What was Tolkien's message to us when he constantly has the other races demean Hobbits as being backwards and simple, yet they're the only race to have reached this bucolic, Merrry-Old-England-as-a-way-of-life standard of living instead of constantly battling?
That he hated industrialism and was pining for the good old days, like many scholars of antiquity?
I can't say I entirely agree. To a certain extent, yes. But he also loves battling and sword fighting and glorious deaths and stuff, evidenced not only in his fiction but in how he translated Beowulf, etc.
So it's like he's trying to have his cake (loving a bucolic England that never really existed) and eating it too (loving the idea of men fighting and dying valiantly for epic, romantic causes.) When you cram these together, though, it starts sending a really mixed message.
What was Tolkien's message to us when he constantly has the other races demean Hobbits as being backwards and simple, yet they're the only race to have reached this bucolic, Merry-Old-England-as-a-way-of-life standard of living instead of constantly battling?
That he hated industrialism and was pining for the good old days, like many scholars of antiquity?
Yet if everyone on the side of good was like your average hobbit, then Sauron would've enslaved all of Middle Earth. The Shire is beautiful and hobbits are peaceful, but they're also insular and think that you can just stick your head in the sand and the bad times will pass.
Thirith on
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
What was Tolkien's message to us when he constantly has the other races demean Hobbits as being backwards and simple, yet they're the only race to have reached this bucolic, Merrry-Old-England-as-a-way-of-life standard of living instead of constantly battling?
That he hated industrialism and was pining for the good old days, like many scholars of antiquity?
I can't say I entirely agree. To a certain extent, yes. But he also loves battling and sword fighting and glorious deaths and stuff, evidenced not only in his fiction but in how he translated Beowulf, etc.
So it's like he's trying to have his cake (loving a bucolic England that never really existed) and eating it too (loving the idea of men fighting and dying valiantly for epic, romantic causes.) When you cram these together, though, it starts sending a really mixed message.
People who pine for the good old days are never thinking of good old days that actually existed.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
What was Tolkien's message to us when he constantly has the other races demean Hobbits as being backwards and simple, yet they're the only race to have reached this bucolic, Merrry-Old-England-as-a-way-of-life standard of living instead of constantly battling?
That he hated industrialism and was pining for the good old days, like many scholars of antiquity?
I can't say I entirely agree. To a certain extent, yes. But he also loves battling and sword fighting and glorious deaths and stuff, evidenced not only in his fiction but in how he translated Beowulf, etc.
So it's like he's trying to have his cake (loving a bucolic England that never really existed) and eating it too (loving the idea of men fighting and dying valiantly for epic, romantic causes.) When you cram these together, though, it starts sending a really mixed message.
People who pine for the good old days are never thinking of good old days that actually existed.
It's actually one of the things that stands out to me the most from Rowling. She drops tons of references to works from mythology, fantasy, and more, as just a "oh, isn't this neat, and just so you know these things do exist. But that's all I'm saying about them." We learn that there's a giant spider living in the forest, and that's it. It's just big. Compare that to Shelob -- she has an entire lineage! Her mom did crazy shit! But we don't hear about that at all in LOTR. For a reader of LOTR, Shelob is introduced with: "But still she was there, who was there before Sauron, and before the first stone of Barad-dûr." Given that the story talks greatly about Sauron, who is a supernatural bad-ass thousands of years old, just a single sentence about Shelob give a great sense of dread and gravity.
Compared to Rowling's use of these types of creatures, where it's "there's a breed of giant spiders that magicians bred." I'm not trying to be flippant, but the rationale behind giant spiders is basically "a wizard did it." Incidentally, that's also one of the things I loved about the Dying Earth series from Jack Vance, that they hint at things past but as if there were real thought and intention behind it. A lot of fantasy, especially YA fantasy, tends to simply include recognizeable elements for the sake of recognizeability.
"spider is OOOOOLD" is not exactly the height of extensive backstory.
No, but it gives a feel of history to the world in general, and what would otherwise be just a "big monster." I feel that a lazier author would have simply put a giant spider there "just because," and the heroes would fight it and emerge triumphant. In most cases, "giant spider" evokes a sense of fear among people. Further, it gives a sense of richness to the story if you then read about Ungoliant and see the connection to actual history in the fictional world. What's more, Tolkien doesn't shoehorn in a sidechapter on Ungoliant and take away from Frodo and Sam, but rather has an unpublished story about the character, brief though it may be.
Part of what a lot of people like about George R. R. Martin's stories, I'm told, is that he spends a lot of time expanding on his world. I too have not read the novels, but I respect them. Rowling, on the other hand, attempts to impart this kind of world-building and history through things like the Deathly Hallows. Suddenly in the last book, we learn about 3 items that apparently every adult wizard knows about yet have been able to keep secret from every teenage wizard. We find that they were held by old wizards with no connection to the story, which, OK, gives some history to the items. Then we find that the cloak was passed down through the family and the Potters were in the direct line, so Harry's dad had it. Wait wait, so Harry is a direct relation to one of these historical wizards regarded as mythic, and there's actually a bloodline that extends back to prove it? Yet people don't believe the stories and etc. etc. despite the extensive geneological records we hear being kept?
I felt the same way about The Dark Tower. I loved books 1-4, but books 5-7 felt lazy. It felt that plot points brought up in the later books referenced earlier parts to try to make a connection, but rather than provide richness, they only provided more questions. Although I really liked the actual ending, much of the buildup and travel to that point felt divergent, and somehow both sprawling and quite direct (as in, the plot and locations went all over the place, yet the actual travel seemed very short).
There doesn't really need to be a direct line. Given that invisibility cloaks are a relatively common item, Harry's dad could have picked it up at a yard sale without anyone knowing it was valuable, as is commonly seen on The Antique Roadshow.
There doesn't *need* to be, but this is THE Cloak of Invisibility, the one passed down through the generations. How did his dad get it? By bringing up that his cloak, the one that his dad used that Dumbledore saved for him, is THE Cloak, the fact that his dad's acquisition bears no mention just raises more questions than it should've. The simple answer is that the Potters are direct descendants. Either way, we have an item that supposedly bears a rich history yet is apparently completely ignored until Harry's dad uses it? It seems that such is often the fate for magic items in the HP universe -- amazingly powerful artifacts with a rich history that no one cares about.
Actually, there's nothing about the plot regarding the tournament that needs to be fixed at all. There's a point to the fact that the scheme is so Byzantine - to give insight about the person behind it. Such a plot indicates that its creator is not just content to win, but has a pathological need to publicly triumph. Which, in turn, is a sign of insecurity. In fact, giving a "logical" reason would weaken the story.
Harry disappears in a giant hedge maze in which the participants are not expected to emerge for hours anyway and when he does nobody but the already suspect headmaster of his school believes him.
How is that a public triumph?
Well, the plan was to kill the champion of the Tournament and I'm guessing send back the corpse with the portkey. And probably go ahead and have somebody cast the Dark Mark over it. Ta da.
No, the plan was to kill Harry. That's why they put his name in the competition and why they helped him win.
The whole point is to get Harry whisked away from Hogwarts during a period when no one would notice him missing for awhile.
The worst part is, you could throw in one line and plug the "Why didn't they do this the first day then?" plothole. But she doesn't.
1) He is fucking terrified of death
2) He wants to get one over on Dumbledore, who he is also terrified of.
He's not exactly a great character (Rowling's villains are universally weak, except Umbridge), but basically everything he does is motivated by one or both of those things. In this case: having a body back, killing the one who can stop him, AND killing Potter right under Dumbledore's nose. Of course he's going to do it in this really, really contrived way.
Voldemort is also obsessed with "traditional" wizarding society. He's desperately trying to be part of the aristocracy.
And the Deathly Hallows aren't kept secret, exactly, but they're treated like myths. They're the Holy Grail. Only crazy people (Dumbledore, Grindelwald, the Lovegoods) really believe in them.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
We need Tolkien to understand the concept of giant spiders and dwarves now? It's not like he invented either, or like you need to list a whole lineage for every species ever. Tolkien decided to do an Odyssey-style epic in which every creature is a one-of-a-kind apparition custom made by a god, yet still never explained where hobbits come from because he knew that we'd accept the existence of wee folk in the environment given. Rowling told her story from a viewpoint that wouldn't allow knowing everything back to the beginning of the universe, yet was still able to give a good idea of where everything came from by presenting everything as a "naturally" occurring ecology. Where did pixies come from? They probably evolved from some common ancestor with gnomes, which is more than you can say about the djinni in the Arabian Nights.
Really, just because the explanation is the one that jumps out at you rather than some convoluted Rube Goldberg engine doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Actually, I felt that a lot of the supplemental beasts in Harry Potter were a great success. I felt that much of the problem was when they stayed in the story or developed into plots themselves. A magical world that involves fantastical creatures can have things like pixies, giants, and so on, and indeed should! I do feel that the giants have a successful backstory in Harry Potter -- they're described as being a violent race focused on power, and they side with Voldemort. They're kind of stupid and she doesn't dwell on their story, but she explains their presence and when they show up again at the end, it's logical and adds to the excitement.
I'm not saying that Tolkien is the source for all fantastical, but that his method is arguably one of the best when it comes to creating a fantastical world. Spend time on the history so when you write about the present, it makes sense and is consistent. An author doesn't even need to include the history (and in fact many stories benefit from avoiding that kind of minutae) but it adds richness when a story is consistent.
