Come to think of it, the earlier reference to the Confounding of Neville Chaimberlain doesn’t make sense. Historically, Chaimberlain’s motives are easily explainable- nationalist sentiments (most of the lands were still seen as German), learning to negotiate through trade-union negotiations (where concessions can be compensated for as inflation erodes wages), and post-overrun of Chekoslovakia getting his head out of the sand (he referred to a “general conflagration” if I remember right) and starting buildup necessary for war.
Yes, despite his famous speech, Chamberlain knew that he had only delayed war while Britain rearmed, leaving only the hope of averting it entirely later. He may not have acted wisely, but he wasn’t as Confunded as all that.
I take the reference to Chamberlain as a joke and don’t worry too much about it.
Rationalist fiction should at least be plausible within it’s premises- the story may be an alternate universe, but unless Chaimberlain was super-wise to begin with a Confounding would not be necessary.
Rationalist fiction should at least be plausible within it’s premises
Yes, but one of the premises that I accept is that there are jokes. For example, all of the references to real wizards named after characters in works of fiction ought to blow Harry’s mind, but they don’t; they’re just jokes. It’s TvTropes’ Rule of Funny.
I’d like to be able to think up an explanation for them, but it’s OK if they stretch the bounds of rationality for the joke. Chamberlain didn’t really need to be Confunded (proof: in real life, he wasn’t), but Grindelwald (or his minion named after a fan artist, I forget) did it anyway. And if a fictional Wizard is now real, then that work of fiction must have been based on rumour and legend of the real Wizard (even though that also isn’t necessary, by the same proof as before). Etc.
I agree that all of this does stretch the rationality and make that aspect of the story weaker. But in my opinion, it’s worth it. Your Mileage May Vary.
Chamberlain didn’t really need to be Confunded (proof: in real life, he wasn’t), but Grindelwald (or his minion named after a fan artist, I forget) did it anyway
...Now in point of fact, Mr. Potter, Mr. Hagrid is innocent. Ridiculously obviously innocent. He is the most blatantly innocent bystander to be convicted by the magical British legal system since Grindelwald’s Confunding of Neville Chamberlain was pinned on Amanda Knox.
Thanks, I had a vague memory that Amanda Knox was in there, but I rejected it since the whole point is that she’s innocent. So actually, we never did know who (Grindelwald or a minion) did the Confunding (not that it really matters).
If he were Confounded, his actions wouldn’t a rational explanation for his motives and he wouldn’t be building up for war. Either things in MOR diverge from Harry Potter significantly earlier, or this is a plot hole.
Come to think of it, the earlier reference to the Confounding of Neville Chaimberlain doesn’t make sense. Historically, Chaimberlain’s motives are easily explainable- nationalist sentiments (most of the lands were still seen as German), learning to negotiate through trade-union negotiations (where concessions can be compensated for as inflation erodes wages), and post-overrun of Chekoslovakia getting his head out of the sand (he referred to a “general conflagration” if I remember right) and starting buildup necessary for war.
Yes, despite his famous speech, Chamberlain knew that he had only delayed war while Britain rearmed, leaving only the hope of averting it entirely later. He may not have acted wisely, but he wasn’t as Confunded as all that.
I take the reference to Chamberlain as a joke and don’t worry too much about it.
Rationalist fiction should at least be plausible within it’s premises- the story may be an alternate universe, but unless Chaimberlain was super-wise to begin with a Confounding would not be necessary.
Yes, but one of the premises that I accept is that there are jokes. For example, all of the references to real wizards named after characters in works of fiction ought to blow Harry’s mind, but they don’t; they’re just jokes. It’s TvTropes’ Rule of Funny.
So you just accept jokes as Dis Continuity when asessing the story?
I’d like to be able to think up an explanation for them, but it’s OK if they stretch the bounds of rationality for the joke. Chamberlain didn’t really need to be Confunded (proof: in real life, he wasn’t), but Grindelwald (or his minion named after a fan artist, I forget) did it anyway. And if a fictional Wizard is now real, then that work of fiction must have been based on rumour and legend of the real Wizard (even though that also isn’t necessary, by the same proof as before). Etc.
I agree that all of this does stretch the rationality and make that aspect of the story weaker. But in my opinion, it’s worth it. Your Mileage May Vary.
The passage (from ch. 49):
For explanation, see the Author’s Notes for that chapter. :-)
Thanks, I had a vague memory that Amanda Knox was in there, but I rejected it since the whole point is that she’s innocent. So actually, we never did know who (Grindelwald or a minion) did the Confunding (not that it really matters).
If he were Confounded, his actions wouldn’t a rational explanation for his motives and he wouldn’t be building up for war. Either things in MOR diverge from Harry Potter significantly earlier, or this is a plot hole.
OK, that one I agree with. Although one might still find a way around it (he was unConfunded? but he never repudiated the Munich Agreement).