this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2024
754 points (97.8% liked)

Greentext

4490 readers
1090 users here now

This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.

Be warned:

If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CyanideShotInjection 9 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You brought up a really good example of a fantasy world with boundaries by mentionning Tolkien. It is heavily insinuated in the LOTR books that "magic" is not "endless posibilities magic", it has more to do with special aptitudes and/or knowledge depending on the race (like elves or wizards). It's not like Gandalf can just snap a finger and transform someone into a chicken. I know it limits what you can do with your world but in the case of HP it opens the door to endless plot holes and contradictions.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

It goes along with Sanderson's Laws of Magic, specifically rule 1:

An author’s ability to solve conflict with magic is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to how well the reader understands said magic.

It works for HP because it's targeting kids, but adults get frustrated because Rowling just makes up stuff each book. For example, why are port keys not a thing before book 4? (it would be a lot easier to take a portkey to Hogwarts than a train) Because they're a plot device at the end of book 4, and almost never used again.

Rowling uses magic way too much to solve problems in HP and she does so inconsistently, but that's totally fine because the point of the story is to appeal to kids and inspire imagination (and kids love quick solutions to problems), not to appeal to adults.

[–] CyanideShotInjection 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Really interesting concept you brought up, did not know that law and yes it makes perfect sense.

And I totally get your point, but it is still an issue to me considering that she wanted to keep the audience hooked as they aged. As someone put it in another comment, in the first book, Harry is eleven, it appeals to kids ~11 y.o, and so on. But, and I speak personnaly, by the fifth book it was already too disjointed for 15 y.o. me. Her books are like a Jojo's Bizarre Adventure book/episode, but without all the corny humor and the self-awarness that makes it fun.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Idk, my oldest kid is 10 and has finished the whole series. She may have intended kids to grow with the series, and that was certainly true when they came out (I remember my cousin reading the books as they came out), but I do think they have limited appeal to more mature audiences.

That said, I do still read YA novels, and I'm definitely not the audience, so I'm sure there are plenty of older kids and adults who aren't as bothered by plot holes and whatnot.