They're essentially different subgenres. LotR is descended mythology, while HP is from fairy tale.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
It's actually one of the things that stands out to me the most from Rowling. She drops tons of references to works from mythology, fantasy, and more, as just a "oh, isn't this neat, and just so you know these things do exist. But that's all I'm saying about them." We learn that there's a giant spider living in the forest, and that's it. It's just big. Compare that to Shelob -- she has an entire lineage! Her mom did crazy shit! But we don't hear about that at all in LOTR. For a reader of LOTR, Shelob is introduced with: "But still she was there, who was there before Sauron, and before the first stone of Barad-dûr." Given that the story talks greatly about Sauron, who is a supernatural bad-ass thousands of years old, just a single sentence about Shelob give a great sense of dread and gravity.
Compared to Rowling's use of these types of creatures, where it's "there's a breed of giant spiders that magicians bred." I'm not trying to be flippant, but the rationale behind giant spiders is basically "a wizard did it." Incidentally, that's also one of the things I loved about the Dying Earth series from Jack Vance, that they hint at things past but as if there were real thought and intention behind it. A lot of fantasy, especially YA fantasy, tends to simply include recognizeable elements for the sake of recognizeability.
"spider is OOOOOLD" is not exactly the height of extensive backstory.
No, but it gives a feel of history to the world in general, and what would otherwise be just a "big monster." I feel that a lazier author would have simply put a giant spider there "just because," and the heroes would fight it and emerge triumphant. In most cases, "giant spider" evokes a sense of fear among people. Further, it gives a sense of richness to the story if you then read about Ungoliant and see the connection to actual history in the fictional world. What's more, Tolkien doesn't shoehorn in a sidechapter on Ungoliant and take away from Frodo and Sam, but rather has an unpublished story about the character, brief though it may be.
Part of what a lot of people like about George R. R. Martin's stories, I'm told, is that he spends a lot of time expanding on his world. I too have not read the novels, but I respect them. Rowling, on the other hand, attempts to impart this kind of world-building and history through things like the Deathly Hallows. Suddenly in the last book, we learn about 3 items that apparently every adult wizard knows about yet have been able to keep secret from every teenage wizard. We find that they were held by old wizards with no connection to the story, which, OK, gives some history to the items. Then we find that the cloak was passed down through the family and the Potters were in the direct line, so Harry's dad had it. Wait wait, so Harry is a direct relation to one of these historical wizards regarded as mythic, and there's actually a bloodline that extends back to prove it? Yet people don't believe the stories and etc. etc. despite the extensive geneological records we hear being kept?
I felt the same way about The Dark Tower. I loved books 1-4, but books 5-7 felt lazy. It felt that plot points brought up in the later books referenced earlier parts to try to make a connection, but rather than provide richness, they only provided more questions. Although I really liked the actual ending, much of the buildup and travel to that point felt divergent, and somehow both sprawling and quite direct (as in, the plot and locations went all over the place, yet the actual travel seemed very short).
There doesn't really need to be a direct line. Given that invisibility cloaks are a relatively common item, Harry's dad could have picked it up at a yard sale without anyone knowing it was valuable, as is commonly seen on The Antique Roadshow.
There doesn't *need* to be, but this is THE Cloak of Invisibility, the one passed down through the generations. How did his dad get it? By bringing up that his cloak, the one that his dad used that Dumbledore saved for him, is THE Cloak, the fact that his dad's acquisition bears no mention just raises more questions than it should've. The simple answer is that the Potters are direct descendants. Either way, we have an item that supposedly bears a rich history yet is apparently completely ignored until Harry's dad uses it? It seems that such is often the fate for magic items in the HP universe -- amazingly powerful artifacts with a rich history that no one cares about.
It was pretty much implied that Harry was descended from the brother with the cloak.
But, the point of the cloak was that it was meant to be hidden, secret. That's why the brother asked for it. That's kind of central to the book.
Actually, there's nothing about the plot regarding the tournament that needs to be fixed at all. There's a point to the fact that the scheme is so Byzantine - to give insight about the person behind it. Such a plot indicates that its creator is not just content to win, but has a pathological need to publicly triumph. Which, in turn, is a sign of insecurity. In fact, giving a "logical" reason would weaken the story.
Harry disappears in a giant hedge maze in which the participants are not expected to emerge for hours anyway and when he does nobody but the already suspect headmaster of his school believes him.
How is that a public triumph?
Well, the plan was to kill the champion of the Tournament and I'm guessing send back the corpse with the portkey. And probably go ahead and have somebody cast the Dark Mark over it. Ta da.
No, the plan was to kill Harry. That's why they put his name in the competition and why they helped him win.
The whole point is to get Harry whisked away from Hogwarts during a period when no one would notice him missing for awhile.
The worst part is, you could throw in one line and plug the "Why didn't they do this the first day then?" plothole. But she doesn't.
1) He is fucking terrified of death
2) He wants to get one over on Dumbledore, who he is also terrified of.
He's not exactly a great character (Rowling's villains are universally weak, except Umbridge), but basically everything he does is motivated by one or both of those things. In this case: having a body back, killing the one who can stop him, AND killing Potter right under Dumbledore's nose. Of course he's going to do it in this really, really contrived way.
Voldemort is also obsessed with "traditional" wizarding society. He's desperately trying to be part of the aristocracy.
Yes, he wants to kill Harry. But just killing him isn't enough. He has to do it in a manner that asserts his superiority and inflicts the most terror possible. That's why there is no plothole.
Actually, there's nothing about the plot regarding the tournament that needs to be fixed at all. There's a point to the fact that the scheme is so Byzantine - to give insight about the person behind it. Such a plot indicates that its creator is not just content to win, but has a pathological need to publicly triumph. Which, in turn, is a sign of insecurity. In fact, giving a "logical" reason would weaken the story.
Harry disappears in a giant hedge maze in which the participants are not expected to emerge for hours anyway and when he does nobody but the already suspect headmaster of his school believes him.
How is that a public triumph?
Well, the plan was to kill the champion of the Tournament and I'm guessing send back the corpse with the portkey. And probably go ahead and have somebody cast the Dark Mark over it. Ta da.
No, the plan was to kill Harry. That's why they put his name in the competition and why they helped him win.
The whole point is to get Harry whisked away from Hogwarts during a period when no one would notice him missing for awhile.
The worst part is, you could throw in one line and plug the "Why didn't they do this the first day then?" plothole. But she doesn't.
1) He is fucking terrified of death
2) He wants to get one over on Dumbledore, who he is also terrified of.
He's not exactly a great character (Rowling's villains are universally weak, except Umbridge), but basically everything he does is motivated by one or both of those things. In this case: having a body back, killing the one who can stop him, AND killing Potter right under Dumbledore's nose. Of course he's going to do it in this really, really contrived way.
Voldemort is also obsessed with "traditional" wizarding society. He's desperately trying to be part of the aristocracy.
Yes, he wants to kill Harry. But just killing him isn't enough. He has to do it in a manner that asserts his superiority and inflicts the most terror possible. That's why there is no plothole.
You seem to be arguing that Voldemort doing it in front of the gathered kids at the tournament is not only his plan, but also the best way to inflict terror. Yes?
But why does that inflict the most terror possible? You have to explain why doing it in front of the school at a tournament is more effective than at any other point in front of the school. At any of the dinners, at the Yule Ball, at any other time when all of the kids are gathered together.
Actually, there's nothing about the plot regarding the tournament that needs to be fixed at all. There's a point to the fact that the scheme is so Byzantine - to give insight about the person behind it. Such a plot indicates that its creator is not just content to win, but has a pathological need to publicly triumph. Which, in turn, is a sign of insecurity. In fact, giving a "logical" reason would weaken the story.
Harry disappears in a giant hedge maze in which the participants are not expected to emerge for hours anyway and when he does nobody but the already suspect headmaster of his school believes him.
How is that a public triumph?
Well, the plan was to kill the champion of the Tournament and I'm guessing send back the corpse with the portkey. And probably go ahead and have somebody cast the Dark Mark over it. Ta da.
No, the plan was to kill Harry. That's why they put his name in the competition and why they helped him win.
The whole point is to get Harry whisked away from Hogwarts during a period when no one would notice him missing for awhile.
The worst part is, you could throw in one line and plug the "Why didn't they do this the first day then?" plothole. But she doesn't.
1) He is fucking terrified of death
2) He wants to get one over on Dumbledore, who he is also terrified of.
He's not exactly a great character (Rowling's villains are universally weak, except Umbridge), but basically everything he does is motivated by one or both of those things. In this case: having a body back, killing the one who can stop him, AND killing Potter right under Dumbledore's nose. Of course he's going to do it in this really, really contrived way.
Voldemort is also obsessed with "traditional" wizarding society. He's desperately trying to be part of the aristocracy.
Yes, he wants to kill Harry. But just killing him isn't enough. He has to do it in a manner that asserts his superiority and inflicts the most terror possible. That's why there is no plothole.
You seem to be arguing that Voldemort doing it in front of the gathered kids at the tournament is not only his plan, but also the best way to inflict terror. Yes?
But why does that inflict the most terror possible? You have to explain why doing it in front of the school at a tournament is more effective than at any other point in front of the school. At any of the dinners, at the Yule Ball, at any other time when all of the kids are gathered together.
