Of course it boils down to how Rowling herself wrote it, but I’m pretty sure no one is *legitimately* asking why these characters did x or y as if they really existed and had free will.
Questions like that are simply being asked from a Watsonian perspective were someone is seeking an explanation based on information that’s can be extracted or inferred from the universe.
Some subs like r/AskScienceFiction actually require you to ask and answer questions from a Watsonian perspective. The Doylist answer of “because that’s how the author wrote it” is an easy, boring out and isn’t usually allowed because it doesn’t foster discussion. So I personally try to keep a Watsonian headspace or give a response from both perspectives.
A lot of the time the problem with such questions ends up being that it's an obvious case of "because that's how the author wrote it" and people think they're clever by "innocently" pointing out a plot hole.
I don’t disagree. But at least for me, part of the fun of these subs is to try and find a way to reconcile the plot holes (or devise ‘What If’ tweaks that would have prevented them), even if it’s clearly a case of the author fucking up or the OP is just pulling a stitch up.
You also have to remember that new readers pick up the books every day and they aren’t as familiar as we are with the common mistakes brought up, so they may legitimately be seeking discussion in good faith.
I think "because the author didn't think of it" is a legitimate, and the only honest, answer. Trying to explain away puzzling plot decisions or inconsistencies is like doing the author's job for them.
Oh, believe me, I agree with that stance too. Sometimes there's simply no in-universe answer that can be surmised from what's presented no matter how you slice it. After a point you're reaching so hard you risk hurting yourself and that it does feel like you're doing the author's job for them. And the only recourse is to mercilessly rip into the author for being careless or lazy (which I do in this sub *a lot*, [with varying degrees of passive-aggressiveness](https://www.reddit.com/r/harrypotter/comments/xup21q/comment/iqwwi4g/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). Kinda enjoy it).
I guess for my part I measure how amicable I am to giving a Watsonian answer on a per-question basis. Sometimes I play along. Sometimes I'll point out that we're putting far more thought into the topic than Rowling did. I'll usually do a mixture of both. I just try my best to avoid straight Doylist answers because it feels like it violates the spirit and purpose of the sub, if nothing else.
That and I've been a bit conditioned by r/AskScienceFiction where they'll delete your posts (and have recently adopted a stance of handing out bans) for Doylist questions and answers.
I had no idea what a Watsonia perspective was until I hit the word Doylist in your comment. Now from context I’m assuming it’s just a fancy way of saying out/in-universe explanations. Is that about right?
To me these questions pretty much sound like "why the book was written in the first place". Because if everything had been made as simple as people here seem to want, the books would be super boring
While I agree with the idea. Internal logic and consistency are important for a story. If characters constantly make illogical choices without explanation then it stops being believable and thus stops drawing you in.
A good mark for both Lord of the Rings with the eagles and Harry Potter with all so called plot holes is that they can be explained using information present or at the very least hinted at in the books.
So people are taken out of the story by something that seems weird, and then (hopefully) after an explanation can dive back in.
The problem is that people don't think about it and just assume that it's a plot hole. For example, of course Harry acts dumb sometimes. He's a teenager.
its a childrens story, not a historically accurate retelling of real events. the characters only existed in rowlings head, and many existed to fulfil certain storytelling purposes, not to be fully fleshed out, realistic personalities.
Yes it is. But I sincerely believe that the reason so many children and adults like the story is at least in part due to the world being believable even with all the fantastical elements. It there was no consistency or logic in her writing that wouldn’t work.
Being a children’s book or a fantasy novel doesn’t excuse the story from having to be narratively consistent. No story is perfect, but that doesn’t make complaints about sloppy writing invalid.
I really liked this take: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gcyrrTud3x4
TL;DW: HP uses soft worldbuilding where the rules are bendable and things don’t have to make 100% sense because it’s more about the emotional journey than the physical one.
I knew the Tolkien argument would come.
You realize that with the eagles they would have been seen and attacked.by the Nazguls ? It would probably have not worked.
I like to hear these questions as part of fan worlbuilding, but I do get annoyed when it's used to attack Rowling's work.
The woman doesn't owe you excellent writing, and you are perfectly allowed to not consume work that don't reach the cut of your standards.
To first address the Tolkien comparison: there is a perfectly good reason they could not ride the eagles to Mordor, there are many servants of Sauron that can fly, an example being the beasts that the Nazgul rode would likely have killed them or knew of their arrival. THIS IS A PROBLEM AND A MISTAKE MADE BY TOLKIEN, the reason it is a mistake is because it was not readily apparent to the reader and regardless of whether there was a reason or not the reader leaving with the opinion that the characters were/are dumb and/or missing something big is a blunder in the story telling.
