This is a common complaint with OOTP. I had the same problem with it until I realized that was the point, and decided it was kind of brilliant. Will elaborate on the ep.

I always hear those complaints and have never gotten it. Maybe I need to re-read it again with a critical mind, but at the time OOTP was my favorite book in the series, it might still be. The fact that the characters shift from being kids solving mysteries at Hogwarts, to actively having to go out and fight bad guys out in the real world was always awesome to me. I think the entire finale at the ministry is amazing, I think Umbridge is one of the series' best villains, it's got possibly my favorite Quidditch match of the series. But again, maybe it is all just filler and I'm only remembering the good stuff, I'd have to re-read it.

Not usually the best way to first-watch a film, with us (or anyone) yammering over it, but I'm not gonna argue with you since you're making the food. You do you bro.

You've read the book, though?

I've absolutely read all the books at least once.  I just think it might be fun to try to make sense of it visually while sleep deprived.

I look forward to Michael's theory, but OotP is my least favorite movie and, now, book. There's no plot to speak of. Things just happen, most of it brought on by Harry himself. If Harry had been able to control his temper and been more discreet about conducting his own DADA classes, most of the story wouldn't have happened. And it doesn't help that I can't stand the villain; it's hard to imagine one less cinematic. (She plays politics and makes rules! Oh no! An entire school of wizards is helpless!)

And it's all a running metaphor for domestic abuse, which is a topic Rowling explores with pathological regularity in all the books.

But the ending IS spectacular.

Edit: the fix, IMO, would be for Harry and others to keep encountering genuine threats in ways that Umbridge can continue to deny are real. Then Harry conducts DADA classes as a necessity while Umbridge is sidelined, culminating in the MoM battle. Instead, the big looming danger thruout is... exams.

Last edited by Zarban (2013-11-22 05:17:52)

Actually, I've been thinking about this again as I've been trying to re-read the books, and now noticing things like that that I would have missed the first time.  Just to play devil's advocate though:  for those people who've thought a lot more about the stories and their structure than I have, how do we distinguish the "seeds planted as early as Book 1, page 1" theory from a theory which says that Rowling just vomits throwaway detail (which she clearly does), some of which is later appropriated and quasi-retconned into something meaningful?  I'm only up to Phoenix in my re-read, but one of the things that's actually bugging me a bit is the seemingly endless references to names, places, books, events, etc. which I precisely don't recall ever paying off.

Yeah, I can certainly imagine that it would be kind of obnoxious if everything had a big sign on it saying "This will be important later", but I'm not convinced that you have to do what Rowling does purely for misdirection.  At the very least, it's misdirection of a very brute-force and unsubtle sort.  Your average 'fair' detective story (i.e., one that doesn't rely on a surprise revelation that the reader didn't know about) has to do exactly this sort of thing but doesn't, say, give a list all 25 volumes that were in the victim's study or something.  (Yes of course, to the extent that the first book at least was conceived of as more of a children's/young adult book, you have different standards that you hold it to, but that almost mitigates against the idea that there was a plan from the beginning about a dark epic journey about death, etc.) 

Let's take a look at the cases that you mention in your spoiler tag.  I know these were just a couple for illustration, but to start:

Anyway, this is probably the sort of discussion that is impossible conclude definitely (absent some dated drafts of outlines etc. from Rowling's personal papers -- as distinct from anything she might have said after the fact).  Truthfully, I'm vaguely suspicious that some of the "it was planned all along" is just confirmation bias.  However, like I say, I'm open to hearing arguments about specific references and plot threads, and how the balance of the evidence renders the "it was there all along" theory more plausible than the "it was a retcon from the shit ton of stuff she had to choose from" theory.

This is all of course as distinct from the point at which she would have known from sales, her publisher, etc. that there was going to be an extended series, at which point I'm perfectly happy to accept the "clues + misdirection" theory.

She may have done what I try and do: have "stealth" foreshadowing. When you can't go back and change what you have written, it's best to leave your options open with regard to what the reader is told is important. By mentioning so much detail, she gave herself room to change her mind, drop whole plot lines without the reader noticing. Unless you sit down and write the whole series before releasing the first book, keep your options open!

I don't think you can use that to just sweep away all of the prior planning she clearly did, though. She spent five years outlining the series before she began writing. And even if it were a case of ass-pulling, it's some of the most convincing ass-pulling I've seen, which, as Dorkman said, as arguably just as impressive.

Compare that to one of the other seven-volume fantasy epics of our time, Stephen King's Dark Tower series. While I loved the first four books, one thing that consistently annoyed me was that there wasn't even an attempt at making overarching plot threads and connections; King introduced the thing he needed for Wizard and Glass's ending to work in Wizard and Glass, pulls a huge amount of shit out of nowhere in The Waste Lands. And that's just in the first four; the last three are a complete mess of unplanned crap, with only one major plot point having its seeds in a previous book. It's a muddled, rudderless mess. At least with Potter, Rowling, if nothing else, makes it feel that she was building to this ending the whole time, rather than having a completely WTF conclusion like King did.

Also, there are at least some plausible reasons as to why some of your points weren't mentioned. The Triwizard Tournament hadn't been held for centuries, so it'd be like our mainstream culture remembering some obscure athletic event from five hundred years ago—the Olympics obviously being the major exception, but those are international, whereas the tournament is intercollegiate. The Deathly Hallows myth is based in a wizard's children's story, which Harry of course would have no exposure to. And Rowling couldn't very well have set up the Marauders' friendship earlier without giving far too much away. As for the prophecy—first of all, I think the reader can reasonably infer V's motives for killing Harry very early on. And the justification given by Dumbledore works quite well, I think—he cared about Harry's security and happiness too much. In the same way, if Rowling had introduced the prophecy early on, it would have diluted the "safe" feel of the early books for younger readers.

Last edited by Abbie (2013-11-22 21:31:53)

But it's quite clearly established early on that invisibility cloaks are by no means unheard of; they're rare, but not incredibly so. And as the Hallows are a crackpot's theory based on the fairy story, it'd be like expecting a general audience to know some nut's theories about a code in the fairytales of the Brothers Grimm. Dumbledore is the only exception, and there's very good reasons for his not wanting Harry to know about the existence of the Hallows.

If nothing else, if this chart is anything to go by, I'd say it's pretty clear Rowling does outline and plot her books extensively.