# SPOILER WARNING:  A thread about the Harry Potter books



## Edena_of_Neith (Oct 2, 2006)

Edena_of_Neith here.  Greetings to one and all on ENWorld.
  I have come late to the party, but have now read Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.  Observing the style of writing and subject matter, and having seen the films made so far, I skipped forward and read Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.  Now I am reading Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince.  I intend to go back and read the three books I skipped concurrently.

  I think a lot could be said (and a lot has been said, obviously) about Harry Potter and the whole genre, and I wished to start a thread here on ENWorld in which that could be done.  I am hoping that people interested in the subject would care to discuss it, remark on it, and give their opinions on it.
  Here are some comments and opinions that come to my mind:

  -  Rowling is a Great Writer, and will be remembered as one, up there with the legendary historical British authors.
  -  The Harry Potter books have a lot of magical stuff (as it were) in them, but they are not at all about magic.
  -  Harry Potter is as grim, dark, gritty, and moralistic as Pinnochio (the original book.)
  -  Harry Potter emphasizes the profound unfairness of the world, in allegory.
  -  Hermione is clearly Harry's superior as a wizard, in every respect except flying magic.
  -  One must wonder why Dumbledore does not require Harry and Snape to sit down and talk matters out, in an attempt at reconcilation ... considering how counterproductive their antagonism is.
  -  I wonder how many parents would place their children at Hogwart's, if such a place existed (if magic and Voldemort and all the rest actually existed.)  If they would, would they tolerate Hogwart's treatment of their children.  Would they, for example, tolerate the high injury rate associated with Quidditch?  Would they tolerate life threatening detentions in the Forbidden Forest?
  - What level would Harry Potter be, in his various years, in D&D?  Ron?  Hermione?  McGonagal?  Snape?  Dumbledore?  Voldemort?  What manner of translation would be needed to make Hogwart's into a 3rd edition setting, or vice versa?
  - If you were to translate, what translates to what?  That is, which hex or curse is what spell in D&D?  Which ability is which Feat?  Which approach translates to which Prestige Class?  Are we dealing with wizards, sorcerers, both, or something else here, to begin with? 
  - In Harry Potter, it seems wizards rule the world.  Do they?  Would they do so in D&D, if they could so freely cast spells instead of using the Vancian system?  Or perhaps their need for focuses (wands) is a crippling drawback?  If they are so powerful, what would one do with fighters, rogues, and clerics to compensate them in a Harry Potter setting?
  -  And so on ... 

  It is hard to know where to begin with Harry Potter.  There's a lot there to mull over.  It is nothing short of amazing that so many themes, plots, sub-plots, characters, and complexities came from the mind of one person.  Rowlings is nothing short of a genius.  My opinion.

  The floor is open here ...


----------



## Chimera (Oct 2, 2006)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> I have come late to the party, but have now read Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.  Observing the style of writing and subject matter, and having seen the films made so far, I skipped forward and read Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.  Now I am reading Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince.  I intend to go back and read the three books I skipped concurrently.




As you may have noticed, there was a significant change between the first book and the second.  Gone was a lot of the nonsensical stuff, like everyone singing a different song at the same time and Dumbledore stepping up to say a few words of gibberish.



> - The Harry Potter books have a lot of magical stuff (as it were) in them, but they are not at all about magic.
> -  Harry Potter is as grim, dark, gritty, and moralistic as Pinnochio (the original book.)
> -  Harry Potter emphasizes the profound unfairness of the world, in allegory.




It's Good vs Evil, but not simple fairy tale stuff.



> -  One must wonder why Dumbledore does not require Harry and Snape to sit down and talk matters out, in an attempt at reconcilation ... considering how counterproductive their antagonism is.




Snape is an interesting character.  You need to read the rest of the series to understand the position he occupies in the tale.



> -  I wonder how many parents would place their children at Hogwart's, if such a place existed (if magic and Voldemort and all the rest actually existed.)  If they would, would they tolerate Hogwart's treatment of their children.  Would they, for example, tolerate the high injury rate associated with Quidditch?  Would they tolerate life threatening detentions in the Forbidden Forest?




Magic is extremely dangerous.  You either learn how to deal with it and survive, or you will quite easily kill yourself.  Better to learn that in a controlled environment than experimenting on your own without help.


----------



## Squire James (Oct 2, 2006)

I'm not going to answer all of them - some because I don't feel like it and others from sheer ignorance (like not having read the Pinnochio book).



			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> -  Rowling is a Great Writer, and will be remembered as one, up there with the legendary historical British authors.



My opinion of her is not as good as yours.  I wouldn't hesitiate to call her a Good Writer, but I'm not ready to put her up on the pedastal with Tolkien and Asimov (the two I would put on top of the fantasy/sci-fi rankings, respectively) quite yet.  She's certainly Great at her strengths, but here weaknesses are Average or even Poor.  I don't begrudge her riches; she pretty much deserved to do well.



			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> -  The Harry Potter books have a lot of magical stuff (as it were) in them, but they are not at all about magic.



I beg to differ - magic is certainly not 100% the subject of the stories, but it is hardly 0% either!  The stories seem to me to be all about a study of how magic might exist in a modern society without mimicing or replacing technology.



			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> -  Hermione is clearly Harry's superior as a wizard, in every respect except flying magic.



Hermione clearly has more intelligence and skill than Harry, but Harry has more raw power.  She'd probably analyze-and-lose in a couple of situations where Harry acted-and-won.



			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> -  One must wonder why Dumbledore does not require Harry and Snape to sit down and talk matters out, in an attempt at reconcilation ... considering how counterproductive their antagonism is.



Because he'd be afraid one would kill the other, most likely.



			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> -  I wonder how many parents would place their children at Hogwart's, if such a place existed (if magic and Voldemort and all the rest actually existed.)  If they would, would they tolerate Hogwart's treatment of their children.  Would they, for example, tolerate the high injury rate associated with Quidditch?  Would they tolerate life threatening detentions in the Forbidden Forest?



I don't think they quite got all the kinks worked out with Wizard School yet... I mean they let the House of Slytherin exist, right?  It's hard to tell how much of the danger's real, and how much was set up to instill some fear in the students and curb overconfidence.



			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> - In Harry Potter, it seems wizards rule the world.  Do they?



Not quite.  They wouldn't be keeping themselves so secret if they weren't at least somewhat aware in the backs of their minds that Muggles and their technology could destroy them.  Even Valdemort seems pretty circumspect in how he kills them.


----------



## Crothian (Oct 2, 2006)

THe books are good, the writing is fair but not anywhere close to that of the greats.  I think you really need to read the rest of the books to continue most of the discusions.  They answer a lot of questions.


----------



## Meloncov (Oct 2, 2006)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> -  Hermione is clearly Harry's superior as a wizard, in every respect except flying magic.




Not really. She's a quicker learner than Harry, but he has more raw power. As the series progreses, the balence of power shifts decidedly towords Harry, at least in combat magic.



			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> -  One must wonder why Dumbledore does not require Harry and Snape to sit down and talk matters out, in an attempt at reconcilation ... considering how counterproductive their antagonism is.




Part of this is explained later in the series, but I think part of it is that British schools tend to leave students to solve their own problems, even to the point of ignoring bullying.


			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> -  I wonder how many parents would place their children at Hogwart's, if such a place existed (if magic and Voldemort and all the rest actually existed.)  If they would, would they tolerate Hogwart's treatment of their children.  Would they, for example, tolerate the high injury rate associated with Quidditch?  Would they tolerate life threatening detentions in the Forbidden Forest?



