\"And yes I am aware Book 6 retconned this story.\"
Uh, it didn\'t. Just evolved it. All Book 6 added was that Tom Sr had been brainwashed prior to conception. This doesn\'t change at all what prior books said.
\"Again this is before the Book 5 retcon.\"
There\'s no retcon. Dobbie is a weirdo in the House-Elf community.
If it alters the previously established version of events then it’s a retcon. Saying that it evolved it is a rose by any other name. We were meant to understand the Backstory one way in Book 2 and then led to understand it another way in Book 6. This book contains absolutely no indication whatsoever that Dobby’s enslavement isn’t normal it’s only Book 4 that it changes it to having Dobby be an outlier.
Saying that this was always the case Rowling just didn’t bother to tell us yet may well be true but it also sounds suspiciously similar to the “it was outside the panel” explanation from the trope picture for retcons.
Whether or not you want to call it a retcon or not other aspects of the story were retroactively added to established continuity.
\"If it alters the previously established version of events then it’s a retcon.\"
Sorry, but no, that is not what a retcon means. Retcons are any changes that not only modify a plot point but that outright contradicts prior material. This is not the case for what you called retcons here.
“Retcons are any changes that not only modify a plot point but that outright contradicts prior material” in that case this is a retcon because Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets said that the reason Tom Riddle left his wife and unborn son was because she was a witch. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince says the reason is because he discovered that she had enchanted him with a love potion. That contradicts prior material therefore it is a retcon by your own definition.
\"That contradicts prior material therefore it is a retcon by your own definition.\"
Nope, it doesn\'t contradict anything. After all, only a witch would have been able to create the love potion that would have lead him to conceive his son.
It does. It was abundantly clear from Book Two that the reason Tom Sr. abandoned Tom the Dark Lord before he was born was due to the discovery that Tom Jr’s mother was a witch. Saying his reason was something else is a contradiction
Leave a Comment:
It is our Choices that make us who we are not our abilities.
A little background. I was in Grade 1 (or as the Americans call it first grade) when I first read the first four Harry Potter books. And I loved the first book quite a bit such that 7 year old Matitya was very much caught off guard by the Cerebus Syndrome of the second. The thing is that even as a child I wasn’t bothered by it for the sequels because I was prepared for it by book Two. This is the only one where it feels like an abrupt shift which is a problem with it, though likely an inevitable one.
It actually has a lot of things going for it. For example it delves into the Backstory of Tom the Dark Lord whose father abandoned him before he was born as a result of Fantastic Racism when he found out Tom’s mother was a witch and that is Tom’s Freudian excuse for his Fantastic Racism against Muggles with patricide being his Start of Darkness. And yes I am aware Book 6 retconned this story.
The first book brought up with Olivander that Harry and the Big Bad are Not So Different and this very well builds upon that. It builds upon Draco’s Establishing Character Moment when it delves into the bigotry theme.
It shatters the utopia image of Harry’s world with the introduction of Dobby as an oppressed slave. Again this is before the Book 4 retcon.
And Lucius Malfoy is much of an impressive villain than Quirell was due to his duplicitous Puppetmaster nature, his political ambitions ambition is evil after all, and his actually believing in the Dark Lord. And I like how it works out Hagrid’s Backstory from the first book.
I like Lockheart as Comic Relief.
And I like how Harry is bothered by how similar he is to Voldemort only to learn the Aesop that “it is our choices that define us not our abilities”.
So do I prefer this to the first book? No. But I still think it’s pretty good.