Because he can get him away from Dumbledore, who he is afraid of in normal times and at the moment doesn't have his full strength.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Actually, there's nothing about the plot regarding the tournament that needs to be fixed at all. There's a point to the fact that the scheme is so Byzantine - to give insight about the person behind it. Such a plot indicates that its creator is not just content to win, but has a pathological need to publicly triumph. Which, in turn, is a sign of insecurity. In fact, giving a "logical" reason would weaken the story.
Harry disappears in a giant hedge maze in which the participants are not expected to emerge for hours anyway and when he does nobody but the already suspect headmaster of his school believes him.
How is that a public triumph?
Well, the plan was to kill the champion of the Tournament and I'm guessing send back the corpse with the portkey. And probably go ahead and have somebody cast the Dark Mark over it. Ta da.
No, the plan was to kill Harry. That's why they put his name in the competition and why they helped him win.
The whole point is to get Harry whisked away from Hogwarts during a period when no one would notice him missing for awhile.
The worst part is, you could throw in one line and plug the "Why didn't they do this the first day then?" plothole. But she doesn't.
1) He is fucking terrified of death
2) He wants to get one over on Dumbledore, who he is also terrified of.
He's not exactly a great character (Rowling's villains are universally weak, except Umbridge), but basically everything he does is motivated by one or both of those things. In this case: having a body back, killing the one who can stop him, AND killing Potter right under Dumbledore's nose. Of course he's going to do it in this really, really contrived way.
Voldemort is also obsessed with "traditional" wizarding society. He's desperately trying to be part of the aristocracy.
Yes, he wants to kill Harry. But just killing him isn't enough. He has to do it in a manner that asserts his superiority and inflicts the most terror possible. That's why there is no plothole.
You seem to be arguing that Voldemort doing it in front of the gathered kids at the tournament is not only his plan, but also the best way to inflict terror. Yes?
But why does that inflict the most terror possible? You have to explain why doing it in front of the school at a tournament is more effective than at any other point in front of the school. At any of the dinners, at the Yule Ball, at any other time when all of the kids are gathered together.
Because he needed to sneak a port key in and the only time there'd be one lying about would be at the triwizard finale?
As much as I love Harry Potter, I'd love to read a Harry Potter but for grown ups (magical world co-existing with the modern world). I've heard tell that American Gods by Neil Gaiman has shades of it. Opinions on that book?
"Harry Potter for Grown Ups" is a pretty weird way to phrase it, but I guess I can see it. It doesn't seem that escapist, but it's a pretty enjoyable book. Plays fast and loose with mythology some times, but I'd say its mostly for the better because of it.
Actually, there's nothing about the plot regarding the tournament that needs to be fixed at all. There's a point to the fact that the scheme is so Byzantine - to give insight about the person behind it. Such a plot indicates that its creator is not just content to win, but has a pathological need to publicly triumph. Which, in turn, is a sign of insecurity. In fact, giving a "logical" reason would weaken the story.
Harry disappears in a giant hedge maze in which the participants are not expected to emerge for hours anyway and when he does nobody but the already suspect headmaster of his school believes him.
How is that a public triumph?
Well, the plan was to kill the champion of the Tournament and I'm guessing send back the corpse with the portkey. And probably go ahead and have somebody cast the Dark Mark over it. Ta da.
No, the plan was to kill Harry. That's why they put his name in the competition and why they helped him win.
The whole point is to get Harry whisked away from Hogwarts during a period when no one would notice him missing for awhile.
The worst part is, you could throw in one line and plug the "Why didn't they do this the first day then?" plothole. But she doesn't.
1) He is fucking terrified of death
2) He wants to get one over on Dumbledore, who he is also terrified of.
He's not exactly a great character (Rowling's villains are universally weak, except Umbridge), but basically everything he does is motivated by one or both of those things. In this case: having a body back, killing the one who can stop him, AND killing Potter right under Dumbledore's nose. Of course he's going to do it in this really, really contrived way.
Voldemort is also obsessed with "traditional" wizarding society. He's desperately trying to be part of the aristocracy.
Yes, he wants to kill Harry. But just killing him isn't enough. He has to do it in a manner that asserts his superiority and inflicts the most terror possible. That's why there is no plothole.
You seem to be arguing that Voldemort doing it in front of the gathered kids at the tournament is not only his plan, but also the best way to inflict terror. Yes?
But why does that inflict the most terror possible? You have to explain why doing it in front of the school at a tournament is more effective than at any other point in front of the school. At any of the dinners, at the Yule Ball, at any other time when all of the kids are gathered together.
I think Rowling's idea was to have Harry built up as an exceptional person, by getting into the Tournament and then winning through extraordinary means, and then when Voldemort kills him, it's seen as a huge blow. I think her rationale was that Voldemort wanted Harry, a boy he saw as somehow exceptional, would win, and he wants the cup (an item of significance, which we know he has an affinity for) turned into a portkey. His Deatheaters try to bring up the logistics of this being stupid and he kills one of them and makes the rest adjust everything to make it work.
I mean, Voldemort could've simply possessed someone (first book) and somehow dislodged a piece of rock in Hogwarts to fall on him, smooshing him. He had a billion chances to kill the kid throughout the course of the series, but he's psychotic and wants to do things his way regardless of logic.
I'm not saying that it's good, since Rowling wrote this character to be worse than the most Goldbergian Bond villains, but at least he's consistently dumb.
As much as I love Harry Potter, I'd love to read a Harry Potter but for grown ups (magical world co-existing with the modern world). I've heard tell that American Gods by Neil Gaiman has shades of it. Opinions on that book?
"Harry Potter for Grown Ups" is a pretty weird way to phrase it, but I guess I can see it. It doesn't seem that escapist, but it's a pretty enjoyable book. Plays fast and loose with mythology some times, but I'd say its mostly for the better because of it.
Cool, I just meant in that there's a magical world that interacts with the real one or is on the periphery, but that isn't aimed at a youth market. I.E. one that is perhaps a bit more developed than the Potter series.
his motivation for getting rich and inventing all that stuff and killing all those people was so that he could basically pretend to be like Bob, who in turn continued to use his special powers really just because he wanted to and he wouldn't let people tell him he couldn't. Like them other randian heroes, the wealth/recognition/whatever is incidental, they just don't know how to not be better than everyone else.
That's a _really_ simplistic take on things. To really get into it, the underlying message of the movie is-
Actually, there's nothing about the plot regarding the tournament that needs to be fixed at all. There's a point to the fact that the scheme is so Byzantine - to give insight about the person behind it. Such a plot indicates that its creator is not just content to win, but has a pathological need to publicly triumph. Which, in turn, is a sign of insecurity. In fact, giving a "logical" reason would weaken the story.
Harry disappears in a giant hedge maze in which the participants are not expected to emerge for hours anyway and when he does nobody but the already suspect headmaster of his school believes him.
How is that a public triumph?
Well, the plan was to kill the champion of the Tournament and I'm guessing send back the corpse with the portkey. And probably go ahead and have somebody cast the Dark Mark over it. Ta da.
No, the plan was to kill Harry. That's why they put his name in the competition and why they helped him win.
The whole point is to get Harry whisked away from Hogwarts during a period when no one would notice him missing for awhile.
The worst part is, you could throw in one line and plug the "Why didn't they do this the first day then?" plothole. But she doesn't.
1) He is fucking terrified of death
2) He wants to get one over on Dumbledore, who he is also terrified of.
He's not exactly a great character (Rowling's villains are universally weak, except Umbridge), but basically everything he does is motivated by one or both of those things. In this case: having a body back, killing the one who can stop him, AND killing Potter right under Dumbledore's nose. Of course he's going to do it in this really, really contrived way.
Voldemort is also obsessed with "traditional" wizarding society. He's desperately trying to be part of the aristocracy.
Yes, he wants to kill Harry. But just killing him isn't enough. He has to do it in a manner that asserts his superiority and inflicts the most terror possible. That's why there is no plothole.
You seem to be arguing that Voldemort doing it in front of the gathered kids at the tournament is not only his plan, but also the best way to inflict terror. Yes?
But why does that inflict the most terror possible? You have to explain why doing it in front of the school at a tournament is more effective than at any other point in front of the school. At any of the dinners, at the Yule Ball, at any other time when all of the kids are gathered together.
I think Rowling's idea was to have Harry built up as an exceptional person, by getting into the Tournament and then winning through extraordinary means, and then when Voldemort kills him, it's seen as a huge blow. I think her rationale was that Voldemort wanted Harry, a boy he saw as somehow exceptional, would win, and he wants the cup (an item of significance, which we know he has an affinity for) turned into a portkey. His Deatheaters try to bring up the logistics of this being stupid and he kills one of them and makes the rest adjust everything to make it work.
I mean, Voldemort could've simply possessed someone (first book) and somehow dislodged a piece of rock in Hogwarts to fall on him, smooshing him. He had a billion chances to kill the kid throughout the course of the series, but he's psychotic and wants to do things his way regardless of logic.
I'm not saying that it's good, since Rowling wrote this character to be worse than the most Goldbergian Bond villains, but at least he's consistently dumb.
He also wants Harry specifically because then he can get in on Lily's super productive love charm o' protection thing.
This is stated explicitly in the text.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Actually, there's nothing about the plot regarding the tournament that needs to be fixed at all. There's a point to the fact that the scheme is so Byzantine - to give insight about the person behind it. Such a plot indicates that its creator is not just content to win, but has a pathological need to publicly triumph. Which, in turn, is a sign of insecurity. In fact, giving a "logical" reason would weaken the story.