It seems counter-intuitive, but the books say that Quiditch injuries are relatively rare (Wood says that "a couple of broken jaws" is the worst injuries at Hogwarts have gotten). Combined with HP verse healing magic being far more effective than any Muggle technology, its argualby less dangerous than, say, football.

As for the detention, it really shouldn't have been that dangerous. If it hadn't been for Voldemort, nothing in the forest was likely to attack them. The centaurs dislike intruders, but not genocidally so (well, not yet) and I suspect the bit about werewolves was just a myth created to scare the students away from the forest.



			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> - If you were to translate, what translates to what?  That is, which hex or curse is what spell in D&D?  Which ability is which Feat?  Which approach translates to which Prestige Class?  Are we dealing with wizards, sorcerers, both, or something else here, to begin with?




You have to rebuild the magic system from the ground up. Harry Potter wizards don't use vanacian magic, and they get spells in an order that would make game balence tough (for example, the learn how to freeze someones limb in the first book, but not how to make light until the third.)

I worked a little on a D20 Harry Potter game. We used a skill point based magic system; that is, you take rank in Transfiguration and you have to make a check to learn or cast a spell. It worked fairly well, but it made it so that no one had ranks to spare for spot and the like.


----------



## Meloncov (Oct 2, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> THe books are good, the writing is fair but not anywhere close to that of the greats.




I don't exactly disagree with you, but the books have the audience they do for a reason. Rowling managed to create books with all the sophistication of an excellent adult novel that was accesible to beggining readers.


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 2, 2006)

Meloncov said:
			
		

> I don't exactly disagree with you, but the books have the audience they do for a reason. Rowling managed to create books with all the sophistication of an excellent adult novel that was accesible to beggining readers.




Sure, she's found an audience, but I have a feeling that twenty years from now a lot of people will look back and wonder why they got so hot and bothered about her books. Her writing is good, but she's no better than a couple dozen other authors of youth fiction like Susan Cooper, Madeline L'Engle, and Lloyd Alexander.


----------



## Kaodi (Oct 2, 2006)

*The Future*

I think it will be very interesting to see what she attempts after the Harry Potter series has come to an end...


----------



## Umbran (Oct 2, 2006)

I'll fall into the "she's certainly a good writer, but I'd not call her one of the greats" category.  She's written some of the better YA fiction out there, anbd I applaud her for it. but that doesn't make her a literary giant, even within the sci-fi/fantasy genre.  She doesn't wordsmith like Ellison or Bradbury.  She doesn't build worlds like Niven.  She doesn't weild logic like Asimov. ..

Just as teh stories are not about the magic, _per se_, it is important to remember that there's more to being a wizard than magical skill.  Hermione might be superior in a technical sense, Harry has her beat on some crucial points of character, in terms of active, adventuring wizardry.  Hermione would not make a better auror than Harry. 

You cannot tell two people to sit down and deal with their problems unless they _desire_ to do so.  There is very little evidence that either Snape or Potter desire a good working relationship.  It is far more satisfying to each of them to vilify the other.  Until that changes, there will be no accord.

The risk inherent at Hogwarts seems to be readily matched by the healing and recovery magics available.  There is a comic bookishness about the universe - while the characters fear physical harm, evidence suggests that it is difficult to die from simple physical trauma, and magic is rarely directly deadly.  It seems there's only one spell designed to kill people outright...

I think the Potter universe magic system is so dissimilar from D&D magic that there's no clear level analogs.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Oct 2, 2006)

Kaodi said:
			
		

> I think it will be very interesting to see what she attempts after the Harry Potter series has come to an end...




She is on record as saying that she doesn't expect to do anything as successful as Harry in the future - 'you only get one Harry Potter in your lifetime' kind of thing.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Oct 2, 2006)

Personally I think she is good at writing a page-turner, and does a good job of pulling surprise reveals (especially in the earlier books).

I typically like the earlier books better than the later ones because they have been edited down to a reasonable story IMO. The later books, where the author has become much more powerful, seem to not have been edited down in the same way. I think that any novel that can't be held in one hand to read is too long!

I'm not surprised that the story is so popular with children, because it merges together two classic British staples - the friends and enemies at a boarding school being one, and the underdog who wins out being the other.

I found Harry as a stupid and irritating teenager more offputting in the later books, while recognising that it is actually a pretty good representation of teenagerdom.

However, I've always been annoyed by Dumbledore - there are numerous occasions where he could have shared a little more information a little earlier and things would have been very different. At one point I thought I was reading a Wheel of Time novel, if you know what I mean...

Cheers


----------



## Joshua Randall (Oct 2, 2006)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I'm not surprised that the story is so popular with children, because it merges together two classic British staples - the friends and enemies at a boarding school being one



I have never been to the UK and know next to nothing about its culture. However, I have a vivid image in my mind of the school system, formed exclusively from reading books like Tom Jones and Harry Potter. And that makes me never want to go to school in the UK.


----------



## jcfiala (Oct 2, 2006)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> -  One must wonder why Dumbledore does not require Harry and Snape to sit down and talk matters out, in an attempt at reconcilation ... considering how counterproductive their antagonism is.




He's hoping that by forcing them to work together, that they'll work past their antagonism, find what they have in common, and build a new relationship.  It, unfortunately, doesn't work, although it could have been if Harry or Snape had been willing to try harder.  It's one of Harry's failures, I think.


----------



## The Grumpy Celt (Oct 2, 2006)

I wonder about the Ministry Of Magics inept handling of the magical terrorism threat posed by Voldy and his minions. I also wonder about the other nations, like how American wizards behave and educate their yung'uns. And I wonder why Dumbledore ever trusted Snape.

That said, I enjoy the books. They are fun to read. Rowling knows what she is doing as a writer and story teller.

And that is enough for me.


----------



## Berandor (Oct 2, 2006)

I was disappointed only in the most recent book; Order of the Phoenix was alright (I still think Prisoner and Goblet are the best), but Half-Blood Prince didn't grab me at all until maybe a hundred or so pages before the end.

[sblock]There was too little happening during the school year that had any significance. It was just drawn-out "waiting for the shoe to drop", to me. And then it went almost too quickly. [/sblock]

Also, I was disappointed in the story resolution and certain portrayals.
[sblock]Dumbledore dying gives me the impression that she's pretty much following Campbell here, with mentors dying and the young hero finding his own way. It also seems pretty obvious to me that Harry himself is the final receptacle of Vodemort's soul, and I wonder if/how JKR will go about not killing Harry at the end (of course, at the moment I'm fairly sure she will kill Harry, or let Harry kill himself to stop you-know-who).

Finally, Harry's righteousness grates on me. In the end, when he's telling Ginny off, I was really annoyed and I can only hope that he'll be punished for it. I mean, who is he to tell Ginny what she wants or doesn't want to endure as his girlfriend? Doesn't she have any say about it? I just hope that Ginny isn't hurt for disobeying her man and Ron has to save Hermione in the end.[/sblock]

As to Snape, I hope he turns out alright. It certainly seems that way to me, kind of blatantly so, which means I'm dreading that I'm wrong.

And is it just me, or does anybody else now picture Snape as Alan Rickman? It's almost automatic when I read about him.


