Quidditch: What's the deal with this game??? (1 Viewer)

[Eric Thrall]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought that Quidditch is a stupid sport! If I was coaching, I'd assign 1 player to guard each of the three hoops and NOT MOVE - that way you wouldn't give up any goals at all (maybe one or two if your "goalies" are completely incompetent). Then take the remaining players (4, right?) and have them all go after the snitch.

 

[Philip Hamm]

Why is it necessarily a good thing for an author to make magic hard to use? I'm glad that not every fantasy book uses the same rules. How does such a change in rules affect the quality of writing? It seems to me like a non-sequitor to judge a book's literary quality based on the fantasy rules it implements, just as it would be a non-sequitor for someone who dislikes fantasy to judge the quality of the writing based on the fact that magic is used at all.

It's something for nothing,and that makes it totally unrealistic. Anything of value in this world takes effort to achieve. If you want the flower you have to bend over and pick it up. If you want a nice meal you have to cook it or work x hours to pay for someone else to cook it. Everything in life takes effort. It all goes back to the basic laws of physics "every action has an equal and opposite reaction" I've read a lot of fantasy back in the day and most fantasy equates some kind of effort to "magic" but this is completely lacking in the Potter world. That's what annoys me about it. How about some Marion Zimmer Bradley Darkover books?

 

[Danny R]

Except only the seeker can catch the snitch I believe.

 

[Steven_V]

If you ask me the whole magic Harry Potter world is completely wack. Magic is effortless and is used for trivial purposes like "materializing" food (why not just have cooks? Oh, becuase magic is effortless) and making the wierd ceiling in the dining hall. And of course this idiotic game. Just stupid.

All I can say without giving away spoilers is that the food does not materialize as easily as you believe. You'll have to read the books or wait a couple of more movies to found out exactly what is happening!

 

[Damin J Toell]

Anything of value in this world takes effort to achieve.

So any book that might somehow disagree with your world view is bad literature? Breathing is of value, and it takes little effort to achieve. Why can't an author, when imagining a fantasy world, make magic as effortless as breathing? Because you don't like it, it's bad literature?
DJ

 

[Philip Hamm]

See my laws of physics comment.

It's just totally wack to me to make magic work like this in a fantasy universe.

 

[Damin J Toell]

See my laws of physics comment.

Note the fact that it's called fantasy.

Having a magic ring that an evil lord uses to rule the world is also pretty darn unrealistic and out of whack. Judging a fantasy book as being poor because it's a fantasy seems, again, like a non-sequitor to me.

DJ

 

[Eric Thrall]

There have been Quidditch matches where one team takes a lead of 150 or more points. So as you can see, Chaser's (who score the 10 point goals) are very important in Quidditch.

Right, but the only reason they ever score is because teams are dumb enough not to have anyone guarding all three hoops. Why not put one person in front of each, meaning you'll never give up more than a couple goals in each game. That way, you'll never lose a game due to those goals.

 

[Charles J P]

Man, people who have never read more than one of the HP books (I've read none YET) and only seen the movie once it sounds like are making it sound like they could not be defeated with even a half a team. In case you didnt notice, its legal to cause a certain amount of interfearance in the game. Why wouldnt two players just come up and brush your "goalie" out of the way and score at will. Your version seems to make it even easier to score for the other team. It makes much more sense the way it is portrayed in the movie to have players actively pursueing the ball. It is a game of possesion, like most real games.

 

[Steven_V]

Right, but the only reason they ever score is because teams are dumb enough not to have anyone guarding all three hoops. Why not put one person in front of each, meaning you'll never give up more than a couple goals in each game. That way, you'll never lose a game due to those goals.

The three hoops are close enough to each other that only one person is needed to defend them. In the movie you saw the Gryffindor keeper (goalie) was able to defend them easily himself. It wasn't until he was taken out by the the other ball (bludger) that the other team was able to score. By the way, the two bludger's flying around knocking into the players is another reason it is not "to your advantage" to remain stationary in Quidditch.
The main thing in Quidditch is the teams have no idea where/when the snitch is going to reappear or which Seeker is going to catch it. Why would the Chaser's just wait around guarding the goal when they have the chance to score 160pts and in effect nullify the opponent's Seeker?
Plus, who would really want to play/watch a game where everyone guarded the goal and waited for the snitch to reappear. Keeping in mind that the snitch could take many minutes, hours, days, etc. to reappear. The typical Quidditch match lasts much longer than the one shown in the movie. Harry Potter just had a great first game where he showed some skills in catching the snitch so early.

