Nagini's attack on Arthur in OotP

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

We know that Arthur was an Order member, guarding the door to the DoM (and asleep on the job under an invisibility cloak which didn't hide him from a creature that hunted by heat and scent), when Voldemort's snake attacked him.

What did the Ministry think, and the average Prophet reader?


If Fudge had realized Arthur was there on Dumbledore's orders, surely he'd have sacked him?

In fact, why wasn't Arthur sacked anyway? What business had he to be in the Ministry at all in the middle of the night? Much less loitering suspiciously outside the DoM with an invisibility cloak?

And just what kind of security does the Ministry have, that Order members, Voldemort's slaves and pets, and schoolkids, can come and go after hours as they please? I've never worked anywhere that didn't lock up when everyone left.

In fact, aren't the Aurors based in the building? Shouldn't they have a night shift (what, Dark wizards never operate at night, you tell me?), and therefore a night shift on reception to check people in who have business there?

Finally, if Fudge didn't think the snake was Tom's pet, whose did he think it was and how did he think it got in and escaped?

Thoughts?

Comments

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

No, you're right, it's canon:

"You see what you expect to see, Severus," said Dumbledore, without raising his eyes from a copy of Transfiguration Today. "Other teachers report that the boy is modest, likable, and reasonably talented. Personally, I find him an engaging child."

Dumbledore turned a page, and said, without looking up, "Keep an eye on Quirrell, won't you?"

So I'm surprised again. Oryx reminded me that Dumbledore was deliberately setting a trap for Quirrell, and I remarked that I was surprised by this - Rowling obviously meant it to be so, yet has the headmaster doing very little else in 'fighting the war' against Voldemort. The man who deliberately sets a trap for the wraith in book #1 ... can't find a creature the size of a sixty foot basilisk, can't stop Sirius Black from invading the castle, allows a death eater to masquerade as a teacher for a year, sets up an ineffectual protection which takes the lives of two, almost three men, for a prophecy which next book he says is meaningless, puts on a cursed ring which kills him in book 6 and sets up a 'plan' of Hallows and Horcruxes which is so farcical only brain-dead fan zombies could possibly take it seriously.

Yet she reminds us of the Quirrell trap again in DH, as per your quote.

It just seems to be a huge ... discontinuity. Was Dumbledore actually partially efficient in book #1? His proactively setting a trap in PS seems incongruous in comparison with his bumbling for the remaining six books. That's why I totally forgot what you and Oryx have pointed out, I think.

and lookit Dumbles! He really *was doing stuff*, he didn't just sit on his arse

Not for that one-half of one book, no, he set up an overly complicated (suitable for a childrens book, I guess) trap. But as for the other eleven-twelfths of the series ... he comes over as quite ineffectual.

... OR Barty Jr. Dumbles had everything under control. So why did he let an evilly posessed teacher, an evil disguised teacher and a monstreously dangerous werewolf teacher loose amongst hundreds of children *for which he was responsible*?

Well, like I said above, he *didn't* have everything in control; Rowling couldn't let him be such, because that would then destroy her simplistic one-dimensional plots. Which is why I think Dumbledore was a farce for six and a half books and why I'm surprised at how she let him be partially effective in book 1 ... and actually reminding us of this in DH!

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

I guess the answer is simply that he was omniscient ... when Rowling needed him to be - like at the end of each book, when he'd explain everything that needed to be known to understand what had happened ... and oblivious for the rest of it.

Which is inconsistent/bad writing, but it allowed Rowling to float the plots she wanted to write, the way she wanted to write them.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

I've seen the term 'cognitive dissonance' used before, and have used it myself, in describing the behaviour of canon apologists or zealous OBHWF shippers, but 'doublethink' is a better diagnosis at that, given as how there is no actual *conflict* in the subjects' minds, they're happy supporting their antagonistic conclusions in parallel and often can't see - and certainly won't admit to - the incompatibility.

I loathe the Potter books. I loathe them with a passion. Part of this loathing is born from the fact that they only make sense if one is prepared to imply doublespeak.

I guess the trick to liking the books is to willingly or unconsciously accept *some* degree of 'doublethink', of conflicting standards. Otherwise known as 'suspension of disbelief' maybe.