----------



## Tiberius (Oct 2, 2006)

Regarding Order of the Phoenix:
[sblock]I thought this book was pretty solid. It probably could have been a little tighter of a story, but I thought it worked. My main beef with OotP is the incompetance of the Death Eater A-squad sent to retrieve the prophecy. This is, in part, due to the rules (or, really, lack of rules) Rowling has set down in regards to the consequences of magic use. Given:

There appears to be no mechanical drawback to using the Avada Kedavra curse

Said curse is indefensible

The Death Eaters are looking at stints in Azkaban anyway if they're caught

Death Eaters seem like they're supposed to be evil badasses

Only Harry is specifically to be killed by the Dark Lord
I see no reason why the Death Eaters wouldn't be lobbing the Killing Curse at any student that isn't Harry. Why bother with the stuff that can be defended against?
[/sblock]

Regarding Half-Blood Prince:
[sblock]While this one scored points with me for Voldemort being effectively a lich, I was disappointed with it on a couple of points. First of all, I concur that the story just kinda floated along until the very end, where all of a sudden you get the death of Dumbledore and the revelation of Snape as the HPB. Also, it seemed to me that the identity of the Prince didn't really matter to the plot nearly as much as the items and people that made the titles of the other books did.[/sblock]

Regarding Snape:
[sblock]Much as I would love for him to have been a DEEP cover Death Eater all this time, I think this theory is well and truly shot at the very end of HBP, when he's trying to make his escape while still attempting to teach Potter that closing his mind is the only way he'll be able to defeat Voldemort. Doesn't strike me as the sort of thing a loyal Death Eater would do. "No, you idiot, *this* is how you beat my boss!"[/sblock]


----------



## Crothian (Oct 2, 2006)

Berandor said:
			
		

> [sblock]Finally, Harry's righteousness grates on me. In the end, when he's telling Ginny off, I was really annoyed and I can only hope that he'll be punished for it. I mean, who is he to tell Ginny what she wants or doesn't want to endure as his girlfriend? Doesn't she have any say about it? I just hope that Ginny isn't hurt for disobeying her man and Ron has to save Hermione in the end.[/sblock]




[sblock] She has a say, but so does he.  It takes two people to have a relationship and if one of them says no for whatever reason then it just isn't going to happen.  [/sblock]


----------



## Umbran (Oct 2, 2006)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I typically like the earlier books better than the later ones because they have been edited down to a reasonable story IMO. The later books, where the author has become much more powerful, seem to not have been edited down in the same way. I think that any novel that can't be held in one hand to read is too long!




Each book is targetted at an audience of approximately the same age as Harry - which means they span a range from 11 to 17 years.  I think the increased length reflects the increased sophistication of the reader - you expect a 17 year old to handle more subtlety and complexity, but those do require a greater number of pages to express.


----------



## Meloncov (Oct 2, 2006)

Tiberius said:
			
		

> Regarding Order of the Phoenix:
> [sblock]
> Given:
> 
> ...



 "Aveda Kavada" takes significently longer to say than "stupefy," especially as the incantations  require that you speak them clearly and relatively slowly. In a fight, those fractions of a second are significent.


----------



## Moonstone Spider (Oct 2, 2006)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> However, I've always been annoyed by Dumbledore - there are numerous occasions where he could have shared a little more information a little earlier and things would have been very different. At one point I thought I was reading a Wheel of Time novel, if you know what I mean...
> 
> Cheers




If they simple summarily executed everybody the sorting hat picked for Slytherin the world would be a happier place.  Seriously, between the fact that everybody who joins Voldemort (Including Voldy himself) is a Slytherin, the heir of Slytherin deal, the fact that the guy who founded Slytherin was a genocidal maniac, and the fact that apparently joining house Slytherin carries a mind-altering enchantment that turns you into an Ass, I can imagine no reason for the house to exist.


----------



## Victim (Oct 2, 2006)

Tiberius said:
			
		

> Regarding Order of the Phoenix:
> [sblock]I thought this book was pretty solid. It probably could have been a little tighter of a story, but I thought it worked. My main beef with OotP is the incompetance of the Death Eater A-squad sent to retrieve the prophecy. This is, in part, due to the rules (or, really, lack of rules) Rowling has set down in regards to the consequences of magic use. Given:
> 
> There appears to be no mechanical drawback to using the Avada Kedavra curse
> ...




[sblock]Actually, the killing curse has one very obvious defense.  Don't get hit.  If the death eaters can't tag the students with it, then it does nothing.  Cover (including summoned objects), dodging - especially with boosted luck, interrupting the other guy can all block it.[/sblock]


----------



## Tiberius (Oct 2, 2006)

Meloncov said:
			
		

> "Aveda Kavada" takes significently longer to say than "stupefy," especially as the incantations  require that you speak them clearly and relatively slowly. In a fight, those fractions of a second are significent.




Unless you speak them nonverbally, which Bellatrix seems to have done to a fox in HBP.

And yes, I realize the idea of speaking something nonverbally is a bit odd, but it gets the idea across.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Oct 3, 2006)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> -  Rowling is a Great Writer, and will be remembered as one, up there with the legendary historical British authors.



Popular /= Great.  Not even close.  But she WILL be remembered.  Perhaps even more than authors who WERE truly Great, but lacking works as insanely popular.


> -  The Harry Potter books have a lot of magical stuff (as it were) in them, but they are not at all about magic.



That's certainly become truer with successive volumes but "not at all?"  Have we read the same books?


> -  Harry Potter is as grim, dark, gritty, and moralistic as Pinnochio (the original book.)



Harry is finally developing a real personality rather than merely parading his backstory as a substitute for one.  But you're right that it's not the most pleasant.  This was, cleverly enough, predicted in book I by the Sorting Hat which noted that Harry could fit just as well into Slytherin as Gryffindor house.


> -  Harry Potter emphasizes the profound unfairness of the world, in allegory.



I don't sense that Rowling is that good at the hardcore artistic craft of Great Writing to be given that kind of credit.  I think she simply continues to devise high drama and if anything it seems to me to have gotten more manipulative and forced.  She needs to work on her pacing.


> -  Hermione is clearly Harry's superior as a wizard, in every respect except flying magic.



I wouldn't disagree out of hand.  She may well be "the greatest wizard of her age" as I recall one of the adult characters saying (I forget who it was), but I suspect that in the future she will at the very least end up learning a very HARD lesson that the answers are not always in books.  I sense that her skill comes far less from raw talent and power than the fact that she just reads so much more than anyone else around her.  It's going to be her achilles heel - get her in a position that ISN'T covered by a book she's read and she'll go all deer-in-the-headlights.


> -  One must wonder why Dumbledore does not require Harry and Snape to sit down and talk matters out, in an attempt at reconcilation ... considering how counterproductive their antagonism is.



For the simple reason that their antagonism provides a ready source of drama.  Besides, if YOU were Snape, how would you react to the Headmaster TELLING you to sit down with the snot-nosed teenager and treat him as your equal?


> -  I wonder how many parents would place their children at Hogwart's, if such a place existed (if magic and Voldemort and all the rest actually existed.)  If they would, would they tolerate Hogwart's treatment of their children.  Would they, for example, tolerate the high injury rate associated with Quidditch?  Would they tolerate life threatening detentions in the Forbidden Forest?



While people do die playing quidditch it's probably no more than the number of muggles who die playing other NON-magical sports in school.  Falls from great heights are slowed, broken arms and whatnot are treated with spells and potions.  The damage may actually be more severe and incidents more frequent but magical medicine keeps pace.


> - What level would Harry Potter be, in his various years, in D&D?  Ron?  Hermione?  McGonagal?  Snape?  Dumbledore?  Voldemort?  What manner of translation would be needed to make Hogwart's into a 3rd edition setting, or vice versa?



They do not translate adequately.  Rowlings mileiu not only follows rules somewhat different to those of D&D as regards magic, but she also keeps most magic _undefined_.  Magic in the world of Harry Potter remains utilized largely as a mere plot device like a Maguffin.  It remains undefined until she needs it to make something convenient, amusing, or to form an obstacle.  It's tough to infer game-rules from mere literary conventions of convenience.


