Economist writes against economy of magic in Harry Potter

[General Ludd]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

the money is only made and useful for buying stuff from Muggles (Rare) or buying important things that can't be created from thin air (magical things and the like)

Or food. Remember its one of the five things that can't be magically created (I wonder what that other four are... perhaps clothing is one of them).
[/QUOUte]

Doesn't dumbledorf magically create a feast for the first years when they first arrive at the school in the first book?

[Imran Siddiqui]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by General Ludd
Doesn't dumbledorf magically create a feast for the first years when they first arrive at the school in the first book?

Nope... remember in GoF, it was revealed that the house elves made all that food and DD just brings it up from the kitchens.

[General Ludd]

I've only read half the first book, so i don't remember that. What was the spell for, then?

[Imran Siddiqui]

... for bringing it up from the kitchens.

[binTravkin]

Agree with the quotation in first post and Blake on the first page. I tried reading HP but it somehow 'didn't feel right', which I now understand.
I used to attribute it to the fact that there was two worlds 'real' and 'magic', which is byself a general flaw of reasoning and puts HP strictly into 'childhood fantasy' or 'half fantasy' (a fantasy which is not full in terms of the creation of environment and needs to be tied to current reality in some way thus becoming a lesser sister to full blown fantasy) genre. I didn't realize that the feeling of not being right comes from deeper conflicts in the concept, but it is now solidly put and I completely agree.

[Kuciwalker]

which is byself a general flaw of reasoning and puts HP strictly into 'childhood fantasy' or 'half fantasy' (a fantasy which is not full in terms of the creation of environment and needs to be tied to current reality in some way thus becoming a lesser sister to full blown fantasy)

What an idiotic statement. LOTR isn't better than other books just because Tolkein was a nutter and invented an entire new language and mythology (along with the world). There's nothing "inferior" about fiction that doesn't invent entirely new worlds - in fact, there's a lot to recommend it.

[Arrian]

The Balrogs weren't "created" by Morgoth, I suppose, but rather altered by him. Balrogs were once Maiar, the same group of beings as Sauron, Gandalf, Saruman... the angelic order. Balrogs were Maiar who turned to evil, and then Morgoth took them and made them into Balrogs.

He didn't "create" orcs or trolls either, though, if you look at it that way.

Elf ---> Orc/Goblin
Ent ---> Troll

Dragons he may have actually created, but I'd imagine he had something to work on...

-Arrian

[binTravkin]

For example?

I'm not saying LOTR or any other book is better, but tying real world with some kind of fantasy world requires less fantasy on the authors' part and drops the 'feasibility' of that fantasy.

[Kuciwalker]

Narnia.

[Arrian]

LotR >>>> Narnia.

The Hobbit > Narnia, but that one's closer.

-Arrian

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Arrian
LotR >>>> Narnia.

[binTravkin]

I'm not saying Tolkien created anything, though he sure changed some concepts (like trolls being something else in norse mythology than they are by Tolkien). Tolkien created a world which kinda worked - things where put somewhat well together. HP, as pointed out, has quite a lot 'potholes', things that don't go together with the story or sense.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker

And, in turn, Narnia > Harry Potter.

I jest, actually. I think HP might be better.

-Arrian

[binTravkin]

Never read Narnia, so can't comment. The movie was kinda boring though.

[Arrian]

In defense of the book, don't judge it by the movie. I haven't read it in a long time, but I recall it being better than THAT.

-Arrian