|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
posted April 13, 2009 12:34 PM |
|
|
Well although I agree with most of what is said..here is a few counterpoints.
First it is a good thing that children are reading ANYTHING at all. Second logical consistancies are great, but are not as mandatory for CHILDRENS books. Harry Potter was written for younger readers, the fact that older readers enjoy it (despite the inconsistacies) speaks volumes. It is a fantasy book, and therefore suspension of reality is understandable. In fact..there is a series of books that I enjoy very much that makes these books look positively well thought out and researched. Read a couple of the Xanth books...
Keep in mind that magic is something that defies natural laws. While indeed it is bound by its own laws, scientific laws do not apply to it, because well it is magic. It allows people to fly, shoot fire from their hands, and move instantly from one place to another without any logical reasoning. Also laws of magic tend to change depending on who is writing the story.
Just a few things to consider.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 13, 2009 12:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Keep in mind that magic is something that defies natural laws. While indeed it is bound by its own laws, scientific laws do not apply to it, because well it is magic. It allows people to fly, shoot fire from their hands, and move instantly from one place to another without any logical reasoning. Also laws of magic tend to change depending on who is writing the story.
No,no,no,no,no.
I don't criticize the world's mechanics (ability to fly, teleport and so on) No matter how "weird" they are. It's just how the world is! And keep in mind that they are not the cause of the plotholes.
Logic applies to any world, though.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted April 13, 2009 12:49 PM |
|
|
I know you didn't. Was not my intention to imply that. Just to point out that some logic for a magical world may not be 'compatiable' with a non-magical world.
For instance ... the spell Time Stop.
If for some reason this was possible in a logical world, the individual would not be able to move, or their movements would not be as normal. Gravity would be stopped, as would air currents making movement difficult, etc. So sometimes 'logic' that we are use to has to be suspended in a fantasy setting.
____________
Message received.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted April 13, 2009 02:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
On Time Travel and Paradox
There are essentially two ways to think about time travel. The first is the naive idea that if you time travel you are changing the timeline. Shooting your father will be my classic example. Suppose a teenager wants to commit an unusual suicide-murder, and time travels to before he was conceived, and shoots his father. The timeline becomes different, so that the teenager was never born. In this new timeline, the teenager never goes back to shoot his father, because he was never born. So the father never gets shot, and successfully impregnates the teenager's mother. However, the newly re-created teenager then goes back to kill his father, but then at the same time he can't because he succeeded... Ad Infinatum. It's a Paradox. It is impossible to decide whether or not the teenager's father was shot.
The other way to think about time travel to refuse to believe that Time Travel can change the timeline, for the simple reason that the timeline already has all the time traveling factored into it. When you attempt to change something, you are only reinforcing the timeline by completing your destiny. For example, if the teenager went back to shoot his father, but failed, and instead made his father angry enough to mistreat the teenager enough that the teenager would attempt to shoot his father but fail, then the timeline is preserved and no paradox occurs. The difference between the two time travel theories is summed up by Steven Hawking in his Chronology Protection Conjecture, which states that some natural law must exist to prevent the creation of paradoxical time-loops.
There is a third way. The change in time creates a new universe, so when the teenager isn't destroyed when he kills his father, but when he goes back to his time, he goes to a universe in which he was never born.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
lucky_dwarf
Promising
Supreme Hero
Visiting
|
|
posted April 13, 2009 03:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
There are over 3 billion people with below-average intelligence, and they are eager to buy books which are simple enough for them to understand. Rowling's Harry Potter series is exactly the sort of thing which appeals to this audience.
Hey! I learned 4/5 of my English vocabulary from Harry Potter books. Don't you go trowing **** on it.
Quote:
For the time being, we must accept the fact that stupid books sell bigger because stupid people breed faster.
Well if you havent noticed there is one in hc
<-----
Youl have to face it that stupid people arent that stupid. They just dont know as much as you so you call them stupid.
a bit off topic but still. 4/5 of someones vocabulary pays JK Rowling some credit
____________
So much has changed in my absence.
|
|
Cepheus
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Far-flung Keeper
|
|
posted April 13, 2009 03:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Amazingly, JK Rowling is smart enough to realize this and so all of her time-traveling adventures resolve themselves without paradox.
