were in a lecture or listening to a sermon in church or whatever when the speaker starts to tell a story, have a look to the left and the right. He said you’ll notice those keen ones who are madly taking notes will look up from their notepads, stop writing and actively listen to what their being told. It didn’t take many time to realise that he’s right.
Reyhan’s comment about Rowing being a story teller is good. It is high praise. Red Hen is a critic. That’s what she seems to be doing. A critic’s job is to break down and find the flaws. It appears that it’s a difficult thing to do- keep a firm hold on the spirit of the stories while trying to expose the issues.
To use a Tolkien simile: Red Hen is from Gondor, Rowling is from Rohan.
Matthew
Hee, Travis that is funny. I can understand a person’s frustration at JK’s world. It is a little under backed, but gosh, that, up until now is it’s only flaw. She so far has been nit picking about things like ‘in book 1-5 Voldemort was seen as ONE of the strongest wizards tro exist, so why in book six was be called the strongest!!?’ My guess? Well now that Dumbledmore knows of these Horcruxes, it’s a safe bet that no one has ever done that before, so by calling him the strongest, whilst it may come off as more for dramatic use, is not far off.
Michael, if that’s a criticism, it’s not even a good one. Voldemort is called the worst wizard of all time in one of the first two books (I think early in CS, if I recall properly).
Of course it’s not. Can I ask Travis, what are you reasons for not digging the Red Hen and her theories like others do? I just found her to be… condesending to me as well. Frustrating much? ALOT!
Michael, oh, there are lots of reasons, but primarily, I think the theories are a little too fanciful, and they require some fairly blatant ignoring of contradictory facts. The whole theory that Snape has been Dumbledore’s man since he was at Hogwarts, for example, and that Dumbledore leaked the prophecy to Voldemort through Snape in order to create a weapon to use against Voldemort – well, I’ve written at great length here at SoG about why I think that theory doesn’t work at all.
And the essays are unnecessarily long – I find them very difficult to read. So, since I don’t agree with the theories I’ve read, and I personally find the essays laborious, I’ve given up reading them for the time being.
I didn’t read this whole thread, just skimmed. So I am sorry if something similar is already posted.
Picking out an author’s mistake’s is, quite frankly, a bit pointless.
Absolutely no author creating an alternate world for their tale can make it be perfectly logical.
Case in point: Tolkien tells the reader that hobbit architecture has some peculiar features. Mainly round windows, and round doors with doorknobs in the center. It makes for a very specific image for the reader, and I love it.
There’s just one problem. It’s not workable. A doorknob is near the edge of a door, because it has to be in order for the mechanism that the knob controls to be able to “click” the door shut. Without that “click”, the door would open back up with the slightest bit of wind.
He also tells the reader that hobbits don’t lock their doors. So, how do they shut then?
It could be analized. For hours if one TRUELY wanted to. But, hobbit holes don’t really exist, and it doesn’t make Tolkien any less brilliant. It makes him human.
Every single fantasy world has problems both with real logic, and even sometimes its own created rules and laws. Barry, Lewis, Tolkien, and Rowling’s works all contain mistakes.
And you know what?
It doesn’t matter. We still love them.
Couldn’t disagree more that it’s “pointless.” We just went through a whole thread on what I initially thought were “plot holes” in Chamber of Secrets, and we all learned loads from the discussion. THAT wasn’t pointless at all.
No one’s questioning their brilliance as creators of wonderful worlds. Sometimes discussing what seem like mistakes is helpful to a better understanding of the story.
But what are we supposed to do as readers? Not be intelligent? Not ask, “Why is there Christmas in Narnia?” We can come to some very fascinating and enlightening answers by asking those kinds of questions, so I see no point in avoiding asking the questions just because making mistakes is inevitable and human.
Sorry babydoll87, I just cannot agree with much of your post. I have seen many wide doors with the handles in the middle mostly 1880-1920’s here in Tasmania and Sydney -where I come from. Like Travis posted, we learn much more about the stories when he question the apparent errors. In this case you learn that it is practical to put the handles in the middle of doors- for asthetic reasons.
I also am able to shut my door without locking it. Maybe I don’t understand what you mean there.
for interest sake have a look here
http://www.taunton.com/finehomebuilding/how-to/articles/inside-hobbit-house.aspx
Matthew
Travis,
Looking back on my earlier post, I know now I was at all clear on what I meant.
So, to clarify, I would never state that one should not question things. I would be no better than Petunia if I did. I’m sorry if that’s how it appeared.
I never meant that we, as readers, should not intelligently question books. Because even though we all know that our theories will most likely be proven wrong, as Rowling says, our thoughts will lead us someplace “interesting.”
We learn new information through questioning fact. If we didn’t we would all still believe that the world is flat and flies are
randomly generated from rotting meat!
I question Narnia’s Christmas too, and I love questioning plot holes and theories. If I didn’t I wouldn’t be here. It’s when people begin to question and over think about real “mistakes” (and up until now I believed Tolkien’s doors to have been honest oversight) that I get aggravated!
It’s when people think there must be two Albus Dumbldores because his office is mentioned as being on two different floors in two different books that the phrases “over critical” and “pointless” begin to come to mind.
korg20000bc,
I will never believe what a teacher tells me again!
It was during a summer class I took at 17 years old that I was told that Hobbit doors were not possible in real life.
(The class was about the diffferent basic parts to a building’s structure and how they related to, and influenced eachother. Sort of a pre-architecture course. The guy was explaining the basics of a door and its frame, and started saying how Tolkien was flawed because his doors wouldn’t work.)
The link was great. You have enlightened me. I Thank you.
Absolute please!
It is more awkward to use a door with the handle in the middle as you have less leverage to move the door. Otherwise it works fine.
I wouldn’t go as far as not believing ANYTHING a teacher tells you
A saying that my grandmother used to say was “Only believe half of what you read and none of what you hear”
Matthew
I meant absolute pleasure
“Only believe half of what you read and none of what you hearâ€
Which once were wise words!
But … with the advent of the internet, you can’t even believe *half* of what you read any more…
I know…
So many people toady say, with assurance of truth, “I read it on the internet!”
Matthew
korg20000bc,
I was exaggerating. I’ll just be a bit more selective of when to believe teachers if they can’t/won’t show proof that they are right.
I couldn’t agree more about the internet. And television too. My young cousin will believe anything if he sees it on tv!