Harry disappears in a giant hedge maze in which the participants are not expected to emerge for hours anyway and when he does nobody but the already suspect headmaster of his school believes him.
How is that a public triumph?
Well, the plan was to kill the champion of the Tournament and I'm guessing send back the corpse with the portkey. And probably go ahead and have somebody cast the Dark Mark over it. Ta da.
No, the plan was to kill Harry. That's why they put his name in the competition and why they helped him win.
The whole point is to get Harry whisked away from Hogwarts during a period when no one would notice him missing for awhile.
The worst part is, you could throw in one line and plug the "Why didn't they do this the first day then?" plothole. But she doesn't.
1) He is fucking terrified of death
2) He wants to get one over on Dumbledore, who he is also terrified of.
He's not exactly a great character (Rowling's villains are universally weak, except Umbridge), but basically everything he does is motivated by one or both of those things. In this case: having a body back, killing the one who can stop him, AND killing Potter right under Dumbledore's nose. Of course he's going to do it in this really, really contrived way.
Voldemort is also obsessed with "traditional" wizarding society. He's desperately trying to be part of the aristocracy.
Yes, he wants to kill Harry. But just killing him isn't enough. He has to do it in a manner that asserts his superiority and inflicts the most terror possible. That's why there is no plothole.
You seem to be arguing that Voldemort doing it in front of the gathered kids at the tournament is not only his plan, but also the best way to inflict terror. Yes?
But why does that inflict the most terror possible? You have to explain why doing it in front of the school at a tournament is more effective than at any other point in front of the school. At any of the dinners, at the Yule Ball, at any other time when all of the kids are gathered together.
Because he needed to sneak a port key in and the only time there'd be one lying about would be at the triwizard finale?
Why?
He had a man on the inside. He could have made Harry's fucking pillow a portkey.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Actually, there's nothing about the plot regarding the tournament that needs to be fixed at all. There's a point to the fact that the scheme is so Byzantine - to give insight about the person behind it. Such a plot indicates that its creator is not just content to win, but has a pathological need to publicly triumph. Which, in turn, is a sign of insecurity. In fact, giving a "logical" reason would weaken the story.
Harry disappears in a giant hedge maze in which the participants are not expected to emerge for hours anyway and when he does nobody but the already suspect headmaster of his school believes him.
How is that a public triumph?
Well, the plan was to kill the champion of the Tournament and I'm guessing send back the corpse with the portkey. And probably go ahead and have somebody cast the Dark Mark over it. Ta da.
No, the plan was to kill Harry. That's why they put his name in the competition and why they helped him win.
The whole point is to get Harry whisked away from Hogwarts during a period when no one would notice him missing for awhile.
The worst part is, you could throw in one line and plug the "Why didn't they do this the first day then?" plothole. But she doesn't.
1) He is fucking terrified of death
2) He wants to get one over on Dumbledore, who he is also terrified of.
He's not exactly a great character (Rowling's villains are universally weak, except Umbridge), but basically everything he does is motivated by one or both of those things. In this case: having a body back, killing the one who can stop him, AND killing Potter right under Dumbledore's nose. Of course he's going to do it in this really, really contrived way.
Voldemort is also obsessed with "traditional" wizarding society. He's desperately trying to be part of the aristocracy.
Yes, he wants to kill Harry. But just killing him isn't enough. He has to do it in a manner that asserts his superiority and inflicts the most terror possible. That's why there is no plothole.
You seem to be arguing that Voldemort doing it in front of the gathered kids at the tournament is not only his plan, but also the best way to inflict terror. Yes?
But why does that inflict the most terror possible? You have to explain why doing it in front of the school at a tournament is more effective than at any other point in front of the school. At any of the dinners, at the Yule Ball, at any other time when all of the kids are gathered together.
Because he needed to sneak a port key in and the only time there'd be one lying about would be at the triwizard finale?
Why?
He had a man on the inside. He could have made Harry's fucking pillow a portkey.
I figured there'd be security for detecting that kind of thing. Unless you're the headmaster, you can't really use that kind of magic without clearance. I feel like that was mentioned in the text, but it's been a while since I've read that one.
It isn't my favorite. In fact, Goblet of Fire is my least favorite.
As much as I love Harry Potter, I'd love to read a Harry Potter but for grown ups (magical world co-existing with the modern world). I've heard tell that American Gods by Neil Gaiman has shades of it. Opinions on that book?
"Harry Potter for Grown Ups" is a pretty weird way to phrase it, but I guess I can see it. It doesn't seem that escapist, but it's a pretty enjoyable book. Plays fast and loose with mythology some times, but I'd say its mostly for the better because of it.
Cool, I just meant in that there's a magical world that interacts with the real one or is on the periphery, but that isn't aimed at a youth market. I.E. one that is perhaps a bit more developed than the Potter series.
The Magicians?
It's the same basic premise as Harry Potter (normal person goes to Wizard school) but more ... adult I guess.
Actually, there's nothing about the plot regarding the tournament that needs to be fixed at all. There's a point to the fact that the scheme is so Byzantine - to give insight about the person behind it. Such a plot indicates that its creator is not just content to win, but has a pathological need to publicly triumph. Which, in turn, is a sign of insecurity. In fact, giving a "logical" reason would weaken the story.
Harry disappears in a giant hedge maze in which the participants are not expected to emerge for hours anyway and when he does nobody but the already suspect headmaster of his school believes him.
How is that a public triumph?
Well, the plan was to kill the champion of the Tournament and I'm guessing send back the corpse with the portkey. And probably go ahead and have somebody cast the Dark Mark over it. Ta da.
No, the plan was to kill Harry. That's why they put his name in the competition and why they helped him win.
The whole point is to get Harry whisked away from Hogwarts during a period when no one would notice him missing for awhile.
The worst part is, you could throw in one line and plug the "Why didn't they do this the first day then?" plothole. But she doesn't.
1) He is fucking terrified of death
2) He wants to get one over on Dumbledore, who he is also terrified of.
He's not exactly a great character (Rowling's villains are universally weak, except Umbridge), but basically everything he does is motivated by one or both of those things. In this case: having a body back, killing the one who can stop him, AND killing Potter right under Dumbledore's nose. Of course he's going to do it in this really, really contrived way.
Voldemort is also obsessed with "traditional" wizarding society. He's desperately trying to be part of the aristocracy.
Yes, he wants to kill Harry. But just killing him isn't enough. He has to do it in a manner that asserts his superiority and inflicts the most terror possible. That's why there is no plothole.
You seem to be arguing that Voldemort doing it in front of the gathered kids at the tournament is not only his plan, but also the best way to inflict terror. Yes?
But why does that inflict the most terror possible? You have to explain why doing it in front of the school at a tournament is more effective than at any other point in front of the school. At any of the dinners, at the Yule Ball, at any other time when all of the kids are gathered together.
Because he needed to sneak a port key in and the only time there'd be one lying about would be at the triwizard finale?
Why?
He had a man on the inside. He could have made Harry's fucking pillow a portkey.
I figured there'd be security for detecting that kind of thing. Unless you're the headmaster, you can't really use that kind of magic without clearance. I feel like that was mentioned in the text, but it's been a while since I've read that one.
It isn't my favorite. In fact, Goblet of Fire is my least favorite.
Anyone who says Chamber of Secrets isn't the worst is wrong. Let's just rehash the first one with less sense of wonder.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
As much as I love Harry Potter, I'd love to read a Harry Potter but for grown ups (magical world co-existing with the modern world). I've heard tell that American Gods by Neil Gaiman has shades of it. Opinions on that book?
"Harry Potter for Grown Ups" is a pretty weird way to phrase it, but I guess I can see it. It doesn't seem that escapist, but it's a pretty enjoyable book. Plays fast and loose with mythology some times, but I'd say its mostly for the better because of it.
Cool, I just meant in that there's a magical world that interacts with the real one or is on the periphery, but that isn't aimed at a youth market. I.E. one that is perhaps a bit more developed than the Potter series.
The Magicians?
It's the same basic premise as Harry Potter (normal person goes to Wizard school) but more ... adult I guess.
It's very different in theme and such though.
Adult how, though? What I mean is deeper and more complex, not Adult in the sense of "It's just like Star Trek, but MOAR ADULT (titties)"
As much as I love Harry Potter, I'd love to read a Harry Potter but for grown ups (magical world co-existing with the modern world). I've heard tell that American Gods by Neil Gaiman has shades of it. Opinions on that book?
"Harry Potter for Grown Ups" is a pretty weird way to phrase it, but I guess I can see it. It doesn't seem that escapist, but it's a pretty enjoyable book. Plays fast and loose with mythology some times, but I'd say its mostly for the better because of it.
Cool, I just meant in that there's a magical world that interacts with the real one or is on the periphery, but that isn't aimed at a youth market. I.E. one that is perhaps a bit more developed than the Potter series.
The Magicians?
It's the same basic premise as Harry Potter (normal person goes to Wizard school) but more ... adult I guess.
It's very different in theme and such though.
Adult how, though? What I mean is deeper and more complex, not Adult in the sense of "It's just like Star Trek, but MOAR ADULT (titties)"
As in, when someone does something you'd see as a Bad Idea, people in the book also see it as a Bad Idea. Rather than "But he's the hero!" Less whimsy, more realism.
