posted
We've been discussing the big things so far, but some of the little pieces might be interesting to pull out. Here, specifically, pages 24 and 25 from the paperback edition. It's the section where we find out about some of the strange things Harry has had happen around him, the things he might or might not have had something to do with.
quote:Another time, Aunt Petunia had been trying to force him into a revolting old sweater of Dudley's (brown with orange puffballs). The harder she tried to pull it over his head, the smaller it seemed to become, until finally it might have fitted a hand puppet, but certainly wouldn't fit Harry. Aunt Petunia had decided it must have shrunk in the wash and, to his great relief, Harry wasn't punished.
What do you think? Are these pieces a good way of setting background for the story? Why didn't Harry get punished under the Decree for the Restriction of Underage Wizardry? What about the style in this fragment?
posted
Harry didn't get punished because it was an accident. later in the series Harry does much more drastic things and isn't punished. In fact things like this are expected of young wizards. It's how they show their magic. Remember later in the book how Neville talks about his uncle throwing out the window to scare the magic out of him?
Posts: 1895 | Registered: Mar 2004
|
posted
I agree...accidents happen. He blew up his aunt and that was ok...they only really got mad at him when...oops spoiler coming.....
they only really got mad at him in book 5 when they were trying to discredit him...
END SPOILER
My only problem with this part was when she tried to put a sweater on him that kept shrinking. If she decided it wasn't weird, then how had Harry realized the truth? Aunt Petunia seemed to have had a nose for weird stuff with her sister being what she was. Other than that, I thought if filled in background in a delightful, entertaining manner.
posted
I think it was a good way of giving the newly-discovered environment a kind of appeal, a kind of mystery and abnormalness that atrracts peoples' imaginations.
However, I think the inconsitancy between it and the restriction you mentioned is simply an inconsistance, not really explained by the plot ... but also not a big enough deal for most the people or the author to fuss over. Still, I agree with you Gen.
posted
It does serve as a good background element. It lets the reader know that underage wizards can do magic before they are taught. It is probably one way they determine when a muggle child is unusual, but I'm just speculating. It also gives the reader some insight into how Harry's been treated up to that point.
Harry didn't violate the underage magic use decree. He didn't intentionally do it. The decree doesn't apply until you've been taught about what you can do. Think about it. They'd be arresting 8 and 9 year olds and forbidding them from ever using magic.
The fact that Aunt Petunia "decided" it must have shrunk, knowing Harry's past is inconsistent. However, I feel that most readers didn't catch it. I didn't.
If you recall in the second book, Harry never intentionally did any of what Dobby did, but he still got his warning letter. And again in the third book, I don't recal his intentional "explosion" of ... who was it again, his aunt? Either way I don't think accidents are factored into account as much as you give them credit for.
posted
I don't know. Maybe the ministry of magic knows only that magic is done in the house, not by whom. It's the only explanation I can think of for the Dobby incident.
Posts: 552 | Registered: Jan 2002
|
It would work when there's only supposed to be one magic-user in the house, and would probably be the simplest way to do it. They might not even watch closely when the parents are also magical--they might assume the parents will handle it.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
