|
Chucat posted:Speaking of that did anything ever come up about Harry not seeming to have listened to a single History of Magic class in the entire time he was there?
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 09:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 00:16 |
|
|
Chucat posted:Speaking of that did anything ever come up about Harry not seeming to have listened to a single History of Magic class in the entire time he was there? No, because history is a useless subject.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 10:40
|
|
|
I mean this all points to Dumbedore being a terrible educator. Chucat raised it earlier - essentially all the current generation of Hogwarts kids are terrible at magic. Fred and George are probably the best Wizards at Hogwarts in terms of them actually creating new magic or applying magic in new ways. Hermione basically just has book knowledge. It makes you wonder if there is a general decline in wizarding knowledge of if most wizards are basically poo poo with only a few outliers per generation becoming exceptional wizards largely though them studying beyond Hogwarts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 11:13
|
|
|
Chucat posted:Speaking of that did anything ever come up about Harry not seeming to have listened to a single History of Magic class in the entire time he was there? Plot-wise or school-wise? As far as the plot went, whenever information from that class would be relevant, you'd have Hermoine there to explain things. Especially from "Hogwards : A History". (As an aside, Rowling should write that book) School-wise, you're allowed to fail some classes and still move up a year. I think Harry and Ron both failed their history OWLS, but it didn't really matter since they could just stop taking that class the next year. when they did pass their History exams, it was mostly thanks to cribbing notes from Hermoine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 13:03
|
|
|
Bad Wolf posted:Plot-wise or school-wise? As far as the plot went, whenever information from that class would be relevant, you'd have Hermoine there to explain things. Especially from "Hogwards : A History". (As an aside, Rowling should write that book) I agree completely. I have Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them and have read Quidditch Through the Ages and they're both really good and a load of fun. J.K. does a good job at writing books about the world she created and then switching her style to write books from the world she created.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 13:18
|
|
|
In addition to what I said earlier, Tom Riddle, who goes balls deep into his studies, is the bad guy and ultimately fails because he doesn't know/understand something. Harry Potter's weird.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 13:30
|
|
|
reflir posted:No, because history is a useless subject. It was also a joke about teachers who are awful at their subject and just there since its impossible for them to leave.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 14:46
|
|
|
I think the problem with inventing new spells is that there's probably something for almost everything already. The vast majority of the 'new' spells are pranks/jokes/assholery or serious evil dark magic. Most of the useful stuff is already discovered. That said, man does this poo poo fall apart if you think about it. The Marauder's Map alone is ridiculous. It shows the location of almost every single person in a building, including those who are invisible or disguised or freaking ghosts. It was invented by four kids in school. How the hell is this not a thing? If this is possible you'd think the school would make one up for the night watchman or something if it was possible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 15:15
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:It makes you wonder if there is a general decline in wizarding knowledge of if most wizards are basically poo poo with only a few outliers per generation becoming exceptional wizards largely though them studying beyond Hogwarts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 16:03
|
|
|
Paragon8 posted:I mean this all points to Dumbedore being a terrible educator. It makes sense that Harry isn't an amazing wizard. He's easier to identify with than if he was awesome at everything - he probably just wouldn't be very appealing if he was like Kvothe. And then you can't have Hermione or Ron better than Harry, the main character.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 22:03
|
|
|
Oh there are definitely literary reasons behind why Rowling writes what she writes. She's definitely a story over setting writer. I just enjoy being spergy and looking beyond what she writes at the harry potter world.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 23:08
|
|
|
Hermione has much more than book knowledge. For one, over and over again she is the quickest on the uptake at actually casting spells. Second, it seemed implied that she invented the spells for Dumbledore's Army that cursed the signup list and linked their coins.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2012 23:10
|
|
|