Another book commonly called an "adult Harry Potter" is Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell. It is very much in the Victorian style, though, which can be off-putting.
As much as I love Harry Potter, I'd love to read a Harry Potter but for grown ups (magical world co-existing with the modern world). I've heard tell that American Gods by Neil Gaiman has shades of it. Opinions on that book?
"Harry Potter for Grown Ups" is a pretty weird way to phrase it, but I guess I can see it. It doesn't seem that escapist, but it's a pretty enjoyable book. Plays fast and loose with mythology some times, but I'd say its mostly for the better because of it.
Cool, I just meant in that there's a magical world that interacts with the real one or is on the periphery, but that isn't aimed at a youth market. I.E. one that is perhaps a bit more developed than the Potter series.
The Magicians?
It's the same basic premise as Harry Potter (normal person goes to Wizard school) but more ... adult I guess.
It's very different in theme and such though.
Adult how, though? What I mean is deeper and more complex, not Adult in the sense of "It's just like Star Trek, but MOAR ADULT (titties)"
As in, when someone does something you'd see as a Bad Idea, people in the book also see it as a Bad Idea. Rather than "But he's the hero!" Less whimsy, more realism.
Another book commonly called an "adult Harry Potter" is Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell. It is very much in the Victorian style, though, which can be off-putting.
Okay, I'll give both of those a look. I've heard good things about them.
I was able to start dating my girlfriend thanks in part to conversations before class which kept her from Jonathan Strange due to the interruption.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
"spider is OOOOOLD" is not exactly the height of extensive backstory.
No, but it gives a feel of history to the world in general, and what would otherwise be just a "big monster." I feel that a lazier author would have simply put a giant spider there "just because," and the heroes would fight it and emerge triumphant. In most cases, "giant spider" evokes a sense of fear among people. Further, it gives a sense of richness to the story if you then read about Ungoliant and see the connection to actual history in the fictional world. What's more, Tolkien doesn't shoehorn in a sidechapter on Ungoliant and take away from Frodo and Sam, but rather has an unpublished story about the character, brief though it may be.[/quote]
It's not like the giant spider in Harry Potter is just there or something, the only thing that's really different is that it's not that old.
Rowling did write all kinds of background stuff and histories. She made a book specifically about magical beasts and stuff like that.
Part of what a lot of people like about George R. R. Martin's stories, I'm told, is that he spends a lot of time expanding on his world. I too have not read the novels, but I respect them. Rowling, on the other hand, attempts to impart this kind of world-building and history through things like the Deathly Hallows. Suddenly in the last book, we learn about 3 items that apparently every adult wizard knows about yet have been able to keep secret from every teenage wizard. We find that they were held by old wizards with no connection to the story, which, OK, gives some history to the items. Then we find that the cloak was passed down through the family and the Potters were in the direct line, so Harry's dad had it. Wait wait, so Harry is a direct relation to one of these historical wizards regarded as mythic, and there's actually a bloodline that extends back to prove it? Yet people don't believe the stories and etc. etc. despite the extensive geneological records we hear being kept?
I agree that for a people who do crazy shit all the time wizards are unbelievably sceptical or totally not sceptical, but at least it's not the force turning from totally accepted real thing to myth in like 20 years. Rowling's problem is not that she doesn't have an extensive backstory but that it's illogical or disjointed. You could see that from early on when she had to adjust the size of the student-body because 40 students in the first year couldn't possibly make a 1,000 student body. The combination of several realistic things can still lead to an unrealistic world. Some of it is due to exposing the world through a young kid with no knowledge, but some of it is clearly due to not having thought things through enough.
(slight nitpick, the historical wizards weren't regarded as mythic but the stories about them. much like we'd not believe everything about mythical figures.)
Actually, there's nothing about the plot regarding the tournament that needs to be fixed at all. There's a point to the fact that the scheme is so Byzantine - to give insight about the person behind it. Such a plot indicates that its creator is not just content to win, but has a pathological need to publicly triumph. Which, in turn, is a sign of insecurity. In fact, giving a "logical" reason would weaken the story.
Harry disappears in a giant hedge maze in which the participants are not expected to emerge for hours anyway and when he does nobody but the already suspect headmaster of his school believes him.
How is that a public triumph?
Well, the plan was to kill the champion of the Tournament and I'm guessing send back the corpse with the portkey. And probably go ahead and have somebody cast the Dark Mark over it. Ta da.
No, the plan was to kill Harry. That's why they put his name in the competition and why they helped him win.
The whole point is to get Harry whisked away from Hogwarts during a period when no one would notice him missing for awhile.
The worst part is, you could throw in one line and plug the "Why didn't they do this the first day then?" plothole. But she doesn't.
1) He is fucking terrified of death
2) He wants to get one over on Dumbledore, who he is also terrified of.
He's not exactly a great character (Rowling's villains are universally weak, except Umbridge), but basically everything he does is motivated by one or both of those things. In this case: having a body back, killing the one who can stop him, AND killing Potter right under Dumbledore's nose. Of course he's going to do it in this really, really contrived way.
Voldemort is also obsessed with "traditional" wizarding society. He's desperately trying to be part of the aristocracy.
Yes, he wants to kill Harry. But just killing him isn't enough. He has to do it in a manner that asserts his superiority and inflicts the most terror possible. That's why there is no plothole.
You seem to be arguing that Voldemort doing it in front of the gathered kids at the tournament is not only his plan, but also the best way to inflict terror. Yes?
But why does that inflict the most terror possible? You have to explain why doing it in front of the school at a tournament is more effective than at any other point in front of the school. At any of the dinners, at the Yule Ball, at any other time when all of the kids are gathered together.
Because he needed to sneak a port key in and the only time there'd be one lying about would be at the triwizard finale?
Why?
He had a man on the inside. He could have made Harry's fucking pillow a portkey.
I figured there'd be security for detecting that kind of thing. Unless you're the headmaster, you can't really use that kind of magic without clearance. I feel like that was mentioned in the text, but it's been a while since I've read that one.
It isn't my favorite. In fact, Goblet of Fire is my least favorite.
It's not. And that's the simple one-liner that would plug the whole plothole.
Just say "Portkeys don't work within Hogwarts defenses. But for the tournament finale, we had to remove the defenses to make the maze nasty enough" or something like that.
As much as I love Harry Potter, I'd love to read a Harry Potter but for grown ups (magical world co-existing with the modern world). I've heard tell that American Gods by Neil Gaiman has shades of it. Opinions on that book?
"Harry Potter for Grown Ups" is a pretty weird way to phrase it, but I guess I can see it. It doesn't seem that escapist, but it's a pretty enjoyable book. Plays fast and loose with mythology some times, but I'd say its mostly for the better because of it.
Cool, I just meant in that there's a magical world that interacts with the real one or is on the periphery, but that isn't aimed at a youth market. I.E. one that is perhaps a bit more developed than the Potter series.
The Magicians?
It's the same basic premise as Harry Potter (normal person goes to Wizard school) but more ... adult I guess.
It's very different in theme and such though.
Adult how, though? What I mean is deeper and more complex, not Adult in the sense of "It's just like Star Trek, but MOAR ADULT (titties)"
Well, there is more sex.
But more adult as in more complex themes and character studies. I mean, the characters are like 18-19 rather then 10 for one thing.
It's alot more like it's about trying to find direction and meaning in your life and about the social dynamics of the top of the IQ spectrum.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Actually, there's nothing about the plot regarding the tournament that needs to be fixed at all. There's a point to the fact that the scheme is so Byzantine - to give insight about the person behind it. Such a plot indicates that its creator is not just content to win, but has a pathological need to publicly triumph. Which, in turn, is a sign of insecurity. In fact, giving a "logical" reason would weaken the story.
Harry disappears in a giant hedge maze in which the participants are not expected to emerge for hours anyway and when he does nobody but the already suspect headmaster of his school believes him.
How is that a public triumph?
Well, the plan was to kill the champion of the Tournament and I'm guessing send back the corpse with the portkey. And probably go ahead and have somebody cast the Dark Mark over it. Ta da.
No, the plan was to kill Harry. That's why they put his name in the competition and why they helped him win.
The whole point is to get Harry whisked away from Hogwarts during a period when no one would notice him missing for awhile.
The worst part is, you could throw in one line and plug the "Why didn't they do this the first day then?" plothole. But she doesn't.
1) He is fucking terrified of death
2) He wants to get one over on Dumbledore, who he is also terrified of.
He's not exactly a great character (Rowling's villains are universally weak, except Umbridge), but basically everything he does is motivated by one or both of those things. In this case: having a body back, killing the one who can stop him, AND killing Potter right under Dumbledore's nose. Of course he's going to do it in this really, really contrived way.
Voldemort is also obsessed with "traditional" wizarding society. He's desperately trying to be part of the aristocracy.
Yes, he wants to kill Harry. But just killing him isn't enough. He has to do it in a manner that asserts his superiority and inflicts the most terror possible. That's why there is no plothole.
You seem to be arguing that Voldemort doing it in front of the gathered kids at the tournament is not only his plan, but also the best way to inflict terror. Yes?
But why does that inflict the most terror possible? You have to explain why doing it in front of the school at a tournament is more effective than at any other point in front of the school. At any of the dinners, at the Yule Ball, at any other time when all of the kids are gathered together.
Because he needed to sneak a port key in and the only time there'd be one lying about would be at the triwizard finale?
Why?
He had a man on the inside. He could have made Harry's fucking pillow a portkey.
