When talking about the Harry Potter books, or really any fictional world for that matter, it seems to me that there are two alternative approaches to talking about that world. I'll call these the "in-world" and "out-world" perspectives.

In-world explanations and descriptions take place on a level internal to the created world - they act as if the world is real.

Out-world explanations and descriptions take place on a level more removed from the world, as a reader in the real world.

So, for example...

Question: Why did Harry want to kill Voldemort?

The in-world explanation would be something along the lines of "because Voldemort killed his parents, is a threat to the wizarding world, and it is Harry's destiny to do so".

The out-world explanation would be "because that's the way JKR wrote it".

Each explanation is an equally valid answer to the question, they merely take place on different levels of discussion.

Agree/disagree?

I think at this stage most of you will agree with me.

However, things get more complicated on some interesting cases.

Question: Why is it that the wizarding world hid from the Muggle one when everything indicates that the Muggles posed no threat to them (especially in the 1600s)?

The in-world explanation seeks to come up for some reason for this (possibly out of "not wanting to be bothered", though there are spells for this so its not entirely clear why complete secrecy would be needed to be undisturbed).

The out-world explanation will say something like "This is an example of JKR screwing up - it doesn't make sense".

In this situation we have a potential conflict. There are those who would seek to tell us that the only sensible explanation here is the out-world one and that the in-world explanation has no validity.

I would say that the two explanations are completely independent of each other by their very nature: the in-world explanation by definition ignores the fact that it is a fictional world. Thus "the author screwed up" is not a satisfactory answer for the in-world explanation, nor does "the author screwed up" mean that we blocked from looking for an in-world explanation.

Agree/Disagree?

-------

This thread inspired by regular disagreements on IRC that take this form:

So I finally made the thread.

TL;DR: Fuck you, Tehan.

 

Makes sense, it gives people a way to look at things as though it were real (which is fun in its own way, and leads to very interesting discussions) but also allows for people who either can't be arsed or are just too unimaginative to have discussions "in-world".

 

There's only one real 'explanation': your definition of out-world. Any in-world explanation = fiction, as only the author dictates "truth." Any other explanation deviating from the author is simply unrealized fanfiction - no matter how right it sounds.

 

So you'd say that it's not true that Harry wants to kill Voldemort because Voldemort killed his parents? You think that this statement is not a real explanation because it's in-world?

 

The real reason JKR wrote the wizarding world as hidden is because she wanted to write the story as if it was in our world, our universe instead of in some distant universe that none of us could relate to. Many authors have done this. I am sure she saw the plot holes but figured it was for children, so who gives a fuck?

I don't really think there needs to be a thread outlining such a thing really. Anyone worth talking to can come to the conclusion of if your talking about the story world or our world and can see the correlation between the two, no need to fashion terms for the less fortunate.

 

I know that he feels obligated to kill him after hearing the prophecy, and especially after Dumbledore's influence during 6th year - which is stated. The "avenging parent" angle is implied, but not necessarily the strongest factor. Remember, he easily got over Sirius' death, who was much more relevant to his life than his dead parents.

 

I'd argue the opposite- that the only valid 'explanation' is the in-world one.

The out-world approach isn't conducive to any sort of conversation at all. It's like the Nihilist trump card of "It doesn't matter! None of this is real!" and makes any discussion pointless.

On the other hand, the in-world approach does offer opportunity for conversation because people examine the issue with the basic common premiss of Harry Potter's hypothetical truth. Any explanations and conclusions resulting from this approach are valid, given that the basic common premiss is not disputed.

But yeah, I agree that the two approaches are completely independent of one another. In-World seeks to continue a conversation while Out-World prevents the conversation from occurring at all.

 

The "In-World" explanation is such because there is a flaw in the narrative. Or to apply to HP, the planar model of the HP world is riddled with cracks and logical black holes. The two explanations are NOT extrinsic of each other. The logistics of the fictional world are exposed to the reader via the narrative and the nature, time, place, author of the narrative - this, hence, has an effect upon how the reader perceives it. This is similar, and tied to the notion that genres are contracts that the author has with his readership. So, basically, disagree.

