Econstudentlog

“Giving money and power to Government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys” (P.J.O’Rourke)

The last Potter-book (no spoilers)

Got it yesterday and now I’ve finished it. So Pipes have had to wait a bit.

I agree on what has been stated here, as well as most of what has been stated here.

On the first part, I don’t necessarily think the book is too long, it’s just that too much unnecessary stuff has been included, that take up valuable space that could have been put to better use. Ockham’s razor and all that…

As to the “economics of magic” part, this has been a source of some annoyance to me throughout the series, even if I liked most of the books. I think the “magic” part of the series is too unstructured, it simply needs a firmer foundation in order to make the story (a little more) credible. Even when specific laws are spelled out, there are many places throughout the books where “the standard laws”, of which we are often not even told before they break down, conveniently enough do not apply. A “laws of magic” compendium would have been nice, but this alone would not solve the problem. As it is, the problem of scarcity and the influence and implications of magic on this very important subject is not convincingly addressed. For instance, how does convertibility between muggle-money and wizard-money work? Just think of the implications if there were no restrictions… Also, why do wizards have to buy cauldrons in a shop, when they can make one themselves with a wave of a wand? Even if it does not last, most of the time it needs only to work for one or two school-lessons at a time, right? There are other problems of course, many of them, like this one: If secrecy is paramount to the magic community, why aren’t students taught how to dress like muggles in school?

One other general problem I have had, though not directly related to the problem above still related to economic concepts, which I incidentally have found was a problem most peculiar, given the general setting, is also this: Is the supply of total spells fixed or not?

It probably is not (we are told that there were wizards a very, very long time ago, but ie. alohomora hardly came about before doors with locks, right?). But then how are new spells invented – Hogwarts-teachers do not seem to use much time (if any) developing new spells, they use most of the time reading old books, as everything seems already to have been written down? If top academics do not spend time developing new spells, who are? The point is, the magic part is supposed to be a flow-variable in order for us to believe in it as it works in the books, but it is at the same time to a very large extent treated as a stock-variable throughout the series.

I’d like it if more economists started writing fiction. That said, even if some parts of the last book are too long and there are obvious problems with the setting, it is all right. Rowling knows how to tell a good story, and on the whole this she does.

juli 24, 2007 - Skrevet af US | books, harry potter | | 4 Kommentarer

4 Kommentarer »

  1. Well… The premise of almost any good story is the suspension of disbelief. As such the reader has an obligation to play along.

    However: During wiz. training where talents are unevenely dispersed it seems fair people must buy cauldrons.
    Also: Both dumbledore and Voldemort are explicitly said to ‘invent’ new magic.

    I guess there is a liberal point that the wiz. heroes dress differently from the muggles. Just like the ugly duckling that really is a swan in the fairy tale by H.C. Andersen. – however – why bother to dress, when you can just confound

    It’s a great series of books :-D

    Comment af Andreas | juli 30, 2007 | Svar

  2. Hi Andreas.

    I agree in so far as some suspension of disbelief is necessary – if you read a book about trolls and fairies for instance, it’s no good if you don’t buy the premise that those creatures do exist.

    However, stories which takes place in imaginary milieus have to be internally consistent in order to be credible. If you don’t know the rules of the game, or the rules change at random whenever it suits the writer, it gets difficult to “keep believing”. This is where, in some areas, I think the Potter-books fail, and I think the writer’s lack of knowledge of basic economic principles is to blame for some of these shortcomings.

    As to your rejoinder to the cauldron objection: It makes sense that 1.st-years are not supposed to make their own cauldron. It makes less sense that _nobody_ has learned this by the time they take their OWLs or NEWTs – and it is peculiar that even the teacher relies on cauldrons bought elsewhere, when they apparently are capable of conjuring up comfortable chairs out of thin air.

    Voldemort and Dumbledore can’t be the only ones who “invent” new spells. Where are the wizarding R&D-departments? They are nowhere to be seen, they are not mentioned and we hear absolutely nothing about them at the principal place of magic learning, Hogwarts. What we (that is, the students as well) learn at Hogwarts (and at St. Mungo’s) is that it is outright dangerous to perform spells the wrong way, and that it can lead to horrible consequences to go “out of book”.

    It’s as if Rowling can’t really decide whether the wizarding world should be in a steady-state stable status-quo equilibrium, like Hogwarts basically is, or if it should be a dynamic society full of change, just like “the real world” with all its technology and new stuff. Granted, theoretically it can be both, but then we need to be told why the norms taught at Hogwarts do not spill over and play a larger role in the adult, macro-level wizarding world. As it is, it is difficult to believe in the dynamic version, even if Rowling hints at it from time to time, given that the wizarding world at the same time in a lot of respects resembles a full scale marxian class society, where inherited wealth and the who-knows-who variable both seem very important.

    The criticism shouldn’t be taken for more than it is though – it _is_ a great series of books. But no rose without thorns…

    Comment af US | juli 30, 2007 | Svar

  3. :-)

    I’m sure we all think the book is great – basically. And I do tend to agree with you on some points. But I think the point is that Rowling tried to write a book that all the merits whit standing, still does take it’s departure from a childs point of view? In this regard we should consider that Hoqwarts isn’t a university of any kind – more like an elementary/secondary institution…

    As to the marxian perspective: The individualistic twins (pun intended) do break the steady state – income wise…

    All 4 now!

    Comment af Andreas | juli 30, 2007 | Svar

  4. The fact that Hogwarts is not a university – I agree with you on this, Hogwarts is basically a magic boarding school – does not solve anything, it only moves the problem back a notch. But leave it be… :)

    Re. the Marxian aspects: I think to some small degree Rowling still lives in the 60′es. The way I have interpreted her description of the magic society is that Rowling basically believes that she still lives in a basically class divided society, where very few are able to break through, even if they have the talent and are willing to make a break for it, and where the rich are rich because their parents were rich, not because of hard work. However, she still did manage to break through herself, so she knows that it is possible, and it is only natural that the Weasleys, those underprivileged, poor and very sympathetic people should be able to do the same. But that she thinks the societal structure is full of inertia and works in the opposite direction, I think is quite clear from the books. If I give a favourable interpretation of what I think she claims, it is that it’s hard to break through if you’re not born with a gold spoon in your mouth, but that it is still possible for average Joe, if he works hard and has the necessary determination, to ‘break the spell’ and do what noone thought was possible (Neville Longbottom being a case in point). In that case, my disagreement with her is only a matter of degree.

    Comment af US | juli 30, 2007 | Svar


Skriv en kommentar