Harry Potter

I'm a bit torn on this, as while I find the world and the atmosphere of the world JK Rowling created one of the strengths of the books. It's obviously not always done cohesively or necessarily coherently, as you say.

But is that perhaps a normal thing for authors that don't go in for proper worldbuilding, or is it shoddy.

Shoddy or just lacking? I'm not sure.

I think the problem arises when she tries to make plot points out of something like the Weasleys' poverty or the Ministry's incompetent bureaucracy (or Quidditch, as much as I love it) when there's no rational reason why these things should exist in the way they are described. If you treat the story more as a fairy tale where things just sort of happen and no one knows why, then nine of this really matters, but Rowling is widely praised for creating a "believable" secondary world, and the scope of her ambitions, especially in the second half of the series with the political allegories and all, begin to demand more of the setting (IMO).

Simul with Blue.

I think the setting is a great strength of the series because it is so much fun, but it's something you just can't think too hard about (not that that's ever stopped fans).  I agree that it's very inventive, but I described it as shoddy because Rowling has admitted that she didn't think through many of the details once fans started asking her about stuff.

So, I guess one could say the worldbuilding is both lacking, in the that to some degree a foundation for the world is not there, and, I think Eldo has demonstrated pretty well, shoddy, or use a different term if that is preferable, in that parts of it doesn't make coherent sense.

And still all agree the world itself is one of the qualities of the books.

That's quite the situation, isn't it.

I dont think super detailed and consistent worldbuilding is necessarily better than imaginative worldbuilding based on atmosphere. the former may be dull and the latter may be frustrating, but its certainly not subpar its just a different approach.

Shockingly I am with Figg here. Much as I don't like Rowlings Potter books personally for a certain type of story, and especially those aimed at children, world building can be secondary.
You don't take away from a childhood of reading The Famous Five a sense of a coherent world-building, you take away impressions of cycling down country lanes, smashing meals and lashings of lemonade, spooky caves and nasty villains with hidden treasure.
So long as these things can engage your audience and keep them enthralled, as the Potter phenomenon certainly does (and should do after all most of the ideas worked the first time round for their original authors!) then world building works fine out of focus and on the edges of the events and characters.

Mrs Figg wrote:I dont think super detailed and consistent worldbuilding is necessarily better than imaginative worldbuilding based on atmosphere. the former may be dull and the latter may be frustratingIncidently I often see both complaints are often applied to Tolkien, but its certainly not subpar its just a different approach.

Yeah, I think I'd agree with that, when applied to books like. Rowling does have her flaws, but it was her world-building and characters that drew me to the books as a kid, I didn't really notice any of the plot holes/math issues until I was old enough to no longer be the target audience, by that point I couldn't really take it that seriously anyway. I wouldn't necessarily call it a bad thing-the fans don't seem to care very much, it's not hyper detailed, but for readers who like it, it seems charm is enough.

Now now Petty ? your not hinting at plagiarism are you ?

( cos if youre not, can I ? )

Eldorion wrote:How can there be a wizarding population in Britain large enough to require a government bureaucracy of thousands,  yet so few children that the entire country has only one school with a few hundred students? On that same topic, why is Hogwarts sometimes described as having 800 or so students when Harry's entire year has about 40? Even if we accept that food can't just be magic ed into existence, why do the impoverished Weasleys have to wear threadbare robes when they are talented magicians and spells like "reparo" exist? Why have witches and wizards adopted Muggle inventions like radio but not ballpoint pens or pants?

There's loads more but I'm on my phone so that will have to suffice for now.

A few things I always wondered:

Why do wizards have to wear Glasses?
Was Ireland partioned in the books?
Why didn't Voldy just use a Time Turner?
Why didn't Harry notice the Threstals before?
Why does Ron gradually turn into a useless A-hole?

http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Mistakes_in_the_Harry_Potter_books

But then again this dosen't matter...

If Harry Potter is plagiarism, then what does that make Tanya Grotter?



 

malickfan wrote:

http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Mistakes_in_the_Harry_Potter_books

But then again this dosen't matter...

 
Thanks for posting this - I love the HP books, but I can't deny that all the mistakes and inconsistencies, small or substantial, have annoyed me a lot. That list somehow made it easier for me to laugh it all away

I like these ones

Dumbledore says that he passes through several parties to get to Little Whinging, however he got there by Apparition, which is a direct form of transport, although he could have apparated several times to go to many parties. so getting drunk is more important than protecting the chosen one?

It states in the Hogwarts letter that you can bring an owl, toad, or cat but Ron brings his rat. Typical Ron, avoids reading at all costs

During the Hallowe'en feast, when the troll is let in, Professor Dumbledore sends the students to their dormitories. However, the troll is said to be in the dungeons, and that is also where the Slytherin dormitories are, meaning Dumbledore has put them directly in harm's way by sending them there.he he

For a supposedly spectator event, the staging of the Triwizard Tournament is remarkably unfriendly to spectators. Although the entire school turns out for every event, they can only see what happens in the first event, as the second occurs at the bottom of a lake and the third occurs within an impenetrable maze. It is hard to explain why no effort is made to give the audience a better view of the champions' adventures, as this is presumably the whole point of the tournament, and the justification for canceling the entire season of Quidditch, a spectator sport that people can actually see.Hmm...

