Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Big_Bird]

[Privateer]

Well, the article writer talks a lot about holes in the plot, character inconsistencies and inexplicable behaviour but doesn't give any examples so I'm not going to bother arguing against that.

She makes the point that Rowling's magic doesn't seem to work like either athletic achievement or academic achievement, but she forgets there are other analogues. "Potions" is an obvious analogue for chemistry, in which both experience and close attention to details like timing and measuring are necessary for success. Other magical 'subjects' are also obvious equivalents to real academic subjects, like 'Arithmancy'. However, the magic she's talking about is mainly spoken spells and these seem to involve acquiring skills loosely analogous to language learning: you need to practice the right gesture, pronunciation, and mental focus for each spell to 'acquire' it, rather than just say it.

It does seem ridiculous to have wizards who are 'poor' in any real sense, but then again you can justify it by saying the magician economy works the same as our economy, i.e. by exchange of (magical) goods and services. She (the writer) doesn't seem to take into account the variety of different types of magic and levels of skill. Not all magicians can make wands, for example: so you have a wand shop. Not all magicians are skilled enough or inclined to be 'Aurors' so those that are receive a salary. There are also examples of wizards who choose to ignore the conventions of wizarding society and its economy so it's perfectly possible to be a contented eccentric. In other words, it's not so much a survival imperative for wizards to make money as that they wish to gain a place in society: much like ordinary people do.

For me the most ridiculous thing of all in Rowling's work is the idea that people, like the Dursleys and other 'Muggles', would somehow see magic as not 'respectable' and deny it to themselves. But the writer doesn't mention that.

Now I feel like a geek for writing this but damnit if 'respectable' journalists can sound off about Harry Potter so can I!

[Big_Bird]

Geeks are cool.

[Kuros]

Its obvious Rowling never sat down and thought about the mechanics of magic in her world, and that detracts from it quite a bit.

I would extend the same criticism to Star Wars, as well. The force, as presented, is very amorphous and esoteric. I hate, I absolutely hate, whenever Yoda or someone says, 'The force is within you.' Its absolutely decadent. Luke does have to work for his powers a little at least, whereas in Harry Potter there's no evidence of any struggle at all.

Compare this to Batman Begins, in which the hero does not have any superpowers. Bruce Wayne tries to pull off the whole, 'but I'm a good person on the inside,' and the female lead replies pricelessly, 'good people are defined by what they do.' It's about struggle, right conduct, and action.

The lack of mechanics in the magic and the utter 'wishfulness' of it is harmful to our children. It reinforces the decadence and complacency of the worst aspects of our culture. And its sloppy writing.

[kotakji]

As an avid fantasy/sci-fi reader myself, I agree a lot with what the author said. I've always been annoyed when a portrayed 'universe' lacks any sense of coherent physics. Sure magic or advanced technology can be integrated into the physics of that universe, but it should obey some rules of consistency. Sure, as the author mentioned, the rules of physics may be poorly understood by their practitioners, leading to a sense of unexpectedness or randomness, but the world should work in a semi-logical fashion.

The issue that turned me off about the Harry Potter series is that while hes the hero of the story, he really doesn't deserve much credit. Basically his whole life is driven by luck or someone else's hard work. Hes hero worshiped because of a feat of hereditary outside his own control, most all hard work is done for him by his coterie of followers, and half of his magical prowess comes in the form of artifacts granted to him out of the blue. Dues ex machina is great in small doses, but it shouldn't be intruding at every step.

The writer is correct in that some authors write themselves into corners with their details. I have been recently re-reading the 'dragon-prince' series by Melanie Rawn which I had read as a child. I've been having trouble getting into it because of some of the glaring inconsistencies in the world. (IE X Kingdom somehow only has some 200 able bodied men, yet an unworking nobility equal in size). Now I am not one to nitpick over tiny details like you sometimes see among fantasy buffs, but I do expect a world to be somewhat plausible given the extra extenuating circumstances such as magic laid down by the author.

[The Bobster]

[Kuros]

[jkelly80]

As a fantasy geek myself, I'd like to recommend George RR Martin and his Song of Ice and Fire series. It's more political than magical, but as realistic as any fantasy I've ever read.

[mumblebee]

People love Harry Potter because it is an engaging read, not because it is amazing children's literature. It is a real pot-boiler series, completely plot-driven. It's strengths are charm, wit, and whimsy, rather than deep character development etc. Actually, it's most wonderful strength is that kids all over the place are turning the pages on a 700+ page tome, that has rather sophisticated vocabulary (although this may be less so now with so many of the books turned into movies.)

[Big_Bird]