I figured there'd be security for detecting that kind of thing. Unless you're the headmaster, you can't really use that kind of magic without clearance. I feel like that was mentioned in the text, but it's been a while since I've read that one.
It isn't my favorite. In fact, Goblet of Fire is my least favorite.
It's not. And that's the simple one-liner that would plug the whole plothole.
Just say "Portkeys don't work within Hogwarts defenses. But for the tournament finale, we had to remove the defenses to make the maze nasty enough" or something like that.
Ok. Like I said, I couldn't really remember. Is that a plothole though or just a plot convenience?
Actually, there's nothing about the plot regarding the tournament that needs to be fixed at all. There's a point to the fact that the scheme is so Byzantine - to give insight about the person behind it. Such a plot indicates that its creator is not just content to win, but has a pathological need to publicly triumph. Which, in turn, is a sign of insecurity. In fact, giving a "logical" reason would weaken the story.
Harry disappears in a giant hedge maze in which the participants are not expected to emerge for hours anyway and when he does nobody but the already suspect headmaster of his school believes him.
How is that a public triumph?
Well, the plan was to kill the champion of the Tournament and I'm guessing send back the corpse with the portkey. And probably go ahead and have somebody cast the Dark Mark over it. Ta da.
No, the plan was to kill Harry. That's why they put his name in the competition and why they helped him win.
The whole point is to get Harry whisked away from Hogwarts during a period when no one would notice him missing for awhile.
The worst part is, you could throw in one line and plug the "Why didn't they do this the first day then?" plothole. But she doesn't.
1) He is fucking terrified of death
2) He wants to get one over on Dumbledore, who he is also terrified of.
He's not exactly a great character (Rowling's villains are universally weak, except Umbridge), but basically everything he does is motivated by one or both of those things. In this case: having a body back, killing the one who can stop him, AND killing Potter right under Dumbledore's nose. Of course he's going to do it in this really, really contrived way.
Voldemort is also obsessed with "traditional" wizarding society. He's desperately trying to be part of the aristocracy.
Yes, he wants to kill Harry. But just killing him isn't enough. He has to do it in a manner that asserts his superiority and inflicts the most terror possible. That's why there is no plothole.
You seem to be arguing that Voldemort doing it in front of the gathered kids at the tournament is not only his plan, but also the best way to inflict terror. Yes?
But why does that inflict the most terror possible? You have to explain why doing it in front of the school at a tournament is more effective than at any other point in front of the school. At any of the dinners, at the Yule Ball, at any other time when all of the kids are gathered together.
Because he needed to sneak a port key in and the only time there'd be one lying about would be at the triwizard finale?
Why?
He had a man on the inside. He could have made Harry's fucking pillow a portkey.
I figured there'd be security for detecting that kind of thing. Unless you're the headmaster, you can't really use that kind of magic without clearance. I feel like that was mentioned in the text, but it's been a while since I've read that one.
It isn't my favorite. In fact, Goblet of Fire is my least favorite.
It's not. And that's the simple one-liner that would plug the whole plothole.
Just say "Portkeys don't work within Hogwarts defenses. But for the tournament finale, we had to remove the defenses to make the maze nasty enough" or something like that.
Ok. Like I said, I couldn't really remember. Is that a plothole though or just a plot convenience?
If a "plothole" can be fixed with a single sentence that doesn't contradict anything said in the story, then it's kind of a weak plothole. Just accept your answer, or any other idea that sounds feasible, and go with it.
There doesn't *need* to be, but this is THE Cloak of Invisibility, the one passed down through the generations. How did his dad get it? By bringing up that his cloak, the one that his dad used that Dumbledore saved for him, is THE Cloak, the fact that his dad's acquisition bears no mention just raises more questions than it should've. The simple answer is that the Potters are direct descendants. Either way, we have an item that supposedly bears a rich history yet is apparently completely ignored until Harry's dad uses it? It seems that such is often the fate for magic items in the HP universe -- amazingly powerful artifacts with a rich history that no one cares about.
It was pretty much implied that Harry was descended from the brother with the cloak.
But, the point of the cloak was that it was meant to be hidden, secret. That's why the brother asked for it. That's kind of central to the book.
Yeah it was I believe directly stated in the book even. The wand was easy to track, but the cloak does exactly what it is supposed to do and remains hidden.
You seem to be arguing that Voldemort doing it in front of the gathered kids at the tournament is not only his plan, but also the best way to inflict terror. Yes?
But why does that inflict the most terror possible? You have to explain why doing it in front of the school at a tournament is more effective than at any other point in front of the school. At any of the dinners, at the Yule Ball, at any other time when all of the kids are gathered together.
Voldemort didn't come up with the plan in Goblet of Fire,
Barty Crouch jr. did.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
You seem to be arguing that Voldemort doing it in front of the gathered kids at the tournament is not only his plan, but also the best way to inflict terror. Yes?
But why does that inflict the most terror possible? You have to explain why doing it in front of the school at a tournament is more effective than at any other point in front of the school. At any of the dinners, at the Yule Ball, at any other time when all of the kids are gathered together.
Voldemort didn't come up with the plan in Goblet of Fire,
Actually, there's nothing about the plot regarding the tournament that needs to be fixed at all. There's a point to the fact that the scheme is so Byzantine - to give insight about the person behind it. Such a plot indicates that its creator is not just content to win, but has a pathological need to publicly triumph. Which, in turn, is a sign of insecurity. In fact, giving a "logical" reason would weaken the story.
Harry disappears in a giant hedge maze in which the participants are not expected to emerge for hours anyway and when he does nobody but the already suspect headmaster of his school believes him.
How is that a public triumph?
Well, the plan was to kill the champion of the Tournament and I'm guessing send back the corpse with the portkey. And probably go ahead and have somebody cast the Dark Mark over it. Ta da.
No, the plan was to kill Harry. That's why they put his name in the competition and why they helped him win.
The whole point is to get Harry whisked away from Hogwarts during a period when no one would notice him missing for awhile.
The worst part is, you could throw in one line and plug the "Why didn't they do this the first day then?" plothole. But she doesn't.
1) He is fucking terrified of death
2) He wants to get one over on Dumbledore, who he is also terrified of.
He's not exactly a great character (Rowling's villains are universally weak, except Umbridge), but basically everything he does is motivated by one or both of those things. In this case: having a body back, killing the one who can stop him, AND killing Potter right under Dumbledore's nose. Of course he's going to do it in this really, really contrived way.
Voldemort is also obsessed with "traditional" wizarding society. He's desperately trying to be part of the aristocracy.
Yes, he wants to kill Harry. But just killing him isn't enough. He has to do it in a manner that asserts his superiority and inflicts the most terror possible. That's why there is no plothole.
You seem to be arguing that Voldemort doing it in front of the gathered kids at the tournament is not only his plan, but also the best way to inflict terror. Yes?
But why does that inflict the most terror possible? You have to explain why doing it in front of the school at a tournament is more effective than at any other point in front of the school. At any of the dinners, at the Yule Ball, at any other time when all of the kids are gathered together.
Because he needed to sneak a port key in and the only time there'd be one lying about would be at the triwizard finale?
Why?
He had a man on the inside. He could have made Harry's fucking pillow a portkey.
I figured there'd be security for detecting that kind of thing. Unless you're the headmaster, you can't really use that kind of magic without clearance. I feel like that was mentioned in the text, but it's been a while since I've read that one.
It isn't my favorite. In fact, Goblet of Fire is my least favorite.
Hogwart's defenses only mentioned, not shown. We have no idea what it could and couldn't do with detecting spells. It is confirmed that
wizards can use the three Unforgiving Curses on campus without alarms going off. Nor does the castle have specific built-in defenses if an enemy strike team is successfully inserted onto the premises.
Harry Dresden on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Actually, there's nothing about the plot regarding the tournament that needs to be fixed at all. There's a point to the fact that the scheme is so Byzantine - to give insight about the person behind it. Such a plot indicates that its creator is not just content to win, but has a pathological need to publicly triumph. Which, in turn, is a sign of insecurity. In fact, giving a "logical" reason would weaken the story.
Harry disappears in a giant hedge maze in which the participants are not expected to emerge for hours anyway and when he does nobody but the already suspect headmaster of his school believes him.
How is that a public triumph?
Well, the plan was to kill the champion of the Tournament and I'm guessing send back the corpse with the portkey. And probably go ahead and have somebody cast the Dark Mark over it. Ta da.
No, the plan was to kill Harry. That's why they put his name in the competition and why they helped him win.
The whole point is to get Harry whisked away from Hogwarts during a period when no one would notice him missing for awhile.
The worst part is, you could throw in one line and plug the "Why didn't they do this the first day then?" plothole. But she doesn't.
1) He is fucking terrified of death
2) He wants to get one over on Dumbledore, who he is also terrified of.
He's not exactly a great character (Rowling's villains are universally weak, except Umbridge), but basically everything he does is motivated by one or both of those things. In this case: having a body back, killing the one who can stop him, AND killing Potter right under Dumbledore's nose. Of course he's going to do it in this really, really contrived way.
Voldemort is also obsessed with "traditional" wizarding society. He's desperately trying to be part of the aristocracy.
Yes, he wants to kill Harry. But just killing him isn't enough. He has to do it in a manner that asserts his superiority and inflicts the most terror possible. That's why there is no plothole.
