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

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

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 doesn't to me! Of course there are shoddy children's books, just as there are shoddy books for adults. But good children's or teen fiction HAS to be well-crafted, and the best of these contain some of the finest writing I've ever seen.

I do, of course, have a horse in this race; I'm a teen librarian and an aspiring YA/middlegrade writer.

What many of us think of books 1-3 is that they were "edited". Books 4-7, and especially books 6 and 7, don't seem to have been.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

It doesn't to me! Of course there are shoddy children's books ...

Sure. But I do strongly think it's still 'easier' to write a 'childrens' book than that for adults. And I think part of Rowling's failings is that she doesn't have the brains/temperament to deal in the 'logic' and substance that's required of the latter.

They both require smarts, but there's more required of an adult book than that for a child, IMO.

What many of us think of books 1-3 is that they were "edited". Books 4-7, and especially books 6 and 7, don't seem to have been.

Yes, I strongly agree; that's been a sub-topic of discussion about the failings of DH in particular. Rowling did have an editor ... just one, I think. Or maybe a token one on the other side of the Atlantic. That was highlighted in the press hoopla with regard to the whole 'secrecy' of the book, only 3-4 got to read it - Rowling, the managers in the UK and USA, the sole editor, something like that.

In all of her interviews and press releases it was clear that Rowling was 'going it alone' in writing her books - she resisted assistance from any other source. I do think that was actually cited in an interview or two, or at least certainly implied in her various "Harry is mine", "I write what I want to read" and other utterances. I wish I could remember the exact quotes, they really did show that the books were 100% Rowling. Those long years between books, it was just Rowling sitting there and going it alone.

And that single editor ... she spoke up once or twice, they interviewed her. And her examples of her 'editing' were more along the lines of a 'continuity girl' in a film ... checking that a classroom hadn't moved between books, things like that.

But when it came to 'real' editing, someone sitting down and saying "uh, Jo, you're really breaking the barriers on the last-minute dei ex machina for this book, and the brand new wand lore actually doesn't work, plus it contradicts your earlier books (yes, Jo, I know you don't re-read your own books), and by the way the plot sucks :-)" ... there was nothing. And Rowling was too big to have any such editing forced on her. More's the pity.

[oryx_leucoryx]

And that single editor ... she spoke up once or twice, they interviewed her. And her examples of her 'editing' were more along the lines of a 'continuity girl' in a film ... checking that a classroom hadn't moved between books, things like that.


Ahem. In GOF Albus' office is on a different floor than in other books. Anyway, how can anyone edit books for continuity (besides small details) when much of the story is not revealed until a later book? A hypothetical editor who knew what was planned for future books could have arranged for Albus not to lie so many times. Though some things beg an editor to ask pointed questions. Shouldn't an editor have alerted Rowling to the fact that in PS Hagrid seems to have been flying about with Harry for more than a day? Or did the editor assume they had somewhere else to be during this time?

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

In GOF Albus' office is on a different floor than in other books.

Really? Heh. :-)

Anyway, I'm principally thinking of the interviews and such around the media spectacle of DH; maybe she wasn't the editor for book #4. Or maybe she's a bad editor. That's consistent with my/our argument about the lack of quality/any editing with the (later) HP books.

Though some things beg an editor to ask pointed questions. Shouldn't an editor have alerted Rowling to the fact that in PS Hagrid seems to have been flying about with Harry for more than a day?

You'd think so. There was an 'editor test' floating around the internet a few months ago, 50 questions or so, multiple choice, what changes would you make in these passages, and it was all very detailed 'low level' stuff - grammar, proper wording, etc. Nothing remotely close to 'overview of the story as a whole'. I've always assumed that real editing would cover that aspect of a book as well, though.

[for-diddled.livejournal.com]

"Anyway, how can anyone edit books for continuity (besides small details) when much of the story is not revealed until a later book?"

You can't really, which is probably why the books are so inconsistent. Otherwise we might have had, e.g., the Deathly Hallows mentioned earier on, some proper foundation for Snape/Lily, and so on.