A lot of people point out that it doesn’t make any sense that Harry and Ron didn’t like their schoolwork. Well I figured out why:
It’s because the magic system is just as boring in-universe as out of universe. It doesn’t make any sense in universe either. Harry and Ron realised Rowling’s magic system kinda stinks way before we did, because they spent all day learning it.
If Sanderson had been writing Harry Potter, then Harry and Ron would have liked learning magic as much as Hermione did (Also, Sanderson actually DID write a book about a super-school, it’s called Skyward, it’s good)
There’s nothing wrong with the magic system because there’s always a reasonable setup and payoff for what can be done with magic and solutions never come out of nowhere as some deus ex machina. The magic system the stories had worked perfectly fine for the stories that were being told. Not every magic system has to be some stupid overly explained BS that takes all of the actual wonder and “magic” out of it.
Rowling is a piece of shit terf but you Sanderson cultists are still so fucking annoying. There’s more to magic in storytelling than just the exact, specific mechanics of how it works. Read Earthsea.
I’m sorry, no Deus ex machina? Am I misremembering the bit where suddenly two wizards casting a spell at each other at the same time for a prolonged duration reverses cause and effect and makes dead people come back as ghosts to give the protagonist advice?
I can agree that stories don’t need a “good” magic system, but I also feel like HP has glaring holes in places that negatively affect the experience. It’s still a fun story, but I definitely think it could be better if the magic made more sense.
One of the two wizards WAS the protagonist, so you might as well call this a near death experience or something. Might literally have all been in his head. I don’t think this is a good example.
I looked it up and found the name - pretty sure it was explained shortly after the event as “Priori Incantatem”, showing it’s a known phenomenon in the world.
Ok the ghosts coming out of the wands thing kinda came out of nowhere, but all they did was tell Harry to run away. It’s not like they had a massive impact on the fight.
It’s a shit story, just not because of a ‘bad’/soft magic system.
Pretty sure the reasoning behind that was given in book 1.
I don’t think so, I believe the reasoning only showed up shortly after the event, though it’s been a really long time since I’ve read HP, I’d be interested in knowing if I’m wrong
I’m pretty sure Olivander already mentions when Harry chooses his wand that it’s basically a twin of Voldemort’s, and in the subsequent books it’s explained that that + Lily’s magic is causing plenty of weird things to happen, including what happens in book 4. Sure, the exact reason why it happens is still “magic” but that goes for most magic systems if you delve deep enough.
The issue is that the wands being made from the same core doesn’t have any explained effect before this event, when an explanation conveniently appears, now being a known event that has happened before. The issue is that, to my knowledge, things just happen that have no prior explanation, which sugests they’re just being made up on the fly to fit the narrative, which in turn means the reader/viewer has no way to anticipate them.
In what I’d consider a “good” magic system, things fit together. They don’t have to be revealed immediately, but often there will be hints, and when the reveal is made it’s gonna at least fit into the void in prior knowledge. This is, of course, my subjective preference, but I think HP goes so far into the opposite that it’s just random stuff made up to justify whatever the author wanted to happen with no reasonable explanation.
But isn’t that part of making the reader explore and experience the world of magic, just like Harry is? There’s no narrator here who already knows everything, you’re experiencing the stories through the eyes of Harry, and only really know what he knows. In that context, it doesn’t really make sense to have these early clues. The reader can’t anticipate everything because Harry can’t either.
Magic in general is just a plot device that can do whatever the author needs it to do.
Sounds like that’s just where we disagree. I would instead say that magic is part of the world being shown in the story, and it should have an explanation, just like laws of physics. The hints come not from the narrator knowing things and dropping clues, but from the underlying logic of how magic works and the behaviors of people shaped by the magic of the world. And of course the reader can’t anticipate everything - but I also want there to be a sense of what’s possible and what’s not, and for the cases where the reader’s understanding is broken to be impactful and bring new understanding.
So yeah, in the end it’s just a matter of preference. I can look at HP and think “man, the magic just does whatever the fuck the author needs”, and other people can look at it and enjoy the whimsical adventure for what it is. Or, in a way, I guess it’s both - I can still appreciate the story, but it’s underlined with a sense of shallowness.
She introduces time travel out of freaking nowhere.
She hints at it throughout the whole book/movie by showing that Hermione had a chronologically impossible course load and having her suddenly show up in places that she didn’t seem to be mere seconds previous.
For one book.
Yeah. I don’t think you understand what a deus ex machina is.
Some hints don’t change all the nonsense plot holes and the fact that is almost entirely forgotten about afterwards. It’s only there because the plot needs it.
Of course it was only in the story because the plot needed it! Most things are only in a story because the plot needs it! And there was plenty of setup for it beforehand–an entire book’s worth in fact.
The fact that it was introduced and then never used again even though it is obviously unbelievably useful and apparently available enough that a 13 year old was lent one to attend extra classes definitely deserves some criticism but at some point you kinda just have to make peace with the fact that it’s a kid’s book and it’s really not that big of a deal.
You’re really doing nothing to dispel (no pun intended) my suspicions that Sanderson readers can’t understand anything that isn’t explicitly explained to them.
I don’t give a shit about Sanderson. I just read his second book and frankly I think his magic system is overrated. But at least he is consistent
Expecto patronum, et voila, deus ex machina.
They set it up at the beginning of the movie? How is that a deus ex machina?
Picking on Sanderson is a bold move ;)
The main point of the contrast being Sanderson (and honestly, most of the greats) developed a solid cohesive lore and set of rules. As the story progressed, the rules get clarified, the twists and surprise are made in logic and creativity, but in the finding of some new rules and the hasty trying to stitch them back into the past.
Sanderson puts out as much content in a couple of years as others do in decades. It’s not always page-turners, but each work has it’s moments.
Rowling did a little worldbuilding, maybe borrowed a bit, arguably did a good job on a handful or two of characters then just kinda milked it.