[stylist] Back to the wizarding world

Tue May 14 14:48:46 UTC 2013

The problem becomes one of proof. If an oversight on the part of the author
ends up being consistent with the character or situation, is it really an
error? I think only if she admited to it. The errors that interest me are
the ones that can be shown to be errors without her input.
Donna 

-----Original Message-----
From: stylist [mailto:stylist-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of Eve Sanchez
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 11:50 PM
To: Writer's Division Mailing List
Subject: Re: [stylist] Back to the wizarding world

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%40gmai
> l.com

_______________________________________________
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/penatwork%40epix.net