> - If you were to translate, what translates to what?  That is, which hex or curse is what spell in D&D?  Which ability is which Feat?  Which approach translates to which Prestige Class?  Are we dealing with wizards, sorcerers, both, or something else here, to begin with?



Frankly, I'd say it requires its own RPG, or at least a d20 adaptation all its own that disregards and replaces wholesale most of the d20 rules about magic. 


> - In Harry Potter, it seems wizards rule the world.  Do they?



No they don't - though it's well-established that they certainly could if they felt so inclined.  The "Wizarding World" co-exists with the Muggle World but for yet-unexplained reasons the wizards go to quite great lengths to maintain complete seperation and anonimity with only a few exceptions.  Obviously muggles can and do become fully aware of the wizarding world or we wouldn't have Hermione at all would we?  But wizards cover up everything that muggles could percieve as being supernatural and then still maintain a level of contact with Muggle political leaders.


> Would they do so in D&D, if they could so freely cast spells instead of using the Vancian system?  Or perhaps their need for focuses (wands) is a crippling drawback?  If they are so powerful, what would one do with fighters, rogues, and clerics to compensate them in a Harry Potter setting?



Impossible to say as Rowling spends no time whatsoever elaborating on the lives of those who live in the "wizarding world" that are NOT actually wizards of some caliber.


> It is hard to know where to begin with Harry Potter.  There's a lot there to mull over.  It is nothing short of amazing that so many themes, plots, sub-plots, characters, and complexities came from the mind of one person.  Rowlings is nothing short of a genius.  My opinion.



She can write novels, and in most ways has improved that skill with each one she's written, but she's NOT a genius of any caliber in that regard.  I've seen no more imagination displayed in her themes, plots, sub-plots, characters and complexities than a GREAT many people who play D&D.  Remember, popular /= Greatness of skill.


----------



## Meloncov (Oct 3, 2006)

Tiberius said:
			
		

> Unless you speak them nonverbally, which Bellatrix seems to have done to a fox in HBP.
> 
> And yes, I realize the idea of speaking something nonverbally is a bit odd, but it gets the idea across.




Eh, perhaps you have to think the words very clearly and slowly. A bit weak, perhaps, but its a viable explanation.


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Oct 3, 2006)

Tiberius said:
			
		

> Regarding Order of the Phoenix:
> [sblock]I thought this book was pretty solid. It probably could have been a little tighter of a story, but I thought it worked. My main beef with OotP is the incompetance of the Death Eater A-squad sent to retrieve the prophecy. This is, in part, due to the rules (or, really, lack of rules) Rowling has set down in regards to the consequences of magic use. Given:
> 
> There appears to be no mechanical drawback to using the Avada Kedavra curse
> ...



[sblock]Haven't these morons ever heard of hand grenades and automatic weapons? And I don't want to hear that you can't buy them in England. These are the bad guys, they'll buy them somewhere else .[/sblock]


----------



## Meloncov (Oct 3, 2006)

Ed_Laprade said:
			
		

> [sblock]Haven't these morons ever heard of hand grenades and automatic weapons? And I don't want to hear that you can't buy them in England. These are the bad guys, they'll buy them somewhere else .[/sblock]




I suspect that wizards have spells that counter most Muggle weapons. It's the most obvious reason I can think of as to why no one uses muggle weapons (I don't really buy that they are entirely unwilling to use Muggle technology: at the least, it appears they use Muggle plumbing).


----------



## Berandor (Oct 3, 2006)

Crothian said:
			
		

> [sblock] She has a say, but so does he.  It takes two people to have a relationship and if one of them says no for whatever reason then it just isn't going to happen.  [/sblock]



[sblock]Yeah, just like Hermione and Ron aren't going with Harry... wait! It's alright for them to join Harry, but if Ginny wants to help him, his words are final. Because Harry doesn't care if Ron or Hermione die and it's his fault? Understandable, with Harry being such a paramour and lovesick teddy-bear, being together with Ginny for so long and not really knowing these other two. 

To me, it's another selfish decision from Harry; one he clearly can make, but it's selfish nonetheless, and the longer the books grow, the less I'm sure whether I'm supposed to like him. Of course, that is made up for by pondering what it means. Is the Voldemort soul gaining control over Harry (the "Slytherin" part of Harry)? At the moment, I'd say yes, and before being finally overcome and turned into Voldemort II, Harry will sacrifice himself. But I'm still angry at him [/sblock]


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 3, 2006)

Meloncov said:
			
		

> I suspect that wizards have spells that counter most Muggle weapons. It's the most obvious reason I can think of as to why no one uses muggle weapons (I don't really buy that they are entirely unwilling to use Muggle technology: at the least, it appears they use Muggle plumbing).



Probably they actually don't have spells against Muggle weapons. They never needed it (and considering their secrecy, they might try to avoid ever needing them). 

Their own spells are just as powerful as Muggle weapons, so there is no need to use them. It's also a lot easier to carry around a wand then to carry around a assault rifle with ammunition plus grenades.


----------



## Berandor (Oct 3, 2006)

And you still have to hit people, and make sure you're not hurt yourself, with modern-day weaponry. It's not as if anybody can simply pick up an assault rifle and become a marksman.


----------



## buzzard (Oct 3, 2006)

Berandor said:
			
		

> And you still have to hit people, and make sure you're not hurt yourself, with modern-day weaponry. It's not as if anybody can simply pick up an assault rifle and become a marksman.




I've often thought the simple solution to the Vodlemort problem would be to attack a marine sniper team to some Aurors and turn ol moldy Voldy's head into mist with a .300 magnum shell from concealment and long range. This would also serve quite nicely on the Death Eaters. 

Teaming the abilities of Aurors with muggle special ops would probably enable fairly short work of the bad guys. It is well established that the Wizarding world is extremely unfamilliar with the abilities of Muggle technology. 

buzzard


----------



## Umbran (Oct 3, 2006)

Tiberius said:
			
		

> Unless you speak them nonverbally, which Bellatrix seems to have done to a fox in HBP.




Somewhere in the mix of the books, I think casting without speaking is mentioned as difficult, but highly useful.  A thing usually done by advanced mages, requiring extra concentration and such.


----------



## WayneLigon (Oct 3, 2006)

There's a few ltitle hints, or so I take them, that you don't get much of a _choice _ in going to Hogwart's or not. If you're a Wizard or Witch - and it's obvious that that is something you're born into - you get the letter when you turn 11 and that's that. They have only hinted about what's done with rogue wizards, but I get the idea that if you don't get training, and get it quick, your abilities contnue to manifest uncontrolled. That can't be a good thing.

If there are other books after the next, if Harry survives the experience, I'd like to see just what an Auror does. I suspect that at least part of their purview is to track down and deal with untrained wizards.

They also hint that what we've seen are the bare beginnings of what real wizard abilities are. They seem to have a small set of common abilities, the stuff you get in the school: flight, teleportation, levitation, potion making, energy control, transformations, curses and a handful of other things depending on your specific aptitude. (My own pet theory is that Hogwart's isn't really there is teach you magic, per se, it's there so they can keep an eye on you so you don't destroy yourself and others with your powers before you can control them). Then after that, people go off and experiment and develop their own particular paths and abilities.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 3, 2006)

Moonstone Spider said:
			
		

> If they simple summarily executed everybody the sorting hat picked for Slytherin the world would be a happier place.  Seriously, between the fact that everybody who joins Voldemort (Including Voldy himself) is a Slytherin, the heir of Slytherin deal, the fact that the guy who founded Slytherin was a genocidal maniac, and the fact that apparently joining house Slytherin carries a mind-altering enchantment that turns you into an Ass, I can imagine no reason for the house to exist.