I never thought the HP books were super-fantastic but enjoyed reading the first five. Well, books 1-2 were too much 'for kids' to take really seriously, but #3 - #5 were okay. I liked OotP the most - for a HP book - because it seemed that Harry was waking up, getting proactive (okay, Hermione on his behalf, driving him), and that things were going to really start cooking with the sequel.

I didn't worry too much about the huge Rowling errors in those books back then. Sure, I acknowledged that it was ludicrous that Crouch couldn't kill or shanghi Harry in the first week at Hogwarts, rather than setting up the ridiculously convoluted plan to kidnap him via cup portkey at the end of the tournament, but my 'suspension of disbelief' was enough to turn a blind eye to that one humoungous flaw. Or the fact that the existence of Time Turners meant anything could happen, from book #3 on. I gave Rowling a pass on those isolated incidents.

But book #6 was so bad, there was such a paucity of real plot, the filler was so obnoxious and contrived ... it was much harder to ignore the entire set of Rowling flaws. Or there wasn't the incentive to give the author such an allowance.

And then DH was published and blew the whole series out of the water.

Still, up to OotP, the books' errors hadn't breached my 'suspension of disbelief' limits. Or my willingness to cut the author some slack. Because the rest of the material, minus the flaws, still came up on the plus side? (Also the fan fiction sometimes helped to explain away Rowling's errors for her.)

It's funny, though, how I now have contempt for those fans who *still* toe the line and worship the books and/or Rowling. Because the last two books were just orders of magnitudes worse in the number of errors a reader had to avoid. Taking things to a point where only a child or an adult cursed with 'doublethink' - or deliberate ignorance - or stupidity :-) - could say that they are 'good books', or the series a quality work.

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

It's funny, though, how I now have contempt for those fans who *still* toe the line and worship the books and/or Rowling. Because the last two books were just orders of magnitudes worse in the number of errors a reader had to avoid. Taking things to a point where only a child or an adult cursed with 'doublethink' - or deliberate ignorance - or stupidity :-) - could say that they are 'good books', or the series a quality work.

I've found that usually having discussions with hardcore fans is an essay in frustration, especially if they happen to be smart fans. (which many are) Any criticisms you point out, no matter how politely phrased, are instantly shot down, and occasionally other accusations will be leveled at you- you don't like fantasy, you don't understand the books, you're getting caught up with the religious fervor against them, etc. The last one was from my mother of all people, despite the fact that I write fantasy myself and have no real qualms about including magic in it. Clearly, the hatred of the religious right doesn't necessarily mean the book is good. ;-)

(not trying to go off into that territory, but I thought it was kind of a telling comment)

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

It's not like I have a long and involved history of ... 'discussions' ... with the rabid pro-Jo fans, but for a couple of years around DH I did encounter a handful; enough to do a little psychological profiling and learning.

Any criticisms you point out, no matter how politely phrased, are instantly shot down

Well, no, the anti-canon *arguments* aren't 'shot down'; typically they aren't addressed at all.

Instead -

... and occasionally other accusations will be leveled at you- you don't like fantasy, you don't understand the books, you're getting caught up with the religious fervor against them, etc.

That's more what happens - attack the person, look for any reason to avoid listening to him - he's a 'hater', the books are for kids, if you don't like the books why are you here anyway, etc.

I've never had the "you're a religious fundamentalist" one levelled at me though.

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

Perhaps my experience was unusual, but seeing that some of the fans I have discussed this with were also good friends, they probably would have less of a reason to straight up insult me. They still didn't want to acknowledge my arguments though.

if you don't like the books why are you here anyway

Apparently some people really need to learn about the joys of literary criticism.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Well, I only met my psychological subjects via the internet and through Harry Potter so there wasn't any complication of friendship involved. Certainly they weren't held back by any "be nice by default" standards of common courtesy! They came out fighting and gutter kicking from the start.

I've had a couple of internet-friends - friends acquired through the HP fandom - lower the boom on me too as the battle lines became starker and the effort of hiding from the 'truth' became more and more difficult for them. Which was fascinating to watch, actually, if sad too.

Apparently some people really need to learn about the joys of literary criticism.