You don't need Stephen Hawking to explain the intricacies of time travel. Anyone who's seen Twelve Monkeys can grasp them.
|
|
rti
Adventuring Hero
Now known as Rarensu
|
|
posted April 14, 2009 08:35 AM |
|
Edited by rti at 09:08, 14 Apr 2009.
|
Quote:
Quote:
On Time Travel and Paradox
There are essentially two ways to think about time travel...
There is a third way. The change in time creates a new universe, so when the teenager isn't destroyed when he kills his father, but when he goes back to his time, he goes to a universe in which he was never born.
I thought about that one too. If something that the teenager does in one universe can cause changes in another universe, are the two really separate universes? By the strict definition, no. As it turns out, all the same principles apply when you look at the two universes as a single double timeline - either everything in the teenager's alternate universe was already in place for the teenager's arrival (stable double-timeline), or the alternate universe was changed to accommodate the teenager (this opens the possibility of paradox). So you haven't really solved the problem; you just buried it under an additional layer of complexity.
Besides, if this were true, there would be a large number of bizarre phenomena as a side effect. There would be an uncountable number of universes which were perfectly normal, except for one time, a time traveler appeared (who doesn't exist in this universe) because he's escaping events that are never going to happen (because his arrival prevents them). If he tried to go back to his original universe, would he be able(?), or would he simply create a new universe identical to his old one? If someone wanted to stop the time traveler from arriving, would he go to the time traveler's universe, or to a new one which looks like it? When he succeeds, does he return to his universe, changed, or the time traveler's original, or the universe that existed before the first time traveler created an alternate of it, or yet another totally new one? It gets very strange very fast.
----------------
Quote:
Quote:
For the time being, we must accept the fact that stupid books sell bigger because stupid people breed faster.
Well if you havent noticed there is one in hc
<-----
If you consider yourself stupid, then it is not surprising that you should find yourself in situations where you feel insulted by a stupid-hater. I don't wish to make you feel insulted, but there's nothing I can do about your attitude that makes you prone to feeling insulted.
Quote:
Youl have to face it that stupid people arent that stupid. They just dont know as much as you so you call them stupid.
Are they stupid because they don't know anything, or do they not know anything because they're stupid? Scientific experiments tend to suggest that intelligence exists independent of knowledge. If you don't believe in science, then feel free to ignore me.
----------------
Quote:
First it is a good thing that children are reading ANYTHING at all. Second logical consistancies are great, but are not as mandatory for CHILDRENS books. Harry Potter was written for younger readers, the fact that older readers enjoy it (despite the inconsistacies) speaks volumes. It is a fantasy book, and therefore suspension of reality is understandable...
Do we really want to be teaching our youngsters that the solution to all the world's problems is to defy the laws of physics? That when you wave a wand and make some noise, this will automatically happen with absolutely no cost, no consequences, no strings attached? That if you love someone enough, nothing bad can ever happen to them? Magic in and of itself is no problem - it's the immature naive attitude that goes with it I object to.
----------------
You can probably tell by now that I have a lot to say on this topic - I think this is a sign that I have a serious emotional hangup that is preventing me from approaching the issue in a more open-minded way. Probably I was murdered by an idiot fantasy author in my previous life.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted April 14, 2009 09:12 AM |
|
|
Then why not write a better children's book? One with all the logic you could possibly hope to have in it?
____________
Message received.
|
|
rti
Adventuring Hero
Now known as Rarensu
|
|
posted April 14, 2009 09:38 AM |
|
Edited by rti at 09:43, 14 Apr 2009.
|
Quote:
Then why not write a better children's book? One with all the logic you could possibly hope to have in it?
I surrender.
___
/ \__
/__ /
/ \__/
/ <<<--- that's a white flag of surrender.
____________
Sincerely,
A Proponent of Spelling, Grammar, Punctuation, and Courtesy.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted April 14, 2009 09:46 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 09:47, 14 Apr 2009.
|
I think everybody is entitled to their own opinion, so carry on. Don't mind me. Surrender is no fun 
____________
Message received.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 14, 2009 09:50 AM |
|
|
Well, Mytical, you used the "you-surrender-now" argument, after which every thinking person leaves the discussion. 