You seem to be arguing that Voldemort doing it in front of the gathered kids at the tournament is not only his plan, but also the best way to inflict terror. Yes?
But why does that inflict the most terror possible? You have to explain why doing it in front of the school at a tournament is more effective than at any other point in front of the school. At any of the dinners, at the Yule Ball, at any other time when all of the kids are gathered together.
Because he needed to sneak a port key in and the only time there'd be one lying about would be at the triwizard finale?
Why?
He had a man on the inside. He could have made Harry's fucking pillow a portkey.
I figured there'd be security for detecting that kind of thing. Unless you're the headmaster, you can't really use that kind of magic without clearance. I feel like that was mentioned in the text, but it's been a while since I've read that one.
It isn't my favorite. In fact, Goblet of Fire is my least favorite.
Hogwart's defenses only mentioned, not shown. We have no idea what it could and couldn't do with detecting spells. It is confirmed that
wizards can use the three worst spells on campus without alarms going off. Nor does the castle have specific built-in defenses if an enemy strike team is successfully inserted onto the premises.
How do you show a thing not happening?
Was there supposed to be a part of the series where Death Eaters try to apparate into Hogwarts but instead explode?
In Book Six, Dumbledore apparates from outside the grounds, it was only in the movie that they added in the "I can do what the fuck I want, bitch" because they needed to make the Astronomy Tower more immediate. That works for me.
Actually, there's nothing about the plot regarding the tournament that needs to be fixed at all. There's a point to the fact that the scheme is so Byzantine - to give insight about the person behind it. Such a plot indicates that its creator is not just content to win, but has a pathological need to publicly triumph. Which, in turn, is a sign of insecurity. In fact, giving a "logical" reason would weaken the story.
Harry disappears in a giant hedge maze in which the participants are not expected to emerge for hours anyway and when he does nobody but the already suspect headmaster of his school believes him.
How is that a public triumph?
Well, the plan was to kill the champion of the Tournament and I'm guessing send back the corpse with the portkey. And probably go ahead and have somebody cast the Dark Mark over it. Ta da.
No, the plan was to kill Harry. That's why they put his name in the competition and why they helped him win.
The whole point is to get Harry whisked away from Hogwarts during a period when no one would notice him missing for awhile.
The worst part is, you could throw in one line and plug the "Why didn't they do this the first day then?" plothole. But she doesn't.
1) He is fucking terrified of death
2) He wants to get one over on Dumbledore, who he is also terrified of.
He's not exactly a great character (Rowling's villains are universally weak, except Umbridge), but basically everything he does is motivated by one or both of those things. In this case: having a body back, killing the one who can stop him, AND killing Potter right under Dumbledore's nose. Of course he's going to do it in this really, really contrived way.
Voldemort is also obsessed with "traditional" wizarding society. He's desperately trying to be part of the aristocracy.
Yes, he wants to kill Harry. But just killing him isn't enough. He has to do it in a manner that asserts his superiority and inflicts the most terror possible. That's why there is no plothole.
You seem to be arguing that Voldemort doing it in front of the gathered kids at the tournament is not only his plan, but also the best way to inflict terror. Yes?
But why does that inflict the most terror possible? You have to explain why doing it in front of the school at a tournament is more effective than at any other point in front of the school. At any of the dinners, at the Yule Ball, at any other time when all of the kids are gathered together.
Because he needed to sneak a port key in and the only time there'd be one lying about would be at the triwizard finale?
Why?
He had a man on the inside. He could have made Harry's fucking pillow a portkey.
I figured there'd be security for detecting that kind of thing. Unless you're the headmaster, you can't really use that kind of magic without clearance. I feel like that was mentioned in the text, but it's been a while since I've read that one.
It isn't my favorite. In fact, Goblet of Fire is my least favorite.
Hogwart's defenses only mentioned, not shown. We have no idea what it could and couldn't do with detecting spells. It is confirmed that
wizards can use the three worst spells on campus without alarms going off. Nor does the castle have specific built-in defenses if an enemy strike team is successfully inserted onto the premises.
How do you show a thing not happening?
Was there supposed to be a part of the series where Death Eaters try to apparate into Hogwarts but instead explode?
In Book Six, Dumbledore apparates from outside the grounds, it was only in the movie that they added in the "I can do what the fuck I want, bitch" because they needed to make the Astronomy Tower more immediate. That works for me.
They didn't have to show anything just reveal the defenses basics, what their limits were. Conversations among the staff could have explained this without showing what its defenses were.
Dumbledore's act only confirms that there were defenses, not what they entailed. It also showed they were only external or only protect the school for teleporters. Which is very limited in scope. Once a wizard is inside without teleporting they're free to do what they want without detection. I expected better from Dumbledore.
Harry Dresden on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Actually, there's nothing about the plot regarding the tournament that needs to be fixed at all. There's a point to the fact that the scheme is so Byzantine - to give insight about the person behind it. Such a plot indicates that its creator is not just content to win, but has a pathological need to publicly triumph. Which, in turn, is a sign of insecurity. In fact, giving a "logical" reason would weaken the story.
Harry disappears in a giant hedge maze in which the participants are not expected to emerge for hours anyway and when he does nobody but the already suspect headmaster of his school believes him.
How is that a public triumph?
Well, the plan was to kill the champion of the Tournament and I'm guessing send back the corpse with the portkey. And probably go ahead and have somebody cast the Dark Mark over it. Ta da.
No, the plan was to kill Harry. That's why they put his name in the competition and why they helped him win.
The whole point is to get Harry whisked away from Hogwarts during a period when no one would notice him missing for awhile.
The worst part is, you could throw in one line and plug the "Why didn't they do this the first day then?" plothole. But she doesn't.
1) He is fucking terrified of death
2) He wants to get one over on Dumbledore, who he is also terrified of.
He's not exactly a great character (Rowling's villains are universally weak, except Umbridge), but basically everything he does is motivated by one or both of those things. In this case: having a body back, killing the one who can stop him, AND killing Potter right under Dumbledore's nose. Of course he's going to do it in this really, really contrived way.
Voldemort is also obsessed with "traditional" wizarding society. He's desperately trying to be part of the aristocracy.
Yes, he wants to kill Harry. But just killing him isn't enough. He has to do it in a manner that asserts his superiority and inflicts the most terror possible. That's why there is no plothole.
You seem to be arguing that Voldemort doing it in front of the gathered kids at the tournament is not only his plan, but also the best way to inflict terror. Yes?
But why does that inflict the most terror possible? You have to explain why doing it in front of the school at a tournament is more effective than at any other point in front of the school. At any of the dinners, at the Yule Ball, at any other time when all of the kids are gathered together.
Because he needed to sneak a port key in and the only time there'd be one lying about would be at the triwizard finale?
Why?
He had a man on the inside. He could have made Harry's fucking pillow a portkey.
I figured there'd be security for detecting that kind of thing. Unless you're the headmaster, you can't really use that kind of magic without clearance. I feel like that was mentioned in the text, but it's been a while since I've read that one.
It isn't my favorite. In fact, Goblet of Fire is my least favorite.
Hogwart's defenses only mentioned, not shown. We have no idea what it could and couldn't do with detecting spells. It is confirmed that
wizards can use the three worst spells on campus without alarms going off. Nor does the castle have specific built-in defenses if an enemy strike team is successfully inserted onto the premises.
How do you show a thing not happening?
Was there supposed to be a part of the series where Death Eaters try to apparate into Hogwarts but instead explode?
In Book Six, Dumbledore apparates from outside the grounds, it was only in the movie that they added in the "I can do what the fuck I want, bitch" because they needed to make the Astronomy Tower more immediate. That works for me.
They didn't have to show anything just reveal the defenses basics, what their limits were. Conversations among the staff could have explained this without showing what its defenses were.
Dumbledore's act only confirms that there were defenses, not what they entailed. It also showed they were only external or only protect the school for teleporters. Which is very limited in scope. Once a wizard is inside without teleporting they're free to do what they want without detection. I expected better from Dumbledore.
True. I mean, there were the portraits I guess. It would seem to me that they were complacent "How could Hogwarts be attacked?!" about the whole thing because in the first war, Voldotron wouldn't dream of attacking Hogwarts.
0
Options
Gabriel_Pitt(effective against Russian warships)Registered Userregular
edited April 2012
Frankly, this whole thing is striking me as being just as inane as people having pointed and heated discussions as to why eagles were not used to fly into Mordor (insert xkcd strip here).
It's hard to see such nitpicking as being indicitive of actual plotholes, and the gymnastics both sides go through were tiresome when this was trotted out in the nascent days of us.net. Surely there are more worthwhile topics to consider.
What was Tolkien's message to us when he constantly has the other races demean Hobbits as being backwards and simple, yet they're the only race to have reached this bucolic, Merrry-Old-England-as-a-way-of-life standard of living instead of constantly battling?
He didn't. On several fronts.
Most importantly he did not put any such "messages" in LOTR / The Hobbit. His purpose was simple to try his hand at telling a long and entertaining story. Full stop.
Now just because the author intended no such thing doesn't mean we cant look at what messages the reader could read into the story. That is a valid (though different) question.
But I think what you are proposing doesn't exist in the story. The Shire in the books is very much protected by the efforts of others - and it has it's faults - but on the whole those protectors consider their efforts worthwhile because from their point of view the whole point of their struggle is to make is possible for some people to live in peace.