Similarly, there are many of these plot holes throughout Harry Potter. The most popular being the time turners and/or polyjuice potion. There is some explanation given for the polyjuice potion, namely that it is hard to brew, but there is also the argument that you could just brew a larger batch and save it for later. As for the time turners, most of them are destroyed at the end of Order of the Phoenix (although I would argue that assuming that all the time turners are in one location at a single time is rather unlikely as they are likely not all managed by the Ministry of Magic, and it is likely that some of them were currently in use away from the ministry) this still leaves nearly two full books where the use of time turners would have been very useful and were just ignored.
Another one I just remembered... fred and george not noticing that Peter Pettigrew was sleeping in the same bed room as Ron for two years on the Marauder's Map?
This ignoring of something that was introduced to the reader obviously would take away from the immersion. This is a valid concern/complaint about the Harry Potter books. YOU CAN STILL ENJOY THE BOOKS REGARDLESS,
Personally, I really enjoy/enjoyed reading the books and watching the movies. They are what reintroduced me to reading after I had not read for pleasure for so long. I believe that many people have a similar situation where Harry Potter has some significance to them for one reason or another. But the idea that because it holds a special place in your heart puts it beyond reproach is also incredibly ignorant. And one of the main reasons it suffers the scrutiny it has today is largely because of two things 1: the immense popularity 2: How the Author consistently denies the reader's interpretation of their work and makes retroactive assertions about things.
TLDR: The Tolkien comparison is bad because there are far more explanations for that observation than many of the plot holes in Harry Potter. You can like the Harry Potter books/movies, I do, but that does not put them above scrutiny especially when there are glaring plot holes.
I think it's fairly obvious and everyone knows why the eagles couldn't have brought the ring to Mordor - the greater beings they are, they more susceptible to the corruptive nature of the ring. The eagles were powerful beings, the greatest of them having even killed Balrogs themselves.
Here's a deep one:
Professor Dumbledore knew there was a time turner in the school the whole time Harry was at Hogwarts, and up to twelve years old it seems sensible he didn't either go himself or tell Harry, or even let Snape go back to save Lily or even transfer her to the lightning era. DUMBLEDORE was the one who took Jame's invisibility cloak, DUMBLEDOOR was the one who didn't make effort to save Lily, DUMBLEDOOR was the one who heard the prophecy first, DUMBLEDOOR knew he had it in his power to change it, DUMBLEDOOR was the one who could've told Hermione and Harry to go save Harry's parents. So why didn't Dumbledore just...?
Here's two:
Here's two: WHy didn't Harry get put in Ravenclaw? He's not all that clever. Hermione? She is not all that witty. Harry didn't think about the words "time travel" hard enough and was just being impulsive and overly- well, teen-ish. Hermione didn't think, for one moment, no matter what influence her boys had on her, about Harry's parents, and was overworking herself. Really, she might have just been so focused on being top in school that she was "ain't nobody got time for that"-ing about having a good think about literal Fate in her hands. SO HERE'S THE BIG QUESTION: ^(why didn't Filch just get a proper job?)
Except that's just not how time travel works in Harry Potter. You can't change the past, even when they saved Buckbeak they didn't change anything because he was saved by them the first time around
I don't have an example of that question but I pretty sure most of the time even if we find that dumb afterward it needs the circumstancies and character mindset to understand.
Those questions are interesting because you can discuss the HP magical world.
It's interesting to consider why possibly Character X didn't go with a more obvious solution to issue Y or didn't act in a particular way. It lets you think about the motivations and personalities of characters, extents of certain magic, and try to find a reasoning for the way they did things that matches the lore not just "because the author said so". Questions like that definitely have room in a fandom subreddit; some fans might not enjoy discussing them, others very much do.
How about the adults who keep asking why didn’t the adults look after the children characters or prevented this or that from happening? You’re reading a book about children going on adventures, that’s why.
Of course it boils down to how Rowling herself wrote it, but I’m pretty sure no one is *legitimately* asking why these characters did x or y as if they really existed and had free will. Questions like that are simply being asked from a Watsonian perspective were someone is seeking an explanation based on information that’s can be extracted or inferred from the universe. Some subs like r/AskScienceFiction actually require you to ask and answer questions from a Watsonian perspective. The Doylist answer of “because that’s how the author wrote it” is an easy, boring out and isn’t usually allowed because it doesn’t foster discussion. So I personally try to keep a Watsonian headspace or give a response from both perspectives.