 

I don't think acknowledging that none of a certain 'verse is real is a hindrance on conversation that tries to explain certain aspects of a given 'verse. I'd approach it as, "None of this is real or explained, but my thoughts are X,Y,Z,etc..."

Like I said, it's all fiction if it isn't put forth by the author. Any explanations and conclusions resulting from the hypothetical truths of a given 'verse are judged on whether or not you had a good idea - not whether it's the author's intention.

 

Surely the stuff put forth by the author is fiction too?

 

Don't do that.

 

Wow, a thread with a built-in strawman attack against me right at the very start, all to myself! And here I didn't even know I had sycophants.

 

Not entirely sure if it is a strawman, given that you do refuse to debate the topic in a non-troll-like manner (your only justification apparently being "this is DLP") and yet rely on your position on the topic (that of exclusive out-world explanation) to troll me every time I - or anyone else - tries to talk about something like magical theory.

Anyway, on topic, and in return to JB:

Not all in-world discussion is original ideas. For example, with the "why did the wizarding world hide?", though we don't have a full explanation in the books, we have plenty of clues to piece it together without just coming up with our own stuff.

 

The presence of more evidence doesn't necessarily mean that the popular acceptance of a theory based off of said evidence is valid - unless the author sees this theory and goes, "Yes, you figured it out!" Rationalizing within your mind =/= valid or canon truth. Yes you have clues to piece together, but it's more like LEGO pieces than puzzle pieces: you can build what you want.

I blame this on JKR's throw-away comment that she likes to hide things within the story (or something to that effect), and her attempt at integrating wizarding society on the 'real world' timeline. This brings into question what counts as a clue vs. what was simply creative writing. All of a sudden, things as blatant as Grindewald's reign aligning with WWII, to things as inocuous as a levitated object obeying the rules of gravity, allow us to somehow scour a history book or physics text and figure out exactly what JKR meant to do within her 'verse. It's fun to talk about - don't get me wrong - but the idea of a camp of thought, working outside of what the author spelled out, coming up with "valid" answers to canon-produced questions, is...well...not valid.

 

I tend to agree with you, because more than one explanation fits the "in-book" description.
For instance, many people here say that the possibilities of HP magic are much greater than the state of the world shows, so they conclude.. well, I'm not sure what they conclude, but I think the most floated around explanation is that wizards are idiots.

I, on the other hand, see the state of the world, and conclude that there must be some hidden limitations to the magic that we don't know about, because otherwise would require massive irrationality on the part of wizards, something that does not just seem possible, for on the aggregate they don't seem to be that irrational.

I'm not going to argue this, because my point is that all these conclusions are dictated by our prejudices--calling that a bona fide " in-book" explanation seems arrogant to me.

But what do I know.

 

What the fuck? Are you completely insane? Have you ever seen us interact? If I'm bashing you, it's because you're taking a mediocre work of fiction way too seriously, not because I want to buttsex Tehan.

 

^
1.)Tehan's a gigantic faggot and I disagree with him most of the time.
2.)In this particular instance, I would probably also question your sexuality, but not because 'lololol JKR r teh law,' but because it's fucking stupid topic to begin with.

Better question: who gives a shit?

I think the problem with most of your theories/discussions about how
'' x happened, y is possible in cannon so z could work too''
is that no one really cares about them.

No one cares how magic 'works,' or the reasons behind the societal norms in the wizarding world, or any other trivia.

It's fucking fiction. Make it work the way you want it to work.

Give it a fucking rest.

Also, saying 'the author fucked up' is a simple and easy way to dismiss you and your topic.

 

LOOOOOOL

That is all.

 

Well, doesn't it rather defeat the entire point of having a fan community if any discussion of the actual HP books is met with a chorus of "nobody cares" and similar statements? I would think that part of the whole point of having a site like DLP is to discuss the HP books and our interpretations of them after all; if nobody cares then why are we even on this site?

That said, I'll grant Taure can go into a more detailed analysis of the finer aspects of the HP-verse than most people are interested in, but his theories do tend to be somewhat interesting reading so I don't mind, and if other folks do its easy enough to just not read them.

 

If you don't care about a topic, don't post in it. Simple as that.