I mean, the whole thing is this big fever-dream written for kids; yanno, a fairy tale. At the same time, our author is someone whose internal moral compass is pretty twisted up. So, logical consistency left the building long before pen was put to paper.
Also, fledgling authors take note: this is what happens when you flagrantly defy thermodynamics over and over again. Nerds will rip your work to shreds.
Not necessarily. This is what happens when you write poorly. Doctor Who’s electric screwdriver is a solve-it-all tool. But it doesn’t ruin the stories in each episode because most are well writen.
It’s even simpler than that. The author sets the rules of the world. If those rules change, are ignored, or characters behave in a way that disagrees with the rules the reader’s trust is betrayed.
That’s why people get a stick up their ass about plot holes. They were told things work a certain way, but characters miss an obvious opportunity or break an already established rule. Lack of effort on the author’s part makes the reader feel like their time hasn’t been respected.
I mean, Joanne wrote her first book living in her car by copying other stories. Literally everything interesting or complicated is borrowed from either mythology or some other book. She’s not a great writer, she’s a pretty good writer who wrote kids’ stories that were made into great movies.
To go even further- I think she was too ambitious about her own writing ability.
Having a series of 7 books, each tied to a school year, where the characters age over time, with the intended audience also changing over time. Sorcerer’s Stone is a book about 11 year olds, for 11 year olds. Goblet of Fire is about 14 year olds, for 14 year olds. There’s a lot of wiggle room, but that’s the baseline. Sorcerer’s Stone is a pretty simple children’s book. Prisoner of Askaban starts dealing with the history of Voldemort 's rise to power, starts dealing with more powerful banned spells that raise ethical questions, the criminal justice system, etc.
I remember when book 5 came out being heavily disappointed in it. It was just a dark and depressing slog. Half-Blood Prince was just boring- most of the book focusing too much on just teenage drama and romance. Deathly Hallows had an entirely different tone from the rest of the series and felt like bad fan fiction. All the way up to eh epilogue, where we get a glimpse of the main characters as adults that feels like really hamfosted fan service. I think Rowling was just better at writing for/about 11-14 year olds than she was 15-17 year olds.
I read leaks of Deathly Hallows online in advance and I was convinced they were fake because they seemed to be written so differently than previous books
I mean, the whole thing is this big fever-dream written for kids; yanno, a fairy tale. At the same time, our author is someone whose internal moral compass is pretty twisted up. So, logical consistency left the building long before pen was put to paper.
Also, fledgling authors take note: this is what happens when you flagrantly defy thermodynamics over and over again. Nerds will rip your work to shreds.
Not necessarily. This is what happens when you write poorly. Doctor Who’s electric screwdriver is a solve-it-all tool. But it doesn’t ruin the stories in each episode because most are well writen.
Doctor Who has no plot holes?
It’s even simpler than that. The author sets the rules of the world. If those rules change, are ignored, or characters behave in a way that disagrees with the rules the reader’s trust is betrayed.
That’s why people get a stick up their ass about plot holes. They were told things work a certain way, but characters miss an obvious opportunity or break an already established rule. Lack of effort on the author’s part makes the reader feel like their time hasn’t been respected.
I mean, Joanne wrote her first book living in her car by copying other stories. Literally everything interesting or complicated is borrowed from either mythology or some other book. She’s not a great writer, she’s a pretty good writer who wrote kids’ stories that were made into great movies.
To go even further- I think she was too ambitious about her own writing ability.
Having a series of 7 books, each tied to a school year, where the characters age over time, with the intended audience also changing over time. Sorcerer’s Stone is a book about 11 year olds, for 11 year olds. Goblet of Fire is about 14 year olds, for 14 year olds. There’s a lot of wiggle room, but that’s the baseline. Sorcerer’s Stone is a pretty simple children’s book. Prisoner of Askaban starts dealing with the history of Voldemort 's rise to power, starts dealing with more powerful banned spells that raise ethical questions, the criminal justice system, etc.
I remember when book 5 came out being heavily disappointed in it. It was just a dark and depressing slog. Half-Blood Prince was just boring- most of the book focusing too much on just teenage drama and romance. Deathly Hallows had an entirely different tone from the rest of the series and felt like bad fan fiction. All the way up to eh epilogue, where we get a glimpse of the main characters as adults that feels like really hamfosted fan service. I think Rowling was just better at writing for/about 11-14 year olds than she was 15-17 year olds.
I read leaks of Deathly Hallows online in advance and I was convinced they were fake because they seemed to be written so differently than previous books
Nevermind how two wizards dueling under the influence of Felix Felicia would be metal af.
The Intensified Luck Soldiers at the end of Escaflowne had a scene like this and it was one of the best mecha battle flights I’ve ever watched.