[stylist] Back to the wizarding world

[Bridgit Pollpeter]

I agree with Donna's post, but I will also add that Rowling has admitted
that due to the volume of each novel and the short time frame in which
she wrote most of the books, she certainly made mistakes, and that she
could have better edited most the books. Just for sake of this
discussion, grin.

And to be Devil's Advocate for a minute, it is entirely possible to
over-look things when creating a series as large as Harry Potter. Each
book is hundred's of pages long with plots and sub-plots paralleling and
weaving together. Rowling kept extensive notes and character profiles
even for the most insignificant characters. She says she has piles and
piles of back-story that were never intended to be published but that
she required to write the books. This is a huge under-taking that, for
the sake of argument, can become burdensome and difficult to keep track.
It doesn't necessarily mean inconsistencies are inevitable, but it does
make them probable.

Donna argues a strong case, and I agree to a certain point. Rowling
certainly meant for information to be learned slowly both by characters
and readers. And as Donna points out, it wouldn't be entirely out of
character for Dumbledore to mislead or misinform to protect Harry and
others.

However, you have to look at the work as a whole, each book being a
piece of the puzzle, and upon inspection, I think a case can also be
made that there are inconsistencies. You have to consider how we learn
information and who provides that information. Is it a character? Is it
author interjection? Is that source reliable? And does it add up to how
information is disseminated and dissected throughout each book. Based on
this, I'm not entirely convinced about the cloak theory, but Donna does
present a strong persuasive argument.

As to inconsistencies within Rowling's work, this is a widely accepted
opinion including the author herself, which is something to consider
when discussing the book.

Great discussion because topics like this make us learn to read
carefully, paying attention to those elements that can later help us as
writers.

Bridgit
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 12 May 2013 16:26:16 -0400
From: "Donna Hill" <penatwork at epix.net>
To: "'Writer's Division Mailing List'" <stylist at nfbnet.org>
Subject: Re: [stylist] Back to the Wizarding World
Message-ID: <6E6E709411FA4D7CB50795F894B5E711 at OwnerHP>
Content-Type: text/plain;	charset="us-ascii"


Phyllis,
Yes, indeed, Harry's cloak was a quantum leap more powerful than the
average (though still quite rare) invisibility cloak. Harry's cloak was
not "an" invisibility cloak, it was "the" invisibility cloak -- the one
and only invisibility cloak that was part of the Deathly Hallows, the
three objects with superior powers handed down through the generations.
But Dumbledore was in possession of the cloak since borrowing it from
Harry's father shortly before his death. He had spent decades searching
for and dreaming of the Deathly Hallows, and he knew what it was.

Of course, Hermione could be lying or have misremembered, but I think
either of those possibilities is unlikely. I think we can at least trust
that Dumbledore said exactly what Hermione says he said.  The question
becomes: was Dumbledore being totally truthful with them? I think the
answer to this question has to be "No." 

So, why would Dumbledore tell them that the Dementors could see through
invisibility cloaks? Was he speaking specifically of Harry's cloak or of
the more common and less powerful cloaks? He does use the plural
"cloaks." 

The mere use of the plural in this case points to evasiveness on
Dumbledore's part. After all, there's only one like Harry's, so making
it plural insinuates that he is referring at least in part to the lesser
cloaks.

Was this evasiveness an attempt by Dumbledore to shield Harry from the
truth
about his cloak?   This would go along with Dumbledore's self-proclaimed
mistake -- his tendency throughout Harry's younger years at Hogwarts of
trying to conceal from him the truth about what happened the night his
parents died -- the truth about his true identity and destiny. Since
Dumbledore doesn't come clean with Harry until the end of book 5 after
Sirius dies, it can be assumed that this evasiveness is in effect in
book 3.

But, the case could be made that deliberately warning Harry about the
Dementors was to make him even more careful than he needed to be. The
thinking would be something like a parent knowing that most of the time,
their child isn't going to get hit by a car when crossing the street.
But, the consequences of that once-in-a-while occurrence are too
devastating, so the parent warns the kid that they could be hit by a
car, never mentioning that it is statistically more likely that the
driver will swerve and just give the kid a good scare.

Personally, I lean toward both explanations and one more. Telling Harry
a half-truth fits well with Dumbledore's character