And all of the realms of the free peoples are largely made up of common people living what you would call rather bucolic lives. The point of view of the story is very much following the front of conflict but there are glimpses throughout of how the events in question are affecting the mass of the population (while the characters in the foreground are the few protecting them).
Posts
I can't say I entirely agree. To a certain extent, yes. But he also loves battling and sword fighting and glorious deaths and stuff, evidenced not only in his fiction but in how he translated Beowulf, etc.
So it's like he's trying to have his cake (loving a bucolic England that never really existed) and eating it too (loving the idea of men fighting and dying valiantly for epic, romantic causes.) When you cram these together, though, it starts sending a really mixed message.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
People who pine for the good old days are never thinking of good old days that actually existed.
Yes.
That also doesn't really address my point.
There doesn't *need* to be, but this is THE Cloak of Invisibility, the one passed down through the generations. How did his dad get it? By bringing up that his cloak, the one that his dad used that Dumbledore saved for him, is THE Cloak, the fact that his dad's acquisition bears no mention just raises more questions than it should've. The simple answer is that the Potters are direct descendants. Either way, we have an item that supposedly bears a rich history yet is apparently completely ignored until Harry's dad uses it? It seems that such is often the fate for magic items in the HP universe -- amazingly powerful artifacts with a rich history that no one cares about.
No, the plan was to kill Harry. That's why they put his name in the competition and why they helped him win.
The whole point is to get Harry whisked away from Hogwarts during a period when no one would notice him missing for awhile.
The worst part is, you could throw in one line and plug the "Why didn't they do this the first day then?" plothole. But she doesn't.
Voldemort is also obsessed with "traditional" wizarding society. He's desperately trying to be part of the aristocracy.
They're essentially different subgenres. LotR is descended mythology, while HP is from fairy tale.
It was pretty much implied that Harry was descended from the brother with the cloak.
But, the point of the cloak was that it was meant to be hidden, secret. That's why the brother asked for it. That's kind of central to the book.
Yes, he wants to kill Harry. But just killing him isn't enough. He has to do it in a manner that asserts his superiority and inflicts the most terror possible. That's why there is no plothole.
You seem to be arguing that Voldemort doing it in front of the gathered kids at the tournament is not only his plan, but also the best way to inflict terror. Yes?
But why does that inflict the most terror possible? You have to explain why doing it in front of the school at a tournament is more effective than at any other point in front of the school. At any of the dinners, at the Yule Ball, at any other time when all of the kids are gathered together.
Because he can get him away from Dumbledore, who he is afraid of in normal times and at the moment doesn't have his full strength.
Because he needed to sneak a port key in and the only time there'd be one lying about would be at the triwizard finale?
"Harry Potter for Grown Ups" is a pretty weird way to phrase it, but I guess I can see it. It doesn't seem that escapist, but it's a pretty enjoyable book. Plays fast and loose with mythology some times, but I'd say its mostly for the better because of it.
Twitch Stream
I think Rowling's idea was to have Harry built up as an exceptional person, by getting into the Tournament and then winning through extraordinary means, and then when Voldemort kills him, it's seen as a huge blow. I think her rationale was that Voldemort wanted Harry, a boy he saw as somehow exceptional, would win, and he wants the cup (an item of significance, which we know he has an affinity for) turned into a portkey. His Deatheaters try to bring up the logistics of this being stupid and he kills one of them and makes the rest adjust everything to make it work.
I mean, Voldemort could've simply possessed someone (first book) and somehow dislodged a piece of rock in Hogwarts to fall on him, smooshing him. He had a billion chances to kill the kid throughout the course of the series, but he's psychotic and wants to do things his way regardless of logic.
I'm not saying that it's good, since Rowling wrote this character to be worse than the most Goldbergian Bond villains, but at least he's consistently dumb.
Cool, I just meant in that there's a magical world that interacts with the real one or is on the periphery, but that isn't aimed at a youth market. I.E. one that is perhaps a bit more developed than the Potter series.
Nailed it.
He also wants Harry specifically because then he can get in on Lily's super productive love charm o' protection thing.
This is stated explicitly in the text.
Why?
He had a man on the inside. He could have made Harry's fucking pillow a portkey.
I figured there'd be security for detecting that kind of thing. Unless you're the headmaster, you can't really use that kind of magic without clearance. I feel like that was mentioned in the text, but it's been a while since I've read that one.
It isn't my favorite. In fact, Goblet of Fire is my least favorite.
The Magicians?
It's the same basic premise as Harry Potter (normal person goes to Wizard school) but more ... adult I guess.
It's very different in theme and such though.
Anyone who says Chamber of Secrets isn't the worst is wrong. Let's just rehash the first one with less sense of wonder.
Adult how, though? What I mean is deeper and more complex, not Adult in the sense of "It's just like Star Trek, but MOAR ADULT (titties)"
As in, when someone does something you'd see as a Bad Idea, people in the book also see it as a Bad Idea. Rather than "But he's the hero!" Less whimsy, more realism.
Another book commonly called an "adult Harry Potter" is Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell. It is very much in the Victorian style, though, which can be off-putting.
Okay, I'll give both of those a look. I've heard good things about them.
I was able to start dating my girlfriend thanks in part to conversations before class which kept her from Jonathan Strange due to the interruption.
No, but it gives a feel of history to the world in general, and what would otherwise be just a "big monster." I feel that a lazier author would have simply put a giant spider there "just because," and the heroes would fight it and emerge triumphant. In most cases, "giant spider" evokes a sense of fear among people. Further, it gives a sense of richness to the story if you then read about Ungoliant and see the connection to actual history in the fictional world. What's more, Tolkien doesn't shoehorn in a sidechapter on Ungoliant and take away from Frodo and Sam, but rather has an unpublished story about the character, brief though it may be.[/quote]
It's not like the giant spider in Harry Potter is just there or something, the only thing that's really different is that it's not that old.
Rowling did write all kinds of background stuff and histories. She made a book specifically about magical beasts and stuff like that.
I agree that for a people who do crazy shit all the time wizards are unbelievably sceptical or totally not sceptical, but at least it's not the force turning from totally accepted real thing to myth in like 20 years. Rowling's problem is not that she doesn't have an extensive backstory but that it's illogical or disjointed. You could see that from early on when she had to adjust the size of the student-body because 40 students in the first year couldn't possibly make a 1,000 student body. The combination of several realistic things can still lead to an unrealistic world. Some of it is due to exposing the world through a young kid with no knowledge, but some of it is clearly due to not having thought things through enough.
(slight nitpick, the historical wizards weren't regarded as mythic but the stories about them. much like we'd not believe everything about mythical figures.)
It's not. And that's the simple one-liner that would plug the whole plothole.
Just say "Portkeys don't work within Hogwarts defenses. But for the tournament finale, we had to remove the defenses to make the maze nasty enough" or something like that.
Well, there is more sex.
But more adult as in more complex themes and character studies. I mean, the characters are like 18-19 rather then 10 for one thing.
It's alot more like it's about trying to find direction and meaning in your life and about the social dynamics of the top of the IQ spectrum.
Ok. Like I said, I couldn't really remember. Is that a plothole though or just a plot convenience?
If a "plothole" can be fixed with a single sentence that doesn't contradict anything said in the story, then it's kind of a weak plothole. Just accept your answer, or any other idea that sounds feasible, and go with it.
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Yeah it was I believe directly stated in the book even. The wand was easy to track, but the cloak does exactly what it is supposed to do and remains hidden.
Voldemort didn't come up with the plan in Goblet of Fire,
Hogwart's defenses only mentioned, not shown. We have no idea what it could and couldn't do with detecting spells. It is confirmed that
How do you show a thing not happening?
Was there supposed to be a part of the series where Death Eaters try to apparate into Hogwarts but instead explode?
In Book Six, Dumbledore apparates from outside the grounds, it was only in the movie that they added in the "I can do what the fuck I want, bitch" because they needed to make the Astronomy Tower more immediate. That works for me.
They didn't have to show anything just reveal the defenses basics, what their limits were. Conversations among the staff could have explained this without showing what its defenses were.
Dumbledore's act only confirms that there were defenses, not what they entailed. It also showed they were only external or only protect the school for teleporters. Which is very limited in scope. Once a wizard is inside without teleporting they're free to do what they want without detection. I expected better from Dumbledore.
True. I mean, there were the portraits I guess. It would seem to me that they were complacent "How could Hogwarts be attacked?!" about the whole thing because in the first war, Voldotron wouldn't dream of attacking Hogwarts.
It's hard to see such nitpicking as being indicitive of actual plotholes, and the gymnastics both sides go through were tiresome when this was trotted out in the nascent days of us.net. Surely there are more worthwhile topics to consider.
He didn't. On several fronts.
Most importantly he did not put any such "messages" in LOTR / The Hobbit. His purpose was simple to try his hand at telling a long and entertaining story. Full stop.
Now just because the author intended no such thing doesn't mean we cant look at what messages the reader could read into the story. That is a valid (though different) question.
But I think what you are proposing doesn't exist in the story. The Shire in the books is very much protected by the efforts of others - and it has it's faults - but on the whole those protectors consider their efforts worthwhile because from their point of view the whole point of their struggle is to make is possible for some people to live in peace.
And all of the realms of the free peoples are largely made up of common people living what you would call rather bucolic lives. The point of view of the story is very much following the front of conflict but there are glimpses throughout of how the events in question are affecting the mass of the population (while the characters in the foreground are the few protecting them).