The problems with Quality Control in HiH's textbook and subjects

I normally would type a long as hell essay about this, but I'll try to be quick. Ghoul Studies (which I'll use as an example, it's definitely not the only thing guilty of this) as a serious subject is something that makes no sense. I think the admin/supporting staff seriously over-rely on the Harry Potter wiki, instead of being creative. Ghoul Studies was sort of an Easter Egg in the movie's Marauder's map, a couple of words on a something drawn by someone not very knowledgeable on Harry Potter lore themselves. Necromancy is supposed to be bad, and Ghouls are studied already in Defense against the Dark Arts, so why do you need an extra class for that? We really don't. You guys need to either stick closer to book canon, or be more creative, and use logic while at it. Don't do Ghoul Studies, do Wards, or Spell Crafting, or something that actually sounds fun. You guys are not forced to stick to the wiki, unless Warner Bros is requiring it, which I doubt.The spells are also sometimes cringeworthy (and non-canon, if you care about that) when you guys take them from the video games. Verdimillious Duo/Trio is not in the same league as Lumos, or Expelliarmus. It sounds stupid, and it's meant to (the first HP RPG game for the Game Boy Color is filled with humor, and it's where the most funny-sounding spells come from). It's definitely not supposed to be taken seriously.Basically, what I ask for is some quality control. Which the wiki itself doesn't have. I've seen criticisms of the wiki already, the guys basically try to justify Flitwick's two appearances in the movies by somehow claiming a de-aging spell instead of just saying "the movie director decided to merge two characters". They speculate waaaaayyy too much about minimal details, which leads to the articles being completely inaccurate and fooling some readers into thinking Ghoul Studies is in the same category as Charms or Transfiguration.For example, look at this. If it doesn't make sense that a spell exists for that exact purpose, it's because it doesn't. It's just speculation written as fact. Welp, I ended up writing an essay about it anyway. If you want to criticize my post, don't say "well if it's so easy why don't you do it?", call me entitled, or say that I whine too much. Try harder. This is a big reason why people leave the website. This needs to be addressed, or we'll be studying Xylomancy by year three and learning Ron's rat spell from the first Hogwarts Express ride.TL;DR: It's supposed to be a real world, if you need more subjects or spells, invent them and make them fit the setting, don't take them from people who didn't even bother. Magical Art = good. Ghoul Studies = bad. For lore, Books = great, Movies = alright, Games = awful, just use your creativity.
I normally would type a long as hell essay about this, but I'll try to be quick. Ghoul Studies (which I'll use as an example, it's definitely not the only thing guilty of this) as a serious subject is something that makes no sense. I think the admin/supporting staff seriously over-rely on the Harry Potter wiki, instead of being creative. Ghoul Studies was sort of an Easter Egg in the movie's Marauder's map, a couple of words on a something drawn by someone not very knowledgeable on Harry Potter lore themselves. Necromancy is supposed to be bad, and Ghouls are studied already in Defense against the Dark Arts, so why do you need an extra class for that? We really don't. You guys need to either stick closer to book canon, or be more creative, and use logic while at it. Don't do Ghoul Studies, do Wards, or Spell Crafting, or something that actually sounds fun. You guys are not forced to stick to the wiki, unless Warner Bros is requiring it, which I doubt.The spells are also sometimes cringeworthy (and non-canon, if you care about that) when you guys take them from the video games. Verdimillious Duo/Trio is not in the same league as Lumos, or Expelliarmus. It sounds stupid, and it's meant to (the first HP RPG game for the Game Boy Color is filled with humor, and it's where the most funny-sounding spells come from). It's definitely not supposed to be taken seriously.Basically, what I ask for is some quality control. Which the wiki itself doesn't have. I've seen criticisms of the wiki already, the guys basically try to justify Flitwick's two appearances in the movies by somehow claiming a de-aging spell instead of just saying "the movie director decided to merge two characters". They speculate waaaaayyy too much about minimal details, which leads to the articles being completely inaccurate and fooling some readers into thinking Ghoul Studies is in the same category as Charms or Transfiguration.For example, look at this. If it doesn't make sense that a spell exists for that exact purpose, it's because it doesn't. It's just speculation written as fact. Welp, I ended up writing an essay about it anyway. If you want to criticize my post, don't say "well if it's so easy why don't you do it?", call me entitled, or say that I whine too much. Try harder. This is a big reason why people leave the website. This needs to be addressed, or we'll be studying Xylomancy by year three and learning Ron's rat spell from the first Hogwarts Express ride.TL;DR: It's supposed to be a real world, if you need more subjects or spells, invent them and make them fit the setting, don't take them from people who didn't even bother. Magical Art = good. Ghoul Studies = bad. For lore, Books = great, Movies = alright, Games = awful, just use your creativity.
A lot of the professors wanted first year to be as close to the books and canon as you could get. I know for DADA, we're going to start exploring a lot of real life defensive techniques, maneuvers, and survival starting next year. We're also going to do a continuing section on different types of first aid. The spells and creatures I covered this year were carefully considered, (trust me, pulling out Verdimillious was a tough decision), and future spells and creatures will also be carefully considered. We won't be following the books for most content structure from now on, because face it, none of Harry's DADA professors really did things right, (with the exception, maybe, of Lupin). We are aware of the quality control issue, and are having our professor evaluations coming up. I will bring your ideas to the Professor's Lounge, though, because I do think your points are extremely relevant.(Also, going back to Verdimillious and Vermillious, they were used frequently throughout the books and movies, but were never named. Ex. GoF, in the maze, shooting green or red sparks in the air, etc...)
Just out of curiosity, who conducts the professor evaluations?
That's one of the problems with the wiki. There's no actual evidence those spells are one and the same. The sparks in the books seem to be just sparks like the ones Harry got from his wand after waving it at Ollivander's or when polishing it during the wand ceremony in GoF, not actually real spells, and they're never used in a duel or taught in class, just as beacons. They don't use any words either, and that's before learning silent casting.From the very first book "But people only die in proper duels, you know, with real wizards. The most you and Malfoy’ll be able to do is send sparks at each other. ", this is before they learn any spells at all.  It seems more of a basic wand feature than a real spell.
You could also consider Verdimillious to be a method for -controlling- the emission of sparks for the beginning witch or wizard. Not that I'm defending it one way or another, but as Professor Mae has noted, we are light on true canon content and heavy on speculation. Many things have to fill in the gaps, and while Verdimillious would certainly do little to help you in any real duel, it does fit into the gap of "controlling your magic" until you can do it with nothing but an effort of will.

Write a reply

You have to sign up or log in to reply to forum discussions!