Seriously, is there a WORSE argument than "just do better yourself"? 
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted April 14, 2009 09:56 AM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 09:59, 14 Apr 2009.
|
Well I do feel that if one has a criticism about how good or bad a book is, they themselves should try to write one. Basically, if you think you can do better, then why not do so? However, that is not to say that what you have written here is without merit. I do tend to like to give somethings to consider to people however.
Edit : Sorry if I ruined your fun.
____________
Message received.
|
|
rti
Adventuring Hero
Now known as Rarensu
|
|
posted April 14, 2009 09:59 AM |
|
Edited by rti at 10:05, 14 Apr 2009.
|
It's not true that all Fantasy novels approach magic in an illogical way. Here some novels I have read with a logical approach to magic: Eragon (Paolini), The Wheel of Time (Jordan), The Magic Goes Away (Niven)... Ummm... Actually... there aren't all that many.
@Doomforge: Thx for the support!
Edit: @Mytical: Thx for challenging me> I was a little out of control.
PS @Lucky Dwarf: if I hurt your feelings I'm sorry, really this time.
____________
Sincerely,
A Proponent of Spelling, Grammar, Punctuation, and Courtesy.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 14, 2009 10:02 AM |
|
|
Mytical: That's a "fail argument" because critique does not imply the critic can actually perform better than the artist. It's been like that since the very beginning (ancient times) and people still don't get it.
Also, how well something sells is no argument to a discussion on how good something is.
No fun ruined, Mytical. Just not that fail argument, please 
Oh, and Eragon was written by 15 years old. Oh, I started working on my book at the same time
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted April 14, 2009 10:10 AM |
|
|
As an Ameteur writer, I just know how difficult it can be to write anything. Let alone something designed for children. In fact I tend to get stuck fairly quickly with writers block. One of these years I will actually FINISH a book. Heh, though I probably would need a ghost writer, because I get distracted WAY too easily.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted April 14, 2009 10:14 AM |
|
|
That argument can't apply to all situations and certainly not in writing. I mean you do not have to be a writer yourself to spot flaws, it is the writer's problem is he cannot see that for himself. Of course that depends on his intentions, which message he wants to convey if anything or if he even cares about flaws. But if he does have them and possibly without realizing it you can't expect NOT to be criticized. Not necessarily in a bad way, it's just an observation.
Regardless of whether you like it or not neutral observations are to be expected.
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
Galev
Famous Hero
Galiv :D
|
|
posted April 14, 2009 11:59 AM |
|
|
I wonder if it's too late for a bit of quote battling...
In advance, I read the books, multiple times, and enjoyed most of them, but got a bit delusioned about them because of certain personal stuff - not logic though.
Also in advance, somewhere, Doomforge, you said (about page 5?) that "this is it, the good writer and the bad writer". I just would like to say that it is not You or Me who decides who or what is "good literature" and who/what is "bad". You may not like illogic, I might not like sci-fi. C'est la vie.
So:
Quote:
Ok, let's move further. Voldy gets killed by his own spell. This is the only case where the spell backfired, as Rowling mentions. It was caused by love channeled into an ancient protective spell. Surely, nobody ever loved his/her kids, friends, family or whatever before, and nobody ever noticed that it can prevent death with a spell, until our wise Lily Potter here. Did no one ever try? If so, how did she know what spell to use? What a steaming pile of dog crap. If such spells existed, they would be commonly used to protect the loved ones. How in the world such knowledge would be ANCIENT and FORGOTTEN? Don't make me laugh. Who would forget a spell that prevents you from getting killed? Lily isn't Dumbledore, she's talented but not a walking wizardly God, so if she can do it (with Voldy being a couple meters away! balls of steel, I'd say.. oh wait, she's a girl.), anyone can. Yeah, that's a spell you would gladly forget and NOT teach in school. Cause a spell causing a hiccup is so ****ing more important to a wizard.
