[stylist] Back to the wizarding world

[Eve Sanchez]

And something we must remember at all times is that Rowling is human.
We are writers and we know the difficulty of keeping every little
detail straight. Yes, Rowling did a tremendously wonderful job, but
she is still human and last I checked, no human is perfect. Searching
out and finding a rare error is just as fun as connecting the details
from book to book. Oh, and Hermione did not make anything up.
Dumbledor said this in the great hall to the entire student body, but
it was obviously meant for Harry, the way it was presented. I do not
think there was any secret plan with misinformation. Either an error
on the part of Rowling or Dumbledor is what am inclined to think.
Interesting to think about either way. Eve

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 11:57 AM, Bridgit Pollpeter
<bpollpeter at hotmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Writers Division web site
> http://www.writers-division.net/
> stylist mailing list
> stylist at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/stylist_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for stylist:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/stylist_nfbnet.org/3rdeyeonly%40gmail.com