 

[David Rogers]

Two things

First, I have no idea what possible use there is for someone to enter a Harry Potter thread and flame the books. Please read the below:

If. You. Don't. Like. Them. Don't. Read. Them.

Period.

Your baseless and negative comments are designed ONLY to irritate or infuriate someone who DOES enjoy the Harry Potter world. Is there some vitally important reason you felt the need to flame, or you were merely bored and felt it would entertain you? Perhaps by making sure others share your (negative) opinion of the books, and if through your flaming you turn others off from reading them, the world is a better place?

Leave it alone if you don't like. I think David Eddings and his works are complete crap, but you don't see me taking your loves and dreams regarding them, tossing them to the muddy ground, and jumping up and down atop them? Do you? Be respectful, a very simple request.

*** Book Spoilers Below (though, again, if you haven't read the HP novels and are going to be upset at being spoiled, you shouldn't be reading the thread)

Second, Quidditch. The game isn't silly, it's complex. The movie didn't explore it to the full extent that four novels have done so.

Catching the Snitch doesn't win, it simply ends the game and gives the catcher's team 150pts. It is possible to catch the Snitch and have that be the reason your team loses; if they were behind on points even with the 150pt Snitch bonus.

A Quidditch match goes until the Snitch has been caught. From the novels, we know the longest recorded Quidditch match was something involving weeks and weeks if I recall correctly. They play until the Snitch has been caught; nothing else ends the game. If your team is behind, then part of the strategy at that point would be to keep the other Seeker from being able to spot or catch the Snitch even as your Chasers tried to score more points to move you to win range. Indeed, in the novels Harry is kept away from the Snitch by opposing players during matches, for purposes of enhancing the opposition's chances of winning.

Remember, Quidditch is a three dimensional game, not a mostly two dimensional one (as Soccer is; the players are basically restricted to the two dimensions available to them on the playing field). In Quidditch, they play on flying broomsticks and we know from the novels the speeds possible on these broomsticks are enough to render players "a streak" to observers. Plus you have two heavy balls enchanted to continuously attempt to slam into the players, capable of causing injury or even death (again as recorded from the novels; and in fact in the second novel Harry will suffer a broken arm from a Bludger).

There are also something like six hundred some odd possible ways to commit a foul in Quidditch. And it is the premier sport of the Wizarding World, taken every bit as seriously by the witches and wizards of the world as soccer is by adults today. Indeed, from the fourth novel readers learn the Quidditch World Cup is the largest gathering of the Wizarding World every time it occurs; nothing else draws so many witches and wizards into a single place as do major Quidditch matches. A substantial portion of the governmental apparatus in the Wizarding World is involved in the event; setting it up, site selection and preparation, handling transportation and housing for attendees of the event, and of course keeping the Muggles totally clueless to the thousands and thousands of Wizarding Folk carrying on with wild and careless abandon.

Brilliant, IMO. Great sport for a world of wizards.

 

[Guy Martin]

Going back to Philp's comments about magic being quote "effortless". It's worth noting that the first movie and book cover only Harry et al in their first year when they learn the basics, ie the simplest, easiets spells and potions. Hence these spells require very little effort. Still if you notice in the classroom bits in the book, and to a lesser extent in the movie, the students still struggle to achieve even these simple spells (note how Ron's color change spell for the rat fails miserably and how only Hermione can levitate the feather in Flitwick's class). In fact if you watch the film, only Hermione manages to get all the spells right all the time, and she's the smartest kid in the entire class. Like some have said wait until the later movies for some harder spells like:

The Patronus spell of protection that Harry learns in Prisoner of Azkaban to fight the dementors. It takes weeks of intense training before he can pull it off and even then it takes a great mental and physical effort. Or in the same book, the process of morphing into an animal, like McGonagall's ability to change into a cat is described as heavily regulated and requiring years of practice to get right. Ditto for the ability to telaport (called apparting in the HP world) which is explained in Goblet of Fire.


So if the magic in Sorcerer's/Philosopher's Stone seems effortless it's merely because these are the easiest spells to perform.

