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]

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.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

I had no idea!

[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