There's a fair few, isn't there.

Blimey !

Some of the stuff on that list is really minor, but I remember stuff like Charlie Weasley's age being really baffling back in the day and people (including myself) spending ages trying to rationalize the various statements about him and the Gryffindor Quidditch team. Fond memories.

Eldorion wrote:Some of the stuff on that list is really minor, but I remember stuff like Charlie Weasley's age being really baffling back in the day and people (including myself) spending ages trying to rationalize the various statements about him and the Gryffindor Quidditch team.  Fond memories.

I wasn't the only one then...

I'm glad I wasn't the only person on here who did, either. I was really into Harry Potter back in the day.  I spent a lot more time thinking about it and reading ancillary materials than I did with LOTR until about 2007 or so.  Even though LOTR became my favorite after I read it in 2003 or 2004, HP was already there and remained a huge part of my life until the books ended (and I still care deeply for and about it).

Eldorion wrote:Even though LOTR became my favorite after I read it in 2003 or 2004, HP was already there and remained a huge part of my life until the books ended (and I still care deeply for and about it).

Same for me, It's the first series I read through all the way through, Potter was more or less a phenomena that grew bigger as my childhood progressed (I remember asking my father to pre books tickets for the first film over the phone, sure enough when we got to out local cinema, the one screen was completely packed out with dozens of extra seats laid out...) I still remember the excitement I found waiting in line for my pre-order copy of OOTP. Looking back on the series now, it does become apparent to me that there are flaws and mistakes, but crucially, I can see why I never really cared about them at the time, Potter was, and does remain a great series for young viewers (or those young at heart), a book doesn't have to be 'good literature' to be an enjoyable read. My copies of the books are falling to pieces, and as I never got round to reading some of the spin offs, part of me is sorely tempted by the new illustrated editions coming out next year...

I never did quite forgive them for leaving Charlie Weasley out of the films...

Agreed completely, malick.  My old paperback copies were falling apart as well (the spine on POA melted when I left it in the car while watching the movie on opening day, actually ).  So last Christmas I treated myself to the new American boxed set with new covers from Kazu Kibuishi.  They're really nice, though it's a bit jarring stylistically to go between the covers and the original (for the American editions, that is) Mary GrandPre illustrations at the start of each chapter.

malickfan wrote:

Eldorion wrote:Even though LOTR became my favorite after I read it in 2003 or 2004, HP was already there and remained a huge part of my life until the books ended (and I still care deeply for and about it).

Same for me, It's the first series I read through all the way through, Potter was more or less a phenomena that grew bigger as my childhood progressed (I remember asking my father to pre books tickets for the first film over the phone, sure enough when we got to out local cinema, the one screen was completely packed out with dozens of extra seats laid out...) I still remember the excitement I found waiting in line for my pre-order copy of OOTP. Looking back on the series now, it does become apparent to me that there are flaws and mistakes, but crucially, I can see why I never really cared about them at the time, Potter was, and does remain a great series for young viewers (or those young at heart), a book doesn't have to be 'good literature' to be an enjoyable read. My copies of the books are falling to pieces, and as I never got round to reading some of the spin offs, part of me is sorely tempted by the new illustrated editions coming out next year...

Hear, hear I still listen to the audiobooks every now and then (read by Jim Dale) when I'm on the bus or a plane or cleaning the appartment, and I still enjoy it Didn't know about these illustrated versions, I'll have to look into that!

Love that set, Eldo! Those are paperback as well, though, right?

Yes, unfortunately, they are only in paperback. I debated between that and a hardcover box set of the original covers since I only have the last three in hardcover, but I decided to go with the new covers for variety's sake (and because the original American covers of the first few books are not so great).

There isn't much info on the illustrated editions (well, not much I could find anyway):

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/dec/06/harry-potter-fully-illustrated-jim-kay

If I'm reading this correctly these editions are also integrated with extracts of the additional material from Pottermore:

http://insider.pottermore.com/2014/03/bloomsbury-announce-new-era-for-harry.html

I'm going to probably wait to see these in the flesh before making a judgement (the harry pic isn't to my taste, but the Castle looks really cool), British books can be of rather inconsistent quality (come to think of it my copy of LOTR is falling apart as well...)

Eldorion wrote:

That is a really nice looking set.

So long as the Pottermore extracts are at the end and not interspersed with the main text, that sounds like a decent idea. The wording in that announcement ("see how they can find out more" or whatever) makes it sound more like a glorified ad than anything else, though.