Except that most people who go through Slytherin _didn't_ end up as followers of Voldemort. He had a substantial number of followers, sure, from that house. But since the main qualification for being in Slytherin is a fair amount of ruthless ambition, I would also bet that a substantial portion of the Ministry itself went through that house, politicians and civil servants being what they are.
Besides, Slytherin is a good stand in for that old British aristocratic snobbery in the schools and society.
I suspect that Rowling introduced Slughorn as a former head of Slytherin to be an antidote to the  house being too dark. Slughorn may be a bit of a snob, but he's a genuinely decent and genial one... particularly if he thinks you'll end up a person of significance or exhibit a natural talent that he values (like Lily Evans and her potions work).


----------



## billd91 (Oct 3, 2006)

Berandor said:
			
		

> [sblock]Yeah, just like Hermione and Ron aren't going with Harry... wait! It's alright for them to join Harry, but if Ginny wants to help him, his words are final. Because Harry doesn't care if Ron or Hermione die and it's his fault? Understandable, with Harry being such a paramour and lovesick teddy-bear, being together with Ginny for so long and not really knowing these other two.
> 
> To me, it's another selfish decision from Harry; one he clearly can make, but it's selfish nonetheless, and the longer the books grow, the less I'm sure whether I'm supposed to like him. Of course, that is made up for by pondering what it means. Is the Voldemort soul gaining control over Harry (the "Slytherin" part of Harry)? At the moment, I'd say yes, and before being finally overcome and turned into Voldemort II, Harry will sacrifice himself. But I'm still angry at him [/sblock]






[sblock]One thing to remember is that Harry is still an adolescent. He'll make poor choices, particularly in affairs of the heart, just like we all did... and it's because we were dumb and inexperienced. 
As far as being more protective of Ginny than Ron and Hermione, he's been getting into danger with them for years. They're grandfathered in. Harry thinks he's being noble, but I'll bet Ginny weighs in in the next book with a bit more force than Harry expects or the end of book six suggests. She's much more like Fred and George than Ron or Percy. She won't be that easy to put off.[/sblock]


----------



## billd91 (Oct 3, 2006)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> -  Hermione is clearly Harry's superior as a wizard, in every respect except flying magic.




Hermione is certainly just about the smartest wizard of her age, very clever, very well read. But Harry is quicker with his decisions and has proven to be very good at surviving. Certainly not things to be dismissed and generally more applicable to his ambition to be an auror.



			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> -  I wonder how many parents would place their children at Hogwart's, if such a place existed (if magic and Voldemort and all the rest actually existed.)  If they would, would they tolerate Hogwart's treatment of their children.  Would they, for example, tolerate the high injury rate associated with Quidditch?  Would they tolerate life threatening detentions in the Forbidden Forest?




One thing to remember is that the wizard world has bona fide 'healers' and not just doctors. Magic can very quickly mend bones and other mundane sorts of injuries. And magic, while being immensely powerful on one hand, also seems to be relatively benign on the other. Most magical accidents seem to just end up in peope having bizarre behavioral quirks or other problems that, while serious, aren't critical or immediately fatal. It's almost like there's some kind of natural brake that gets put on magic that keeps it from being insanely destructive without the intention of making it so. The fact that the unforgivable curses seem to require you to _really_ want to inflict that sort of pain or death on someone bears this out.


----------



## Berandor (Oct 3, 2006)

billd91 said:
			
		

> [sblock]One thing to remember is that Harry is still an adolescent. He'll make poor choices, particularly in affairs of the heart, just like we all did... and it's because we were dumb and inexperienced.
> As far as being more protective of Ginny than Ron and Hermione, he's been getting into danger with them for years. They're grandfathered in. Harry thinks he's being noble, but I'll bet Ginny weighs in in the next book with a bit more force than Harry expects or the end of book six suggests. She's much more like Fred and George than Ron or Percy. She won't be that easy to put off.[/sblock]



 Yeah. I just hope she's not punished for it and Harry's proven right, that's all.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Oct 3, 2006)

(is reading through your responses, appreciates the feedback)


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Oct 3, 2006)

Chimera said:
			
		

> As you may have noticed, there was a significant change between the first book and the second.  Gone was a lot of the nonsensical stuff, like everyone singing a different song at the same time and Dumbledore stepping up to say a few words of gibberish.
> It's Good vs Evil, but not simple fairy tale stuff.
> Snape is an interesting character.  You need to read the rest of the series to understand the position he occupies in the tale.
> Magic is extremely dangerous.  You either learn how to deal with it and survive, or you will quite easily kill yourself.  Better to learn that in a controlled environment than experimenting on your own without help.




  Point taken.  I will be reading Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets/Prisoner of Azrabah (sp?) / Goblet of Fire very soon, so I can better discuss the subject.  Obviously, I can't do that with just the films.
  Based on what I know of Snape so far (from books 1 and 5) I would say he is justified in being angry and bitter, but that is irrelevant:  all anger does is eat you up and destroy you, without addressing the problem that made you angry (just my opinion.)  And I would expect better than this out of Severus Snape:  he dishonors himself and disgraces himself by his grudge and resultant behavior.
  Magic IS extremely dangerous.  What a pity that most Slytherins and most Griffindors, half of everyone else, most in the Ministry of Magic, and occasionally Dumbledore and Company themselves don't seem to realize this (grits teeth over said attitude problem ... )  If Voldemort isn't an object lesson, what is?  (There should be a class at Hogwarts, and it should be called Voldemort 101.  I mean it!)


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Oct 3, 2006)

Squire James said:
			
		

> I'm not going to answer all of them - some because I don't feel like it and others from sheer ignorance (like not having read the Pinnochio book).




  If you have the time, read Pinnochio.  It's an interesting read, especially in the context of Harry Potter.




			
				Squire James said:
			
		

> My opinion of her is not as good as yours.  I wouldn't hesitiate to call her a Good Writer, but I'm not ready to put her up on the pedastal with Tolkien and Asimov (the two I would put on top of the fantasy/sci-fi rankings, respectively) quite yet.  She's certainly Great at her strengths, but here weaknesses are Average or even Poor.  I don't begrudge her riches; she pretty much deserved to do well.




  Each to their own, of course.  Only time will tell on that.    (heh, get back to you in about 50 to 100 years on this!)



			
				Squire James said:
			
		

> I beg to differ - magic is certainly not 100% the subject of the stories, but it is hardly 0% either!  The stories seem to me to be all about a study of how magic might exist in a modern society without mimicing or replacing technology.




  I just got the overwhelming impression that the books were primarily about growing up, about responsibility and accepting it, about the pitfalls and problems of the world, and about consequences.  Just my take.  
  Yes, of course it's magic rich.  Poor Muggles got left out of the fun, though.



			
				Squire James said:
			
		

> Hermione clearly has more intelligence and skill than Harry, but Harry has more raw power.  She'd probably analyze-and-lose in a couple of situations where Harry acted-and-won.




  I don't understand.  What do you mean when you say:  Harry has more raw power.  What do you mean back that?  What do you mean by raw power?  (confused look)




			
				Squire James said:
			
		

> (snip)
> 
> I don't think they quite got all the kinks worked out with Wizard School yet... I mean they let the House of Slytherin exist, right?  It's hard to tell how much of the danger's real, and how much was set up to instill some fear in the students and curb overconfidence.