I get the feeling inventing spells is actually common, in the sense that a person who's used to magic (so maybe by sixth or seventh year) can usually work out some sort of minor effect even if it isn't a formal spell they've learned. Like, Molly Weasley, when she's cooking dinner, probably isn't consciously using any particular spell, she's just poking at things with her wand and getting them to do what she wants. If you asked her, she could probably verbalize what she's doing to get one particular effect or another, and teach one of her kids how to do that one specific thing, but it wouldn't have been a formal spell she actually learned at some point. Particularly skilled wizards can do this for more complex and interesting effects, but pretty much everyone can at least manage basic stuff, in the same way that a literate person can write a note or a sign or a letter, while it takes someone with skill and practice to write something more complex. Ohmigosh I think about this way too much. Too much fanfic. Eugh.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 00:20
|
|
|
^^ That's kind of what I thought too. I wondered a lot about whether spells were invented or discovered, and ultimately thought that the most likely explanation was that it's neither, really: performing magic would be a way of projecting your will and urging something to happen. Wands act like lasers, concentrating and focusing that willpower, and like someone else said earlier, a particular incantation might just be a pretty effective way of correctly focusing your energy and the easiest way to teach someone a certain magical move. (Though this theory falls apart with spells like "sectumsempra," which worked as intended for Harry despite his not knowing what would happen). Here's one thing that I've been thinking about recently, since I reread the whole series over the last two months. One of the central points made in the book is about the acceptability of wizard-muggle relationships, likening them to interracial or interreligious marriages in our world. But it seems like it would be so unlikely, and so impossible, for a witch or wizard to be particularly interested in dating or marrying a muggle. Pretty much everything the characters do, learn, talk about, read, watch, listen to, and worry about is specific to the magical world and must be kept secret from muggles. It just seems so unlikely that a witch or wizard would spend enough time with a muggle, or have enough to say to them without breaking the statute of secrecy (does that end with marriage?) for it to be much of a problem. Far from being a relevant allegory for interracial relationships, it practically seems like magical people are a separate species from muggles. Did anyone else get that impression?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 01:04
|
|
|
Look a sunflower posted:^^ That's kind of what I thought too. I wondered a lot about whether spells were invented or discovered, and ultimately thought that the most likely explanation was that it's neither, really: performing magic would be a way of projecting your will and urging something to happen. Wands act like lasers, concentrating and focusing that willpower, and like someone else said earlier, a particular incantation might just be a pretty effective way of correctly focusing your energy and the easiest way to teach someone a certain magical move. Yeah but we know Hagrid's dad had sex with a giant so maybe wizards are just freaky like that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 01:30
|
|
|
Look a sunflower posted:^^ That's kind of what I thought too. I wondered a lot about whether spells were invented or discovered, and ultimately thought that the most likely explanation was that it's neither, really: performing magic would be a way of projecting your will and urging something to happen. Wands act like lasers, concentrating and focusing that willpower, and like someone else said earlier, a particular incantation might just be a pretty effective way of correctly focusing your energy and the easiest way to teach someone a certain magical move. Counterpoint: We know that muggle parents of wizarding children know about the wizard world.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 03:03
|
|
|
Presumably you can tell people you're a wizard before you marry them. I think it was Finnegan's mother who was a witch, who didn't tell his father until they'd married? That implies she could've told him about it before the marriage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 04:17
|
|
|
Fair points, but it just seems like normal muggle life would be so boring and slow compared to your awesome magical life. As much as I would theoretically love to live in that world, it would admittedly become a life of complete paranoia and depression. Even if you were super cautious about what you ate or drank and so avoided the super powerful, effective infatuation potions that are *sold in the open at children's joke shops*, you could never be sure you were talking to your friends and not other people in disguise. The only form of detainment they have for any and all crimes is an existential nightmare world. People willing to put the time into learning Legilimens have total access to your thoughts, doors can be unlocked with spells known even to 11 year olds, your school sees no problem whatsoever holding detention and even final exams at midnight. Also, anyone with access to your hairbrush or clothing by default has access to your naked body via Polyjuice potion. There would be pretty much no defense for photos published of you doing heinous things, because how could you prove it wasn't you? Thinking about it now, I'm surprised Rita Skeeter never took that route.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 06:26