You really missed it, didn't you? It is not some counter-spell Lilly used intentionally. She most probably didn't even have the wand in her hand. What she did is not called mgic, it is called sac-ri-fice. (Think of H3: peasant got killed, archer can live.) You see, it is the same that saved the whole school in book 7. When someone is able to make a decision on one's own and willingly gives one's life for others', it is a big mysterious stuff, and 'death fails'. Yes, even fans asked JKR about it, why noone knew it. JKR did not give a very proper question, but she suggested might noone was offered to live if they let their beloved get killed. Whatever. Anyway, love is not something you use for your own good. Or if at least parents had to got killed to protect their children. Not the best preventive programme I ever heard (North-Karelia was a better try ). And yes, a hiccup spell is Important, you never know when it comes handy, just like turning birds to cups
Quote:
Worse. They take it from a secure bank, protected by dragons, multiplying goods and all other things we see in Book 7. They put it in school, "protected" by some ***-weak "traps" that can be solved by half-dumb 11 year old students that don't distinguish the wand from a fork yet. Wheee! Dumbledore, you genious. It's very safe there indeed, if a bunch of kids can get it. Why bother with those "traps" that are a challenge to mentally retarded 10 year olds? I mean, who is there to steal it, students? No, Voldemort and maybe some of his followers. if the traps cant stop the kids, will they stop fully-trained dark wizards? Some plants that are common knowledge, and a chess game? What the...?
But that's not all! Imagine you want to HIDE something, say, very expensive jewelry, so you put in a safe, but suspect it's not enough to stop the potential thieves, so what do you do: put more security, a camera, infrared movement detector? NO, of course not, it's for idiots, you obviously put a chess board in front of the safe, and make the safe open if the thief defeats the AI.
Now that you summed up, it really sounds a bit silly...
Though it is obvious "Why the******************************** this year?!?!"
Because Dumby has many spies and he knows  . From book 7 we know (though at the end of book1 it is rather obvious) that Dumby suspected Quirrel from the start and that's why he got Snape after him. So Mr. Headmaster knew Voldy is moving and he knew he wanted the stone. Why not to destroy it? Why not to destroy all those stinky WMDs and über-secrets in all those stupid films? And let's say, they wanted to lure Voldy... (also it was the fruite of a life's work, not sg. you are willing to destroy -especially if you need it to survive)
Quote:
And that mirror.. it's a cool concept, that it reflects not your image, but your deepest desires... but Rowling screwed it up too! How is it even possible? I mean, how can Potter see himself finding the stone in the mirror at the end? It's not his heart's deepest desire! It's a situational need. It's like he would see himself taking a pee if he stumbled across the mirror with a full bladder and an urgent need. The very CONCEPT of the mirror got destroyed, so it no longer shows the soul's deepest desire.. because it wouldn't work as a plot device, anymore!
THAT'S IT. That's what Dumby is amazed about and what he mentions at the end of book5 (or in the mid of 6?). That why Voldy did not realise how geat deal of enthusiasm Potty has. Yeah, he is a moral freak, it is strange and not easy to believe, but heck, it's a fairy tale. He did not want Voldy to come back and kill more people as he killed his parents. Imagine, at book7 he was able to give his life willingly for his friends and for the cause that Riddle is finished. It is something of low prevalence in human history, the only person I can remember was just celebrated. His death is a friday and his resurredtion is Easter. (though it is SO unclear for me whether JKR believes or not or what...)
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted April 14, 2009 01:00 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You really missed it, didn't you? It is not some counter-spell Lilly used intentionally. She most probably didn't even have the wand in her hand. What she did is not called mgic, it is called sac-ri-fice. (Think of H3: peasant got killed, archer can live.) You see, it is the same that saved the whole school in book 7. When someone is able to make a decision on one's own and willingly gives one's life for others', it is a big mysterious stuff, and 'death fails'. Yes, even fans asked JKR about it, why noone knew it. JKR did not give a very proper question, but she suggested might noone was offered to live if they let their beloved get killed. Whatever. Anyway, love is not something you use for your own good. Or if at least parents had to got killed to protect their children. Not the best preventive programme I ever heard (North-Karelia was a better try). And yes, a hiccup spell is Important, you never know when it comes handy, just like turning birds to cups
Yeah, right. Because Voldy didn't try to kill families that love each other before. Because ONLY Lilly loves her child! How can you actually defend that piece of bull? It's silly. HP is full of loving families. Yet that never happened before, because a) Voldy lives till the events of HP so obviously it never happened to anybody before b) he is unaware of it, should it happen before, he would be at aware of such possibility. But no! It seems like a forgotten miracle. Your common plot device, that is.