  I merely wish to comment that I would prefer to make my own choice concerning which House I was put into.  I don't believe that Sorting Hat should be determining - for the rest of their lives - which way children will go.  It hasn't got that right.
  If I was put at Hogwart's (theoretically) back when I was 11, and the Sorting Hat put me in Slytherin, I'd leave the school.  If forced to remain, I'd refuse to work, causing my forced expulsion.  That Hat wouldn't force me to stay around the likes of the Slytherins when I didn't want to be around them.  (That goes for any of the other Houses, too, where appropriate.)
  Yes, perhaps, children arriving and being Sorted had tendencies towards one House or another - AT THAT TIME.  But children change, and people change.  Dumbledore is completely out of line here (anyone got a handy Sphere of Annihilation that Sorting Hat could be stuffed in?    )



			
				Squire James said:
			
		

> Not quite.  They wouldn't be keeping themselves so secret if they weren't at least somewhat aware in the backs of their minds that Muggles and their technology could destroy them.  Even Valdemort seems pretty circumspect in how he kills them.




  Well, the muggles have nuclear weapons and whatnot.  But in a Muggle versus Wizard war, I think it'd be quick and decisive for the Wizards.  Just my take.
  The really big What If, which I can only speculate on, is the historical role of magic.  For example, what role did magic (and Hogwart's) play in World War I?  
  I do think the wizards are being elitist about muggles.  All of the wizards all being elitist.  And this just messes up an already Voldemort-messed-up situation further.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 3, 2006)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> The really big What If, which I can only speculate on, is the historical role of magic.  For example, what role did magic (and Hogwart's) play in World War I?




That way lies madness - the separation of Muggle and Wizard in the Potter universe is fine for YA fiction, but it quickly falls apart under scrutiny, and so do all elements of muggle-wizard world interactions.  It ain't pretty


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Oct 3, 2006)

Meloncov said:
			
		

> Not really. She's a quicker learner than Harry, but he has more raw power. As the series progreses, the balence of power shifts decidedly towords Harry, at least in combat magic.




  Hey there, Meloncov.
  You are the second person to say that Harry has more raw power than Hermione.  Again, I'm not understanding this.  What do you mean, more raw power?




			
				Meloncov said:
			
		

> Part of this is explained later in the series, but I think part of it is that British schools tend to leave students to solve their own problems, even to the point of ignoring bullying.




  I can't think of anything more dangerous, in a school of wizards, than ignoring bad behavior.  Bad behavior begets bad behavior.  Did they learn nothing from Voldemort?
  If Rowling is drawing your analogy, my statement is irrelevant to the point, obviously.



			
				Meloncov said:
			
		

> It seems counter-intuitive, but the books say that Quiditch injuries are relatively rare (Wood says that "a couple of broken jaws" is the worst injuries at Hogwarts have gotten). Combined with HP verse healing magic being far more effective than any Muggle technology, its argualby less dangerous than, say, football.




  What I meant, is the high rate of injuries of various sorts in general, at Hogwart's.  Of course, students are healed at Hogwart's infirmary.  But the injuries still occurred, and the students remember being injured, and being in pain.  So the existence of magical healing only partially mitigates matters.
  Of course, one would expect injuries in a school of magic.  That's a given.  An absolute given.  I was merely commenting on what came to mind:  if I, for example, sent my children off to Hogwart's, I do so knowing they would suffer assorted injuries.  That would require a particular mindset on my part.  Since Rowling draws so much allegory, it is fair to think upon the matter, I believe.



			
				Meloncov said:
			
		

> As for the detention, it really shouldn't have been that dangerous. If it hadn't been for Voldemort, nothing in the forest was likely to attack them. The centaurs dislike intruders, but not genocidally so (well, not yet) and I suspect the bit about werewolves was just a myth created to scare the students away from the forest.




  (grins)  I think detention at Hogwart's is generally one of those Nasty Things Avoided At All Costs (what adventurers might say about Acererak, for example.    )  It ain't an afterhours Study Hall session, no sir ...




			
				Meloncov said:
			
		

> You have to rebuild the magic system from the ground up. Harry Potter wizards don't use vanacian magic, and they get spells in an order that would make game balence tough (for example, the learn how to freeze someones limb in the first book, but not how to make light until the third.)




  LOL.  Harry Potter characters would run D&D characters down like tanks over deer.  Harry Potter could do things as a First Year you'd need to be 5th level to do in D&D, on an unlimited basis.  By 5th year, he was pushing 20th level in 3E terms, with no limit on spells.  Voldemort?  100th level? ...



			
				Meloncov said:
			
		

> I worked a little on a D20 Harry Potter game. We used a skill point based magic system; that is, you take rank in Transfiguration and you have to make a check to learn or cast a spell. It worked fairly well, but it made it so that no one had ranks to spare for spot and the like.




  I think that if wizards and sorcerers could use unlimited spells ala Harry Potter, and with the kind of magical might Harry, Hermione, and Ron could employ was involved, it would overwhelm the game pretty quick.  The Vancian system just can't handle it.
  What to do?  I don't know, frankly.  The Harry Potter setting is dominated by wizards.  I guess the D&D setting would be, too.  For fighters and rogues to compete, they would have to take wizard levels and go into PrCs.  How else could they even begin to compete?
  Still, it's intriguing.  What if, it could be done?  What would a Harry Potter style D&D setting be like, if we could manufacture one?  Would it be Netheril all over again?  Imaskari?  The Suel Imperium (Voldemort would have loved that ...) ?  Or a hybrid system, like Waterdeep, Cormyr, Thay, or the drow cities, or the Great Kingdom of Aerdi?  Hmmm ... (muses)


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Oct 3, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> (snip)
> 
> Just as teh stories are not about the magic, _per se_, it is important to remember that there's more to being a wizard than magical skill.  Hermione might be superior in a technical sense, Harry has her beat on some crucial points of character, in terms of active, adventuring wizardry.  Hermione would not make a better auror than Harry.




  Can you go in-depth here?  What makes Harry stronger than Hermione?  I asked this above, and ask again.  I just wish to hear what you have to say here.  Please.



			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> You cannot tell two people to sit down and deal with their problems unless they _desire_ to do so.  There is very little evidence that either Snape or Potter desire a good working relationship.  It is far more satisfying to each of them to vilify the other.  Until that changes, there will be no accord.




  I realize the story might be less interesting if Snape and Harry made up.
  But I think it reflects badly on them both that they refuse to do so.  Wielding great power means shouldering great responsibility, to use the old clique.  So, it's about time Harry and Snape started shouldering said responsibility, and cut it with the immaturity (ala, 5 points from both Slytherin and Griffindor Houses, each day, every day, until you two decide to GROW UP.  We've got a Voldemort problem to deal with, or didn't you get the memo?   )



			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> The risk inherent at Hogwarts seems to be readily matched by the healing and recovery magics available.  There is a comic bookishness about the universe - while the characters fear physical harm, evidence suggests that it is difficult to die from simple physical trauma, and magic is rarely directly deadly.  It seems there's only one spell designed to kill people outright...




  Well ok, we've got a Suspension of Disbelief here.  And obviously, a school of magic is going to be dangerous.  Again, though, since Rowling is dealing so heavily in allegory I thought it worth mentioning.  After all, children remember being hurt and are traumatized by such memories, even if they are healed from those injuries.
  It's just a musing on my part.  Would I send my children to Hogwart's, if I was a parent and I lived in that hypothetical world?  Good question.  I wouldn't want my children injured over and over, yet if I do not send them I deny them their heritage, and Voldemort kills them maybe.  Yet I don't want my children damaged again and again.  Not an easy choice for me to make ...


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 3, 2006)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> I don't understand.  What do you mean when you say:  Harry has more raw power.  What do you mean back that?  What do you mean by raw power?  (confused look)




He's a "stronger wizard". Many of the things Harry does, he can simply do because he has a natural talent for it. Look at the number of instances in which Harry picks something or other up and is able to use it right away, and do so well enough to impress veteran wizards.