As mentioned elsewhere in this thread there's a rather complicated process involved in getting food onto the Hogwart's tables that is explained in Goblet of Fire, so trust us when we tell you it's hardly effortless.

Also, in the HP universe there are not that many wizards at all. Only those possesing magic powers can attend Hogwarts so given that in each year only fifty or so school age children are admitted, indicating that a very tiny percentage of the population has such abilities (it' still a tiny percentage even when you consider that Hogwarts mostly takes students from the United Kingdom, since in Goblet of Fire we learn that there are two other wizarding schools serving continental Europe). So magic is quite rare in the HP world, although not quite as rare as in the books you cite, but it's hardly common.
- Guy

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Philip: Your comments make it obvious you haven't read the books, or at the very less paid little attention to them if you did. Things don't just appear in the books. Hogwarts, for instance, has tremendous kitchens to cook all the food neccessary. It is then zapped from the kitchens onto the plates. Potions are terribly complex, and often fail (as the books illustrate in numerous occasions). Even charms, which are the easiest of all the spells, take as much effort as picking a flower. Why should magic be incredibly complex to use? Because we (as normal humans) can't do it, so it must take an incredible person to pull it off? Why not just a different type of person. Some people are athletically inclined, some people are magically inclined.
We flip a switch to turn on the light. They whisper a spell. What's the difference? The magic world in Harry Potter lacks much of our technology... electricity for instance... why would then need it? We have complex technological institutions. They have complex magical institutions.

I can understand if you don't like the books for their writing or pacing or characters, but not your arbitrary bordering on arrogant definitions of magical limitations.

They're harmless pulp like the Star Wars trilogy was harmless pulp. Lord of the Rings is an incredible literary acheivement. It is an undenible classic. That said, it's also a commitment to get through. The elements that make it classic... the detail, scope, and symbolism... also bog it down. But Harry Potter, the poor little orphan with his minor human worries, that flows from the page like water. Just because it's not modern myth and layered complexity doesn't mean it should just be rejected out of hand.

 

[Dean DeMass]

Phillip,
I hope you forgot some smileys in your posts when you are talking about physics laws in a major major fantasy world like Harry Potter.
We are talking magic, something that is nothing even close to being real, physics should have nothing to do with it. Also, I like the idea of many people in the world being able to do magic. It is different from all of the other fantasy stories where only a select few can do it. So as you can see, Harry Potter is different from many other fantasy stories.
And please remember that Harry Potter books are written for children, adults have just come to love the wonderful stories.
If you haven't read the books yet, I recommend that you do. They are very good and are so hard to put down once you start them.
-Dean-

 

[SteveGon]

For those of you that enjoy Harry Potter, I'd like to recommend the Artemis Fowl books. Soon to be a major motion picture as well!
Just for the record, Artemis would kick Harry's butt...

 

[Malcolm R]

Just for the record, Artemis would kick Harry's butt...

How? Is he a powerful wizard too? I thought he was just a juvenile delinquent? Pretty hard to trump someone who could kill you with a flick of his wand.
Another interesting children's series, "A Series of Unfortunate Events" by Lemony Snicket, is set to become a film too.

 

[Adam_S]

As is His Dark Materials by Philip Pullman... now If we could just convince them to do 2, 4 and 5 of the dark is rising sequence, I'd be happy
as many other people have stated magic can be very difficult, In Azkaban, Harry literally forces and pushes himself from september to June on getting down the Patronus spell and only once manages to create a powerful one. Even later when he is more experienced, in the fourth book, a simple charm, like summoning, requires a few days practice to get down to perfection.

 

[SteveGon]

How? Is he a powerful wizard too? I thought he was just a juvenile delinquent?

Artemis is a genius with a good head for planning. He'd simply outsmart Harry.

 

[TheoGB]

But at least in the Belgariad magic was (like in LOTR) something very special and exclusive (to like 20 people in the whole world not an annual class of 300 or so) and required -effort-.

Erm. Apart from every bloody Grolim. There were an awful lot of them too. Eddings' books are pretty good except that his characters are painfully similar...But then at least he has characters, something Tolkien pretty much doesn't, outside of the Hobbits.

I'm with Philip on the point that there must be some downside to magic in general, but I think it's clear in the HP books that magic is hard to do. The film probably doesn't make it clear, which may or may not be bad, but then it doesn't really make it clear how difficult magic should be for Gandalf in FOTR...