Heh, yes. Or as I like to put it - "we had to get our money's worth out of the books *somehow*!". :-)

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

So, do you think that the hype is kind of dying down now since the last movie came out? That would be nice, so that the books could actually be publicly critiqued without hordes of screaming fans attacking whatever brave soul actually does it.

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

Sorry, that should be *whichever brave soul.

[for-diddled.livejournal.com]

"you're getting caught up with the religious fervor against them, etc. The last one was from my mother of all people, despite the fact that I write fantasy myself and have no real qualms about including magic in it. Clearly, the hatred of the religious right doesn't necessarily mean the book is good. ;-)"

Now that you mention the religious right, it's kinda odd that they criticise it for including magic, as opposed to, say, the whole "crush your enemies and get praised for it because you're in Gryffindor" mentality. That's pretty opposed to Christian teaching, but nobody ever seems to mention it. Maybe because they never actually read the books, so don't really know what happens in them.

[charlottehywd.livejournal.com]

Good point. Magic is probably the least creepy aspect of the series. That's why I find it so weird when people try to draw Harry/Jesus parallels. The two could hardly be less similar- Harry spends most of his time thinking about himself and seems to take credit for what his friends do a lot, while Christ's whole reason for being on earth was to save others. I just don't see it.

I kind of wish some of these fundamentalist naysayers had actually taken the time to read the books. Do you think they would have picked up on the other moral issues?

[sharaz-jek.livejournal.com]

Depending on the fundamentalists in question, that's exactly the sort of Christianity many of them preach but with a different iconography. Gloating over the punishment of your enemies, ignoring similar cases on your own side, low knowledge of the outside world, Muggles/unbelievers are only important in that you can get Muggle-borns/converts from them who are encouraged to assimilate, and American right-wing Christians often consider themselves persecuted despite their colossal privilege and influence while wizards hide away in fear of angry mobs despite the fact that they can teleport, mindwipe, mind-control, torture, kill, mutilate, etc. Change all occurences of the words "magic" and "spell" to "prayer" and you're done.

[for-diddled.livejournal.com]

"Well, books 1-2 were too much 'for kids' to take really seriously, but #3 - #5 were okay."

Really? I always thought the first two books were the best. Maybe because it's easier to forgive JKR's "just throw anything in, as long as it looks cool" approach in a children's book than it is in a more grown-up work of fiction.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Maybe because it's easier to forgive JKR's "just throw anything in, as long as it looks cool" approach in a children's book than it is in a more grown-up work of fiction.

I certainly agree with you that it's "easier to forgive", but that's simply because writing a childrens book is *easier*, full stop; that seems axiomatic to me. It's Rowling trying to do well in an exam suited for primary school (6 - 12 year olds) rather than high school, say.

Which is consistent with my contempt for Rowling as a writer ... as the series progressed she tried to make her books more 'adult', more 'real' ... and failed miserably, she couldn't cut it. You've got to admit that with the last few books she was trying to treat Harry and his battle with the dark lord seriously ... and she couldn't wrap her mind around an adult-worthy plot to support it.

I've seen the occasional article criticising Rowling for how she tried to make her books 'serious' but how there was an incompatibility between that attempted tone and the ongoing 'silliness' of her universe - the names of the wizards and creatures and such, as well as the simplicity of her storyline.

I always thought the first two books were the best.

Certainly the 'for kids' tone of the books lends towards forgiving Rowling for plot holes and errors, but it lowers the amount of respect one can have for the books too, as well as the overall satisfaction in reading them. For me, anyway.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

I tried to reply to you, but my response got pushed to the end of the thread, for whatever reason.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Actually, no. It is not necessarily easier to write a good children's book than it is to write one for adults. I really get fed up with this excuse - "Oh, they were just children's books, after all," when what is meant is series books, on the level of Nancy Drew. And the Nancy Drew books, formulaic and plodding as they are by adult standards, at least are internally consistent and move fast.

I don't think, honestly, that Rowling set out to write children's books. I think she set out, as she, herself has said, to write books for herself. And - as I've said before - she has a lot of energy and talent. What she doesn't seem to have is discipline in exercising that talent. I just can't believe that she doesn't bother to read what she's written! Rather, I can, given the inconsistencies in the books, but I find that shocking.