> _I merely wish to comment that I would prefer to make my own choice concerning which House I was put into.  I don't believe that Sorting Hat should be determining - for the rest of their lives - which way children will go.  It hasn't got that right.
> If I was put at Hogwart's (theoretically) back when I was 11, and the Sorting Hat put me in Slytherin, I'd leave the school.  If forced to remain, I'd refuse to work, causing my forced expulsion.  That Hat wouldn't force me to stay around the likes of the Slytherins when I didn't want to be around them.  (That goes for any of the other Houses, too, where appropriate.)_




The Hat doesn't pick which House you go into. The Hat evaluates you and decides which House you best fit. It wouldn't put you, for example, in Slytherin, because you clearly don't have the A-type power-at-all-costs personality that seems to characterize Slytherin. You'd be sorted into a different House, one that presumably fit your personality.


----------



## Kid Charlemagne (Oct 3, 2006)

The wizarding world has an odd sense of danger - there's certainly been a sense that some parents feel Hogwart's may be too dangerous - in fact at one point the Ministry of Magic tries to de-fang the Defense against the Dark Arts classes and there is discussion of closing the school multiple times.  Things are more dangerous there right now because of Voldemort, of course.  Of course, if you want to really learn how to use magic, doing it in a totally safe environment will probably not be sufficient.

As to the Hermione-Harry power issue, Hermione seems to be more book-learned, but Harry seems to have the greater natural talent.  Since you haven't read all the books I don't know what I can tell you without spoilers.  Harry casts several spells that most other kids just plain can't do.  He's especially good with the Defense Agaisnt the Dark Arts spells.

In regards to the Snape-Harry conflict, Snape can't afford to look chummy with Potter.  As you get to the end of Half-Blood Prince, you'll see why.  Snape is playing a very dangerous, high stakes game, and it would likely be blown by getting chummy with Harry.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Oct 3, 2006)

Consider that I've read books 1 through 5 (the Order of the Phoenix), and am working on book 6.  Don't spoil The Half Blood Prince for me yet, but otherwise I'm willing to discuss the earlier books.

  Ok, I am going to courteously disagree again, but it seems to me that Hermione has the greater magical talent and greater magical strength (yeah I know:  Edena, bite your tongue!    )
  When Hermione picks up books, she is the faster one to grasp the knowledge therein.  
  When Hermione puts what she read into action, she is the faster and better to achieve results (a point that drove Snape nuts, I seem to remember.)

  This could be interpreted to mean, simply, that Hermione is brighter than Harry.  She's smarter.  Simple as that.
  It could also mean she has more magical aptitude (akin to real world mechanical aptitude, or mathematical aptitude, or reading aptitude, etc.) than Harry Potter does.
  It could mean both of these things.

  In addition, Hermione works harder than Harry, indicating a more serious attitude towards learning and understanding (Harry's attitude towards loyalty to his friends, loyalty to his principals and values, and his attitude towards Voldemort are, of course, extremely serious and more so than Hermione's.)
  While Harry, and Ronald Weasley in especial, are dreaming about Quidditch, Hermione is studying.  While Harry is playing hangman in class (a REAL BAD idea at Hogwart's, in my opinion!!) Hermione is studying.  While Harry is daydreaming, Hermione is studying (and listening.)  While Harry is bored, Hermione is studying (and interested.)
  Classically, who becomes great wizards?  Those who have it all handed to them on a silver platter, or those who fight for it?  (Harry fights very hard indeed, but it is for Hogwart's and his friends he fights, not to become a great wizard.)

  In fact, I am beginning to wonder if Harry Potter is supposed to become a great wizard at all, or if Rowling was fooling us from the start.
  Perhaps instead she meant him to be a great hero ... and a great *friend* and a great *person* ... but not so great a wizard after all.  Voldemort is, indeed, a great wizard, but that is no great thing.  Rather, it is a terrible thing.

  Hmmm.  

  Then again, Harry shows that experience - hands on training - is a good way for a wizard to become a wizard.  He is very bold in taking on such hands on training, from his willingness to take on Quirrel/Snape to his willingness to form and train the D.A.
  Yet Hermione was there with him, every step of the way (and Ronald Weasley, too.)  Perhaps Hermione is not as bold (she wasn't as eager to crash the Ministry of Magic) but she has been there every time.
  And Hermione has stood against her foes in toe to toe combat with all the courage (but not the sheer ferocity, necessarily) of Harry.
  So if Harry has Hermione beat on hands on experience, it is by not that much ...

  That leaves the final and most important thing, and that is motivation.
  In this, Harry has Hermione beaten hands down.  Harry has the raw drive, the burning fire, the tempermental and explosive need, to become a great wizard.
  Or does he?  Because he fluctuates, vacillates, back and forth.  First he is driven all but to the point of madness, obsessed to the elimination of all else, then ... he is dreaming about Quidditch.  Or busy playing hangman.  Then he is back to the all important drive to learn.  Back and forth, back and forth.
  Meanwhile, Hermione is steady in her dedication.

  (muses)  I must wonder who, between Harry and Hermione, would have a better chance at passing the Dragonlance Test (the Test of the Towers of High Sorcery) ?

  I know it's supposedly a tight race, but I think the Great Wizard title will go to Hermione.
  The Great Friend and Noble Person title will go to Harry.


----------



## Meloncov (Oct 3, 2006)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Hey there, Meloncov.
> You are the second person to say that Harry has more raw power than Hermione.  Again, I'm not understanding this.  What do you mean, more raw power?




For example, he can cast a far more powerful patronus. The spells Harry has down he does really, really well. Hermione, however, is competent in far more spells, so it comes down to versatility versus power.






			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> I can't think of anything more dangerous, in a school of wizards, than ignoring bad behavior.  Bad behavior begets bad behavior.  Did they learn nothing from Voldemort?



It also develops independence and self reliance, to things that Hogwarts tends to focus on.


			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> LOL.  Harry Potter characters would run D&D characters down like tanks over deer.  Harry Potter could do things as a First Year you'd need to be 5th level to do in D&D, on an unlimited basis.  By 5th year, he was pushing 20th level in 3E terms, with no limit on spells.  Voldemort?  100th level? ...




HP verse wizards have more spells than D&D verse wizards, but they have nothing on par with Earthquake spell for pure destruction, they cannot ressurect people, all of their spells can be dodged, and their divination magic is unreliable at best. I think high level D&D charecters have an advantage.


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 3, 2006)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Ok, I am going to courteously disagree again, but it seems to me that Hermione has the greater magical talent and greater magical strength (yeah I know:  Edena, bite your tongue!    )
> When Hermione picks up books, she is the faster one to grasp the knowledge therein.
> When Hermione puts what she read into action, she is the faster and better to achieve results (a point that drove Snape nuts, I seem to remember.)




She can put her learning to use, but Harry is better at things like curses, countercharms, and so on. Harry is much better at dueling than Hermione. He is better at broom riding. His skill at the various "auror" abilities clearly exceeds hers. If one of the group decides to try their hand at being an animagus, I'd put my money on Harry succeeding. And so on.

You really need to read Books 2-4 to get a handle on Harrys array of talents (not that Hermione doesn't have some too, but it is clear that Harry is just more naturally skilled than she is).


----------



## Umbran (Oct 3, 2006)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Can you go in-depth here?  What makes Harry stronger than Hermione?  I asked this above, and ask again.  I just wish to hear what you have to say here.  Please.




Note carefully that I didn't say Harry is "stronger", in a magical (or any other) sense.  I said he had her beat on crucial points of character in terms of active, adventuring wizardry.  

