Rowling is an enemy of any consistency, My impression was, it is thinking she is opposed to, not consistency in itself. I suppose she would have liked her books to be consistent but didn't want to put in the necessary work and brain exercise to do it. Just think (no pun intended) about it: On the Watsonian level: - the socalled brain of the trio is repeatedly put down BECAUSE of it (mainly by Snape) - Hermione herself states that there are much more important things in the world - and if you look close, it is not even "thinking" most of the time, but reading and learning by heart. The first time we ever encounter anything like real thinking (IIRC) is in DH in connection with the entrance to the Ravenclaw common room - even though Hermione is given credit for knowing a lot of things, this leaves her as essentially the servant to Harry in DH (and really before as well): it's not as if there was any notion like for instance "Well, Harry is the hero, Hermione is the brain, so let Ron do the chores of doing the cooking and the laundry!". No. It's up to her do everything for the other two. - theory is consistently ridiculed, looked down upon (Slinkhard in OotP, History) - the intellectual house is notable for fleeting pretty love interests and nothing more. Meaning, they are quite nice but not full blooded enough for a true Gryffindor to stick with them).
On the Doylist level: - in a book about good and evil, there is NO definition of what these notions might be meant to confer. It has certainly nothing to do with any abstract values or a philosophical approach - in a book where the divide between good and evil seems somehow to be linked to the question of Dark or non-Dark Art - this distincion is never made. In short, the author lacks the barest minimum of intellectual self-discipline and integrity to keep her from contradicting herself every few pages.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2008-10-10 07:46 pm (UTC)My impression was, it is thinking she is opposed to, not consistency in itself. I suppose she would have liked her books to be consistent but didn't want to put in the necessary work and brain exercise to do it. Just think (no pun intended) about it:
On the Watsonian level:
- the socalled brain of the trio is repeatedly put down BECAUSE of it (mainly by Snape)
- Hermione herself states that there are much more important things in the world
- and if you look close, it is not even "thinking" most of the time, but reading and learning by heart. The first time we ever encounter anything like real thinking (IIRC) is in DH in connection with the entrance to the Ravenclaw common room
- even though Hermione is given credit for knowing a lot of things, this leaves her as essentially the servant to Harry in DH (and really before as well): it's not as if there was any notion like for instance "Well, Harry is the hero, Hermione is the brain, so let Ron do the chores of doing the cooking and the laundry!". No. It's up to her do everything for the other two.
- theory is consistently ridiculed, looked down upon (Slinkhard in OotP, History)
- the intellectual house is notable for fleeting pretty love interests and nothing more. Meaning, they are quite nice but not full blooded enough for a true Gryffindor to stick with them).
On the Doylist level:
- in a book about good and evil, there is NO definition of what these notions might be meant to confer. It has certainly nothing to do with any abstract values or a philosophical approach
- in a book where the divide between good and evil seems somehow to be linked to the question of Dark or non-Dark Art - this distincion is never made.
In short, the author lacks the barest minimum of intellectual self-discipline and integrity to keep her from contradicting herself every few pages.