Quote:
Because Dumby has many spies and he knows . From book 7 we know (though at the end of book1 it is rather obvious) that Dumby suspected Quirrel from the start and that's why he got Snape after him. So Mr. Headmaster knew Voldy is moving and he knew he wanted the stone.
And that's why he set in traps so easy that a 11 year old can solve them.
As if Quirell could break in Gringott's. No! To prevent him from stealing the stone, you take it away from the safe place, put it right next to your suspect and leave a chessboard in front of it to make stealing easier.
Logical fail.
Quote:
Why not to destroy it?
Why not to destroy all those stinky WMDs and über-secrets in all those stupid films? And let's say, they wanted to lure Voldy... (also it was the fruite of a life's work, not sg. you are willing to destroy -especially if you need it to survive)
Good question. Why not destroy it among other ubersecrets and plot devices? Because the plot is poor and NEEDS plot devices to progress. Simply.
Quote:
THAT'S IT. That's what Dumby is amazed about and what he mentions at the end of book5 (or in the mid of 6?). That why Voldy did not realise how geat deal of enthusiasm Potty has. Yeah, he is a moral freak, it is strange and not easy to believe, but heck, it's a fairy tale. He did not want Voldy to come back and kill more people as he killed his parents. Imagine, at book7 he was able to give his life willingly for his friends and for the cause that Riddle is finished. It is something of low prevalence in human history, the only person I can remember was just celebrated. His death is a friday and his resurredtion is Easter. (though it is SO unclear for me whether JKR believes or not or what...)
That wasn't much of a plothole, more of mechanics fail. Since when your deepest desire change situationally? Think of it. It does NOT. If you are threatened to get killed, you situationally want to survive. But it's not your deepest desire, rather a situational need, as described. Same for "stopping Voldy". Would be fine if Potter saw himself stopping Voldy earlier in the mirror, but he didn't, so... so it's just badly used.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted April 14, 2009 01:12 PM |
|
Edited by Mytical at 13:13, 14 Apr 2009.
|
[quote}Yeah, right. Because Voldy didn't try to kill families that love each other before. Because ONLY Lilly loves her child! How can you actually defend that piece of bull? It's silly. HP is full of loving families. Yet that never happened before, because a) Voldy lives till the events of HP so obviously it never happened to anybody before b) he is unaware of it, should it happen before, he would be at aware of such possibility. But no! It seems like a forgotten miracle. Your common plot device, that is.
You forget, it was stated that Harry's parents were two of the worlds strongest next to Voldy. It could simply be the fact that nobody was STRONG enough to cast the spell before then. Also, since all wizards don't automatically learn every new spell created, there is the possibility it was a spell created by Harry's mother and thus new. A 'under pressure' situation.
Quote:
And that's why he set in traps so easy that a 11 year old can solve them.
As if Quirell could break in Gringott's. No! To prevent him from stealing the stone, you take it away from the safe place, put it right next to your suspect and leave a chessboard in front of it to make stealing easier.
First harry and crew are not your ordinary children, and Dumbledor (Spelling) is still one of the strongest wizards at the time. He also had faith in Harry.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Ednaguy
Supreme Hero
My water just broke! No, wait.
|
|
posted April 14, 2009 01:14 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Yeah, right. Because Voldy didn't try to kill families that love each other before. Because ONLY Lilly loves her child! How can you actually defend that piece of bull? It's silly. HP is full of loving families. Yet that never happened before, because a) Voldy lives till the events of HP so obviously it never happened to anybody before b) he is unaware of it, should it happen before, he would be at aware of such possibility. But no! It seems like a forgotten miracle. Your common plot device, that is.
In most cases Voldy didn't give anyone the choice to live, so no one ever got the chance to sacrifice themselves for their kids, since they'd die anyway
____________
"Edna, there's a special, tiny, tiny place in hell, waiting just for you... "
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