Seriously, some of the best-crafted and most beautiful literature I have ever read was written for children and teens. But you can't really compare Boston or LeGuin or Janssen or even Lewis and L'Engle and Alexander, at their best, with Rowling. Just to name a few! They are artists, and she's not.

My two cents.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Well, we disagree about the 'difficulty level' of childrens versus adults books.

Take the 'Mr. Men' series (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Men) as an *extreme* example. I have zero creativity and writing talent but I'm pretty sure my attempt to write a "Mr. Men" book would be a lot more acceptable than my writing an adult fantasy/mystery/science fiction novel (I tremble at the idea of the latter).

That's at an extreme end of the spectrum, but it does seem obvious to me that the younger the reader, the simpler the material, the less need for complexity, for logic, and so forth.

I really get fed up with this excuse - "Oh, they were just children's books, after all"

Yes, I've seen that excuse bandied about as well; just another attempt by the faithful to give their author a pass, to let her off the hook. It doesn't wash. Even if a child readership might be more forgiving, less discerning ... to make the sort of errors that Rowling made in even that genre says even more of her lack of ability!

Look at it this way, maybe ... if you had Rowling and, oh, any really good author - let's call him Tolkein for now - both write childrens books, Tolkein's would be superior. Have them write adult books; the same result. But I dare say the adult readership would be the one which most appreciates the difference in quality of the two authors' material, the one which most enjoys the high-end writing of Tolkein's which is just missing in Rowling's. And the readership which is the most demanding, the most critical of errors of plot, logic and so forth.

Tolkein's superior writing ability wouldn't be 'wasted' in either genre. But it would probably be most noticed in the adult field.

I think Rowling knew what she was doing when she started out with the definite 'childrens' feel to her series. But books 4 onwards were definitely attempts to address Harry's adventures with more gravity and adult perspective ... and that's when her bad writing and her problems became most evident.

And then everything fell apart faster and faster as she approached the end and we all discovered she hadn't really thought out her end game at all.

But still, she chose her readership well. I still don't quite know why the HP series took off like it did - someone here in capslock, I think, attributed it to 'marketing' - but getting her hooks into those young readers was the secret to her success.

[oryx_leucoryx]

Tolkien's 'Mr Bliss' is a hilariously fun children's book, though aimed at a much younger age group than HP. My daughter loved it when she was 6 or so.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Tolkein's superior writing ability wouldn't be 'wasted' in either genre. But it would probably be most noticed in the adult field.

Really? I'm going to have to drop this argument, but you are pushing a lot of buttons here. I would like to know if you've ever actually read Catherine Fisher, or L.M. Boston, or Ursula LeGuin. And there is fine, fine writing in The Hobbit. I didn't particularly notice it as a child, but I am sure it impacted me!

Otherwise, the one thing I will do is point you to Kira's post on Ferretbrain, where she discusses the quality of Rowling's writing. The first three books were actually good children's books, and the prose held up. Not so true in the last three. Here's the link: http://ferretbrain.com/articles/article-160.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Sorry, Brad - wrong link! This is the article I meant:

http://ferretbrain.com/articles/article-139

[for-diddled.livejournal.com]

Well, a well-written series of adults' books is generally more enjoyable than a similarly well-written series of childrens' books, it's true. But JK Rowling didn't give us this; instead, she gave us a few well-written children's books and a few badly-written adults' books, and if asked I'd choose to read a well-written childrens' book over a badly-written adults'.

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

----I've seen the term 'cognitive dissonance' used before, and have used it myself, in describing the behaviour of canon apologists or zealous OBHWF shippers, but 'doublethink' is a better diagnosis at that, given as how there is no actual *conflict* in the subjects' minds, they're happy supporting their antagonistic conclusions in parallel and often can't see - and certainly won't admit to - the incompatibility.

Way late on this comment, but, as I've mentioned cognitive dissonance a few times here, I just wanted to clarify that it's the avoidance of cognitive dissonance that often describes the behavior of canon apologists. One way of avoiding cognitive dissonance is by denying that two conflicting ideas are in conflict with each other; in other words, by using doublethink.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Ah, I see! That's my new thought for today. :-) Thanks!