|
|
|
Eggnogium posted:Hermione has much more than book knowledge. For one, over and over again she is the quickest on the uptake at actually casting spells. Second, it seemed implied that she invented the spells for Dumbledore's Army that cursed the signup list and linked their coins. Nah, the latter was a Protean Charm and it's used somewhere else, notably Voldemort and his Dark Marks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 09:10
|
|
|
Look a sunflower posted:Fair points, but it just seems like normal muggle life would be so boring and slow compared to your awesome magical life. On the other hand Mr. Weasely who is not an idiot by any means and probably more actively interested in Muggles than anyone else is loving enthralled by the things we take for granted. Hell if I remember right isn't there a thing where he goes on about how awesome this muggle medical invention of "stitches" are? You would think there would be a better base understanding of Muggle technology, I would have loved to read about a Muggle Studies lesson and how backwards it is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 12:37
|
|
|
Look a sunflower posted:Fair points, but it just seems like normal muggle life would be so boring and slow compared to your awesome magical life.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 13:34
|
|
|
What I really don't get is how you have wizards who are deeply interested in muggles, like Arthur, who actually know little to nothing about them (a telly-phone???), and then you've got wizards and witches marrying muggles and obviously blending in well enough to date them and mingle and so on. It just doesn't make sense.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 13:35
|
|
|
Look a sunflower posted:Fair points, but it just seems like normal muggle life would be so boring and slow compared to your awesome magical life. This is a good point, but I think the important thing to remember is that for you to be in danger, someone would have to want to put you in danger and if you were just some average person no one, wizard or muggle, would have any reason to put you in danger. I mean, we live in a pretty dangerous world as it is, but we take for granted our safety because the odds of someone breaking into my house and shooting me in the face right now are so low even though this is a totally possible event.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 15:40
|
|
|
zachol posted:What I really don't get is how you have wizards who are deeply interested in muggles, like Arthur, who actually know little to nothing about them (a telly-phone???), and then you've got wizards and witches marrying muggles and obviously blending in well enough to date them and mingle and so on. It just doesn't make sense. Basically Rowling has only put a very superficial level of thought into the world of Harry Potter. There's a lot of places where it breaks down if you peak further around the corners.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 16:49
|
|
|
Yes, like why didn't the ministry use veriteserum on the deatheaters? The book says it was hard to punish the right people, because they didn't know who was under the imperius curse and not. And the owls. The owls can deliver a letter to anyone. Why not use them to find fugetives?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 16:55
|
|
|
Blight posted:Yes, like why didn't the ministry use veriteserum on the deatheaters? The book says it was hard to punish the right people, because they didn't know who was under the imperius curse and not. Prisoner's rights! Can't just use veritaserum on anyone! Has to be a student suspected of miscreancy, or a dude you thought was dead and is definitely a death eater and apparently infiltrated the school! Actually I have no idea. quote:And the owls. The owls can deliver a letter to anyone. Why not use them to find fugetives? I think Sirius even mentions part of this as a concern to Harry. He asks Harry to use a codename, and there's an implication that the Ministry could intercept the mail and track it. So there's absolutely no reason they couldn't use that tactic. It's really dumb. By the way, trying to figure out answers to these questions is half the fun of fanfic! (The other half is trolling people with Harry/Ginny.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 17:24
|
|
|
Obligatory Toast posted:Counterpoint: if you're a wizard marrying another wizard, you're more likely to be boning a distant cousin. I saw a family tree somewhere and my god it's as bad as medieval nobility.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 21:03
|
|
|
