If there should be an error, this should be decided by the author, not chance. Having a character make an error where they shouldn’t is equally an author’s error as having a character not make an error where they should.
You can’t improve the result by injecting randomness. This is a normative argument, which is distinct from a factual observation that the author can’t avoid errors. Even if in fact the author can’t avoid all errors, it’s still preferable to avoid errors where possible.
If there should be an error, this should be decided by the author, not chance. Having a character make an error where they shouldn’t is equally an author’s error as having a character not make an error where they should.
And this is a situation where it’s reasonable either way. Noting that Eliezer has a tendency to err on the side of making his characters too rational, except where necessary for the plot, rather than the other way around, I can guess that Eliezer probably intended that Harry not make an error.
However, Harry making an error here actually increases the verissimilitude to me; now that I know about it. It makes the plot-relevant errors seem less “idiot ball”* and more “Harry makes errors occasionally, whether the plot requires it or not”
*(in the sense of “this person needs to make a mistake in this scene for the story to go the way I want”)
You can’t improve the result by injecting randomness.
You can if the alternative is worse than random (ie. a character only making mistakes when the plot requires it)*
*and the only reason I believe this was a random mistake is that I suspect Eliezer of having that flaw. So, if Eliezer lacks that flaw, I expect that this was intentional.
Is it an error? The reply in McGonagall’s voice with Dumbledore’s voiced reaction is good authentication, he is after all still supposed to be under Quirrell’s guard, and trying to avoid causing suspicion.
If there should be an error, this should be decided by the author, not chance. Having a character make an error where they shouldn’t is equally an author’s error as having a character not make an error where they should.
You can’t improve the result by injecting randomness. This is a normative argument, which is distinct from a factual observation that the author can’t avoid errors. Even if in fact the author can’t avoid all errors, it’s still preferable to avoid errors where possible.
And this is a situation where it’s reasonable either way. Noting that Eliezer has a tendency to err on the side of making his characters too rational, except where necessary for the plot, rather than the other way around, I can guess that Eliezer probably intended that Harry not make an error.
However, Harry making an error here actually increases the verissimilitude to me; now that I know about it. It makes the plot-relevant errors seem less “idiot ball”* and more “Harry makes errors occasionally, whether the plot requires it or not”
*(in the sense of “this person needs to make a mistake in this scene for the story to go the way I want”)
You can if the alternative is worse than random (ie. a character only making mistakes when the plot requires it)*
*and the only reason I believe this was a random mistake is that I suspect Eliezer of having that flaw. So, if Eliezer lacks that flaw, I expect that this was intentional.
Is it an error? The reply in McGonagall’s voice with Dumbledore’s voiced reaction is good authentication, he is after all still supposed to be under Quirrell’s guard, and trying to avoid causing suspicion.