Re: Magic in the Harry Potter universe

Oh goodie there's been more responses since I last checked!

Perhaps I didn't do too good a job expressing my frustration with the Harry Potter universe (don't worry I don't sweat over Harry Potter much except when I'm writing about this lol) but Kingoflostfaces and Cslong (Chris) both got my point exactly. In trying to portray a world where anything is possible, Rowling has run into a huge storytelling problem that is, fortunately for her, overlooked by millions of fans worldwide.

Well, Chris, I can't really disagree with you on the part of Rawlings not giving us any deep or tangable rules however, I think we have to go on assumptions of whatever rules there have always been in the wizard world. To find a deeper explaination to each rule we'd have to go back to other books and films that have already founded the genre -- we have to assume Rawlings was obviously influenced by the genre and probably felt she didn't need to explain every little detail. For example, one might even ask what's the point of using a wand when they could just twinkle their nose like Samantha in "Bewitched". And then it comes down to *who* made that rule up and is it really worth debating or worrying about? I think Rawlings is probably just asking her audience to assume, and yes, that can be looked at as poor or lazy story telling, but as I said, it is simple family entertainment that doesn't require a lot of thought. Just enjoy it for what it is eventhough I know it's hard as a critic to not over-examine.

As far as the Vampires go, my point is we do know the rules but I'm looking at the rules and asking why? There's really no explaination as to why a Vampire can't handle garlic, crosses or a stake through the heart, we just accept it for what it is and never really question *why* it is. And there are also those films and books that change or break the rules just for the purpose of telling a story. So it really does come down to just enjoying the entertainment without much thought. Again, it's hard to do that as a critic but sometimes we just need to deal with it.

Tim,

It's really just a matter of good storytelling. Without any fixed rules, there's no way to anticipate anything or get involved in the story. In a werewolf movie, you know you need a silver bullet. Therefore, when your hero drops the silver bullet down the sewer, you know the stakes have just been ratcheted up. If, all of the sudden, he mentions he can also kill the werewolf by drinking a pina colada at Trader Vic's, you feel a bit cheated.

ROFL @ Chris' analogy.

I would also like to mention that these new message boards are very unforgiving of typos/errors/drunken thoughts.

in "goblet of fire" the book, the contestants face several different challenges such as a giant spider. the maze as a whole is a test of a wizard/witch's skill in staying alive.

in "goblet of fire" the movie, the only obstacle is a maze that changes. the movie dumbledore warns the contestants that they may find themselves changing (as in, their desire to win might over-ride their better natures). the movie is making a point about maturity and moral choices, and to be hung up on the rules of magic is to miss the point.

in "interview with the vampire" (the book and the movie), louis tells the journalist that vampires aren't afraid of garlic, that they don't have to sleep in coffins (although many do), that they aren't afraid of crucifixes, etc. i didn't feel cheated.

**in "interview with the vampire" (the book and the movie), louis tells the journalist that vampires aren't afraid of garlic, that they don't have to sleep in coffins (although many do), that they aren't afraid of crucifixes, etc. i didn't feel cheated.**


Eddie,

You remain the master of talking about something only superficially related to an argument, and pretending it makes a point about it.

If those are the rules in Rice' s universe, those are the rules. Different set. Another logic to follow and anticipate. There is no reason anyone would feel cheated.

On the other hand,if you're watching, say, an FBI thriller with presumably "real world" rules and logic, and suddenly the characters started flying and shooting laser beams at each other at the end, you'd feel a bit ripped off. Or maybe it would work as a comedy (Miike actually did something like this in one of his movies - maybe "Dead or Alive"). But when the rules in any fictional movie world suddenly change out of the blue, you're left only to passively watch a spectacle unfold rather than be absorbed by the narrative since there is nothing to anticipate to measure relative success/failure/progress.

Rowling created a fun world and some great characters. That's why "Harry Potter" works. As an actual story-teller, she's pretty lazy. The screenwriters for all the "Potter" films deserve some credit for the hrd labor needed to transform her sloppy, amorphous stories into structured screen narratives.

chris,

by that line of reasoning, the appearance of the giant eagles at the end of "LOTR 3" (the movies and the book) is indeed a shitty way to have the good guys defeat the nazgul. "oh, they come and go as they please." so they chose to show up at the last minute? how convenient for tolkien and peter jackson.

like i wrote in an e-mail to john, tolkien tried to have it both ways when his characters were faced with danger. fight or flight? the elves did both--they fought AND left. talk about eating your cake and having it, too.

eddie

Once again, Eddie, you're just bringing up an irrelevant point and pretending it relates to the current argument. I see no connection of any kind between your example and the discussion in this thread. Perhaps you should go back and read again.

The problem with the Nazgul was that they sucked. Tolkein pulled a neat trick by managing to describe them in writing as scary and menacing, but in reality it appears that they can be beaten by just about anyone and anything, including by a guy holding a fiery stick.