Nagini's attack on Arthur in OotP
Sep. 18th, 2011 09:01 am![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
terri-testing.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
deathtocapslockWe 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?
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?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-09-21 01:22 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2011-09-21 09:32 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2011-09-22 04:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-09-23 03:43 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2011-09-23 08:09 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2011-09-23 02:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-09-23 11:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2011-09-23 04:27 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2011-09-23 04:39 pm (UTC)http://ferretbrain.com/articles/article-139
no subject
Date: 2011-09-24 09:40 pm (UTC)