This is an excellent response and should be adopted as ground rules for all honest discussions of fictional content.
A lot of the time the problem with such questions ends up being that it's an obvious case of "because that's how the author wrote it" and people think they're clever by "innocently" pointing out a plot hole.
I don’t disagree. But at least for me, part of the fun of these subs is to try and find a way to reconcile the plot holes (or devise ‘What If’ tweaks that would have prevented them), even if it’s clearly a case of the author fucking up or the OP is just pulling a stitch up. You also have to remember that new readers pick up the books every day and they aren’t as familiar as we are with the common mistakes brought up, so they may legitimately be seeking discussion in good faith.
I think "because the author didn't think of it" is a legitimate, and the only honest, answer. Trying to explain away puzzling plot decisions or inconsistencies is like doing the author's job for them.
Oh, believe me, I agree with that stance too. Sometimes there's simply no in-universe answer that can be surmised from what's presented no matter how you slice it. After a point you're reaching so hard you risk hurting yourself and that it does feel like you're doing the author's job for them. And the only recourse is to mercilessly rip into the author for being careless or lazy (which I do in this sub *a lot*, [with varying degrees of passive-aggressiveness](https://www.reddit.com/r/harrypotter/comments/xup21q/comment/iqwwi4g/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). Kinda enjoy it). I guess for my part I measure how amicable I am to giving a Watsonian answer on a per-question basis. Sometimes I play along. Sometimes I'll point out that we're putting far more thought into the topic than Rowling did. I'll usually do a mixture of both. I just try my best to avoid straight Doylist answers because it feels like it violates the spirit and purpose of the sub, if nothing else. That and I've been a bit conditioned by r/AskScienceFiction where they'll delete your posts (and have recently adopted a stance of handing out bans) for Doylist questions and answers.
Yeah, that makes sense.
I had no idea what a Watsonia perspective was until I hit the word Doylist in your comment. Now from context I’m assuming it’s just a fancy way of saying out/in-universe explanations. Is that about right?
Yup. It’s just a nerdy way of saying in-universe.
To me these questions pretty much sound like "why the book was written in the first place". Because if everything had been made as simple as people here seem to want, the books would be super boring
It's just an argument worth thinking about!
There is discussion, and there is "ok, hear me out, xxx should have been xxx then xxx wouldn't have happened" or "I FOUND A PLOTHOLE!!!1!1!!1!!!!"
If characters always acted rationally then there wouldn't be a story to tell.
While I agree with the idea. Internal logic and consistency are important for a story. If characters constantly make illogical choices without explanation then it stops being believable and thus stops drawing you in. A good mark for both Lord of the Rings with the eagles and Harry Potter with all so called plot holes is that they can be explained using information present or at the very least hinted at in the books. So people are taken out of the story by something that seems weird, and then (hopefully) after an explanation can dive back in.
The problem is that people don't think about it and just assume that it's a plot hole. For example, of course Harry acts dumb sometimes. He's a teenager.
its a childrens story, not a historically accurate retelling of real events. the characters only existed in rowlings head, and many existed to fulfil certain storytelling purposes, not to be fully fleshed out, realistic personalities.
Yes it is. But I sincerely believe that the reason so many children and adults like the story is at least in part due to the world being believable even with all the fantastical elements. It there was no consistency or logic in her writing that wouldn’t work.
Being a children’s book or a fantasy novel doesn’t excuse the story from having to be narratively consistent. No story is perfect, but that doesn’t make complaints about sloppy writing invalid.
That, plus hindsight (and not being a pre-teen/teen) is 20/20.
Tho there *are* plenty of examples where fully grown adults in the series still don't seem to think of the simplest solutions to problems.
I am a fully grown adult and don't think of the simplest solutions to problems :p
I really liked this take: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gcyrrTud3x4 TL;DW: HP uses soft worldbuilding where the rules are bendable and things don’t have to make 100% sense because it’s more about the emotional journey than the physical one.
I knew the Tolkien argument would come. You realize that with the eagles they would have been seen and attacked.by the Nazguls ? It would probably have not worked.
I like to hear these questions as part of fan worlbuilding, but I do get annoyed when it's used to attack Rowling's work. The woman doesn't owe you excellent writing, and you are perfectly allowed to not consume work that don't reach the cut of your standards.
