In Order of the Phoenix, Harry can see Thestrals, because he saw Cedric die. But at the end of Goblet of Fire, when Cedric is already dead, Harry and Ron and Hermione leave Hogwarts by "horseless coaches", and the Thestrals don't get a mention. In fact, Harry's response at the start of OotP makes it quite clear this is the first time he's seeing them. Is this a well known inconsistancy that JKR has apologised for?
I'm normally really bad at spotting inconsistancies. This is a fact I like, because it really bugs me when I do.
Saw the film last night, which I enjoyed, despite it having cut out most of the plot in order to have more dramatic computer generated animation. Was disappointed that Fleur wasn't as good looking as she is in my mind, and saddened that Hermione's periwinkle blue dressrobes had turned into a pink frilly monstrosity of a ball gown. In fact, I was saddened that all the dress robes had turned into a vague varient on black tie. But I enjoyed it, and it was wonderful to get emperor
all to myself for an evening.
| |I'm normally really bad at spotting inconsistancies. This is a fact I like, because it really bugs me when I do.
LOL. Call it "good at suspending disbelief"http://www.mugglenet.com/books/mistakes/ootpmistakes.shtml
says JKR says "You can't see them until the death sinks in" which I think counts as recognising a mistake. Presumably the death of his parents which he also saw never did sink in because he was so young.
I thought Fleur and Hermione were pretty where appropriate. See previous post (tags! yay!) for detailed reactions.
|Date:||December 7th, 2005 03:46 pm (UTC)|| |
Nah. It was a plot necessity--she could hardly explain thestrals at the end of the book--which she explains by saying you have to have taken time to understand the death that happened, the weight of it.
I agree it's better to introduce the thestrals at the next book. But I don't think you can say it isn't an inconsistency because it was necessary for the plot.
The explanation is a reasonable one, though if it felt more natural it might cause less problems to people reading. For instance, if this had been planned at the time, wouldn't it have been easier to have Harry not go back on the coaches?
|Date:||December 8th, 2005 02:08 pm (UTC)|| |
It is an inconsistancy, I never meant to imply otherwise; I meant that I don't think it was a "mistake," as in I don't think JKR overlooked it.
Well, not a mistake with the books viewed as individuals, but a mistake with the books viewed as a whole?
|Date:||December 8th, 2005 02:17 pm (UTC)|| |
Perhaps a deliberate mistake rather than an accidental one, is a better way of putting it.
Well, the patch up is the best possible. Not planning ahead for it, might be a mistake. Anyway, we're arguing about words now so I'll try to stop...
|Date:||December 8th, 2005 02:21 pm (UTC)|| |
Yes, likewise. =)
|Date:||December 8th, 2005 03:50 pm (UTC)|| |
Oh, whereas I think it was actually a mistake, or at least, when JKR was writing the 4th book I would guess she hadn't invented thestrals yet, and so didn't realise that she was setting herself up for an inconsistancy. So she knew when she was writing the 5th book that it didn't quite fit, but by that point it was the best she could do?
|Date:||December 7th, 2005 05:22 pm (UTC)|| |
So did the death of his mother never sink in?
I'm coming to the conclusion it really was a mistake that she's tried to patch after the event.
Sigh, I really hate people who pick books to pieces and try and make scientific holes in the fabric of story. But I get annoyed at badly woven story too :-)
the reason he never saw them before is because he technically didnt see his mom die. thats the story. the flash was too much for him to see past and comprehend.
|Date:||December 8th, 2005 01:22 pm (UTC)|| |
He didn't really see it, so it doesn't count.
I don't think it was a mistake so much as "Argh, this doesn't really work, but I can't do it another way without messing up the plot so I'd better come up with reasons to explain it." And there are holes right and left in the HP world; I love the books, but they're not greatly written. C'est la vie.
Fleur was pretty good looking though! I haven't read the book, sorry.
I was amused when I was linked to noody!pics of the actress who played Fleur, from some other movie she was in. It meant it was a lot harder for me to look at her without the odd childish giggle ("I've seen you with no clothes on!!").
|Date:||December 8th, 2005 03:51 pm (UTC)|| |
Ah, you tease, all the comments and non of the links :-)
Well, the pictures are here
- naturally, this link is MOST EMPHATICALLY NOT SAFE FOR WORK