Szmitten posted:In addition to what I said earlier, Tom Riddle, who goes balls deep into his studies, is the bad guy and ultimately fails because he doesn't know/understand something. I think it's because Tom Riddle is a sociopath who literally cannot understand the concept of love. Which sort of meant he was screwed from day 1.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 22:12
|
|
|
Szmitten posted:In addition to what I said earlier, Tom Riddle, who goes balls deep into his studies, is the bad guy and ultimately fails because he doesn't know/understand something. Well I think that's the point though honestly: that there are things beyond school books that make all the difference, like love, and diligence, and morality. I don't know if that's the theme she was getting at when she penned the books but it does make sense, doesn't it? I mean in real life, all the book learning in the world doesn't do you a blasted thing unless you understand the life lessons you'll never learn in math or defense against the dark arts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2012 23:01
|
|
|
Szmitten posted:I saw a family tree somewhere and my god it's as bad as medieval nobility.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 01:01
|
|
|
Obligatory Toast posted:Isn't it though? Harry and Voldemort are related, albeit distantly. I'm more weirded out that Harry, the Weasley's, Draco, Tonks, MacMillan (whoever that was) and Neville all specifically share the same great great great grandparents (Sirius' great great grandparents). Hermione is the only one that has nothing to do with anyone.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 02:20
|
|
|
Szmitten posted:I'm more weirded out that Harry, the Weasley's, Draco, Tonks, MacMillan (whoever that was) and Neville all specifically share the same great great great grandparents (Sirius' great great grandparents). Hermione is the only one that has nothing to do with anyone. Just took a look at that family tree, and wow. I noticed a bit in the second book that didn't strike me until my most recent re-reading: [Tom Riddle explaining how he framed Hagrid for opening the CoS) "On the one hand, Tom Riddle, poor but brilliant, parentless but so brave, school prefect, model student... on the other hand, big, blundering Hagrid, in trouble every other week, trying to raise werewolf cubs under his bed..." So, um... human children?
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 03:05
|
|
|
Look a sunflower posted:Just took a look at that family tree, and wow. My head is exploding right now. That is so strange to think of little babies under his bed that only occasionally turn into were wolves. Maybe it's some sort of Underworld thing were some werewolves are permanently wolves and others can switch back and forth.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 03:37
|
|
|
FoxxorTheRed posted:My head is exploding right now. That is so strange to think of little babies under his bed that only occasionally turn into were wolves. Maybe it's some sort of Underworld thing were some werewolves are permanently wolves and others can switch back and forth. Those are called "wolves."
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 04:13
|
|
|
In the seventh book, Lupin says that werewolves usually don't have children and so he isn't sure if his kid will be normal or not. Given how prejudiced some wizards are, they might believe that werewolves can only engender unchanging wolf cubs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 04:18
|
|
|
I'm imagining Hagrid blowing up at Tom about how "they ain' werewolf cubs, they're warg cubs!" and so on, and Tom just rolling his eyes.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 04:43
|
|
|
I assume that Hagrid wasn't actually trying to raise werewolves, Voldemort's just a racist shithead and that's the first thing that comes to mind when he thought of monsters. He talks the same way about Lupin in the last book.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 16:28
|
|
|
Or Rowling hadn't introduced a werewolf character yet so she just hadn't settled on what they were actually like at that point.  I do like zachol's idea though. "Same fuckin' thing, Rube." "NO THEY AIN'T  "
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 16:31
|
|
|
Coffee And Pie posted:Those are called "wolves." Except that they used to be human. In Underworld there is a line of werewolves that once they turn for the first time at the first full moon since being bit/attacked, they cannot change back. I was just mentioning as an explanation for how Hagrid had "cubs" under his bed. Maybe they were human kids who changed for the first time and couldn't change back or maybe they were babies born of a werewolf that were just straight wolves. I don't know. but it's from a different universe and sort of irrelevant but I was just trying to explain J.K.'s little mistake.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 16:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 00:16 |
|
|
When I want to explain something in Harry Potter, I often appeal to a plagiarized World of Darkness setting, too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 5, 2012 18:38
|
|