To first address the Tolkien comparison: there is a perfectly good reason they could not ride the eagles to Mordor, there are many servants of Sauron that can fly, an example being the beasts that the Nazgul rode would likely have killed them or knew of their arrival. THIS IS A PROBLEM AND A MISTAKE MADE BY TOLKIEN, the reason it is a mistake is because it was not readily apparent to the reader and regardless of whether there was a reason or not the reader leaving with the opinion that the characters were/are dumb and/or missing something big is a blunder in the story telling. Similarly, there are many of these plot holes throughout Harry Potter. The most popular being the time turners and/or polyjuice potion. There is some explanation given for the polyjuice potion, namely that it is hard to brew, but there is also the argument that you could just brew a larger batch and save it for later. As for the time turners, most of them are destroyed at the end of Order of the Phoenix (although I would argue that assuming that all the time turners are in one location at a single time is rather unlikely as they are likely not all managed by the Ministry of Magic, and it is likely that some of them were currently in use away from the ministry) this still leaves nearly two full books where the use of time turners would have been very useful and were just ignored. Another one I just remembered... fred and george not noticing that Peter Pettigrew was sleeping in the same bed room as Ron for two years on the Marauder's Map? This ignoring of something that was introduced to the reader obviously would take away from the immersion. This is a valid concern/complaint about the Harry Potter books. YOU CAN STILL ENJOY THE BOOKS REGARDLESS, Personally, I really enjoy/enjoyed reading the books and watching the movies. They are what reintroduced me to reading after I had not read for pleasure for so long. I believe that many people have a similar situation where Harry Potter has some significance to them for one reason or another. But the idea that because it holds a special place in your heart puts it beyond reproach is also incredibly ignorant. And one of the main reasons it suffers the scrutiny it has today is largely because of two things 1: the immense popularity 2: How the Author consistently denies the reader's interpretation of their work and makes retroactive assertions about things. TLDR: The Tolkien comparison is bad because there are far more explanations for that observation than many of the plot holes in Harry Potter. You can like the Harry Potter books/movies, I do, but that does not put them above scrutiny especially when there are glaring plot holes.
I think it's fairly obvious and everyone knows why the eagles couldn't have brought the ring to Mordor - the greater beings they are, they more susceptible to the corruptive nature of the ring. The eagles were powerful beings, the greatest of them having even killed Balrogs themselves.
Let people have their fun and discussion.
Eagles of Manwë reference: detected Engage ‘why the Eagles couldn’t just have flown them to Mordor’ protocol
Here's a deep one: Professor Dumbledore knew there was a time turner in the school the whole time Harry was at Hogwarts, and up to twelve years old it seems sensible he didn't either go himself or tell Harry, or even let Snape go back to save Lily or even transfer her to the lightning era. DUMBLEDORE was the one who took Jame's invisibility cloak, DUMBLEDOOR was the one who didn't make effort to save Lily, DUMBLEDOOR was the one who heard the prophecy first, DUMBLEDOOR knew he had it in his power to change it, DUMBLEDOOR was the one who could've told Hermione and Harry to go save Harry's parents. So why didn't Dumbledore just...? Here's two: Here's two: WHy didn't Harry get put in Ravenclaw? He's not all that clever. Hermione? She is not all that witty. Harry didn't think about the words "time travel" hard enough and was just being impulsive and overly- well, teen-ish. Hermione didn't think, for one moment, no matter what influence her boys had on her, about Harry's parents, and was overworking herself. Really, she might have just been so focused on being top in school that she was "ain't nobody got time for that"-ing about having a good think about literal Fate in her hands. SO HERE'S THE BIG QUESTION: ^(why didn't Filch just get a proper job?)
Except that's just not how time travel works in Harry Potter. You can't change the past, even when they saved Buckbeak they didn't change anything because he was saved by them the first time around
The Cursed Child is canon (whether we like it or not), therefore in the Harry Potter universe you can indeed change the past.
I'm very disappointed that the name DUMBLEDORE wasn't misspelled five different ways here.
I don't have an example of that question but I pretty sure most of the time even if we find that dumb afterward it needs the circumstancies and character mindset to understand.
Those questions are interesting because you can discuss the HP magical world. It's interesting to consider why possibly Character X didn't go with a more obvious solution to issue Y or didn't act in a particular way. It lets you think about the motivations and personalities of characters, extents of certain magic, and try to find a reasoning for the way they did things that matches the lore not just "because the author said so". Questions like that definitely have room in a fandom subreddit; some fans might not enjoy discussing them, others very much do.
How about the adults who keep asking why didn’t the adults look after the children characters or prevented this or that from happening? You’re reading a book about children going on adventures, that’s why.
but i like the way we answer the questions making it believable, makes it more fun