In short - Harry is more proactive, and takes far more and greater risks, than Hermione.  Given her druthers, Hermione would sit and do her studying, work in the library, and become an excellent technical wizard, but would never do much of anything.  Harry is headstrong, and largely incapable of keeping himself out of trouble.  So, while he's got less technical knowledge, he ends up with a lot more in terms of practical application.



> But I think it reflects badly on them both that they refuse to do so.  Wielding great power means shouldering great responsibility, to use the old clique.




To quote Pete from _The Muppets Take Manhattan_ - "Peoples is peoples."  

And, as for cutting out the immaturity - let us note that Harry _is immature_ - as in, he's only a kid!  If he was mature, he'd not be someone the target audience would identify with.  Not only would he be less interesting, he'd not be very believeable.

As for Snape... we don't get a good look inot his head.  I would not be too surprised if there's a lot more to his behavior than meets the eye.  




> After all, children remember being hurt and are traumatized by such memories, even if they are healed from those injuries.




Kids at Hogwarts seem to dodge the emotional trauma that comes from most simple physical damage.  It's the emotional stuff that matters - falling off the broom is far less an issue than having Malfoy tease you, I guess.  It's something that marks the Potter universe (and most fictional universes where "adventure" is a major element) as different from our own.  

Mind you, it gets to everyone eventually - see Mad Eye Moody as an example of a wizard who ends up slightly cracked by the trauma.  Most of them, like the Weasley family, seem to manage just fine.


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Oct 3, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> That way lies madness - the separation of Muggle and Wizard in the Potter universe is fine for YA fiction, but it quickly falls apart under scrutiny, and so do all elements of muggle-wizard world interactions.  It ain't pretty



And this is proof positive that JK isn't a Great writer. If your going to set your fantasy in the modern age you can't simply ignore modern technology, and everything else about the modern world that you find inconvienient, and still be Great. I'd like to see someone call a modern dectective story wrtiter who ignores ballistics and forensics in his stories be caller a Great writer. Or even get published. But HP is magic, and everyone knows that magic can do anything!


----------



## Victim (Oct 3, 2006)

I dunno, it takes Harry far longer to learn summoning than Hermione.  She seemed to learn the Patronicus okay, even if it's not as powerful as Harry's.  She doesn't have his vulnerability to a dementor's aura anyway, so she can probably get away with a weaker shield too.  

I'd say the difference is mostly in the ability to apply that training and skill in the middle of dangerous situations.  A decent countercurse NOW is better than the perfect one half a second too late.  Basically, Hermione is good at magic, and Harry is good at winning (with magic).


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Oct 4, 2006)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Well, the muggles have nuclear weapons and whatnot.  But in a Muggle versus Wizard war, I think it'd be quick and decisive for the Wizards.  Just my take.



Well when you consider the fact that mass gatherings of wizards, trains, entire REGIONS OF THE COUNTRY are made to go benignly unnoticed by every muggle on Earth, yeah the wizards win.  You can't make much use of mukes vs. wizards if the wizards don't first ALLOW you to see where their magical trains tracks are, where the schools are, the ministry of magic, certain infamous alleyways, buildings, London buses, creatures like dragons and griffons and werewolves and centaurs and living willow trees and mermen and the undead and mass murdering warlock dictator wannabes like Valdemort and huge freakin' giant snakes and three-headed dogs and and and...  What the muggles DON'T know fills... 6 books and counting.    And that's barely scratched the surface of the wizarding world.


----------



## Ilium (Oct 4, 2006)

Not to mention the fact that most wizards can teleport at will and no muggle building will have any protection against it.

Teleport into the enemy command building, drop off a Boggart, teleport out.  Wackiness ensues.


----------



## Phoenix8008 (Oct 4, 2006)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> When Hermione picks up books, she is the faster one to grasp the knowledge therein.
> When Hermione puts what she read into action, she is the faster and better to achieve results (a point that drove Snape nuts, I seem to remember.)



Agreed. But you also point out in just what ways Harry can be better. Hermione picks up books...and reads...and studies...and studies some more...and days later she can do a spell perfectly. She then goes and shows it to Harry who ends up needing just that exact spell in a tricky situation that night. So he just goes and casts it...based on what he saw and heard from Hermione. It's like the difference between a D&D Wizard and a Sorcerer. She will always have more versatility and knowledge than him, but when it counts, Harry will just DO IT. And do it with such power that vetran wizards will do a double take.



			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> This could be interpreted to mean, simply, that Hermione is brighter than Harry.  She's smarter.  Simple as that.



Yep. I agree 100%. Much of the time, Harry is just plain dumb! If you look at it D&D wise though, it's more a matter of his low wisdom getting him in trouble as opposed to low intelligence.



			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> It could also mean she has more magical aptitude (akin to real world mechanical aptitude, or mathematical aptitude, or reading aptitude, etc.) than Harry Potter does.
> It could mean both of these things.



More aptitude? Sure, why not. But understanding a machine you've read the manual for isn't the same as building a new machine nobody has ever thought of before. In the end, it comes down to this. Hermione's power comes from hard work and study of all that is possible based on what has come before. But Harry is like a great inventor. With new ideas and methods that can reshape and change the world. And like many great inventor's, he's also kinda lazy, absent-minded, and a knucklehead... except in his area of genius. Like an idiot savant sort of. 

Anyway, that's my take on it. I've read all the books (trust me, until you have you can't say you get what's happened in 1 through 5. SO MUCH is left out of the movies!) and I'm eagerly awaiting book 7 next July (7/7/07!!!). Hope you enjoy 6 once you finish it. Beware the twist!


----------



## Barendd Nobeard (Oct 4, 2006)

Sending your children off to school is, apparently, much more common in Great Britain than here in the U.S.  Just a cultural difference that (1) doesn't let characters run to Mum and Dad every time something goes wrong, and (2) gets Harry away from the Dursleys.

As for letting House Slytherin still exist, well, the old proverbs are best.  Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer.


----------



## sckeener (Oct 4, 2006)

I'd like to suggest Ars Magica for a RPG system to use in a HP universe.  The modern aspect would take some work but I think the magic system would work fairly well.  

Of the HP books, I liked Order of the Phoenix the best and Goblet of Fire the least.  

The only part of the Order of Phoenix that I didn't like was the love story between Harry and Cho.  IMHO, I do not think J. K. Rowling writes men in love well.

In Goblet of Fire, excluding the first challenge, what was the point of attending the events for the 2nd and 3rd events?  It must have been boring watching the champions enter and then sitting until it was over.


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 4, 2006)

sckeener said:
			
		

> I'd like to suggest Ars Magica for a RPG system to use in a HP universe.  The modern aspect would take some work but I think the magic system would work fairly well.




I would probably use something like _Big Eyes, Small Mouth_ to do a Harry Potter game. Maybe a modified version of _GURPS: Illuminati University_ would work too.


----------



## sniffles (Oct 4, 2006)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> However, I've always been annoyed by Dumbledore - there are numerous occasions where he could have shared a little more information a little earlier and things would have been very different. At one point I thought I was reading a Wheel of Time novel, if you know what I mean...



Personally one of the things I find most enjoyable (and frustrating at the same time) about the books is that Rowling's perceptions of people are fairly accurate. People do dumb things and make bad choices all the time. Dumbledore decides not to tell Harry something for reasons that seem good to him at the time he makes the decision, but later it turns out it would have been much better for him to have shared the information at an early stage. That's how things work in real life, too. 

I can remember thinking after reading the first book, "How could none of Harry's teachers at Muggle school notice how neglected he was? How could the Dursleys neighbors fail to notice how they were mistreating him? Why didn't Dumbledore do something?" But on reflection I realized that very likely that's how it would have worked out in the real world. Neighbors just don't pay attention. Teachers don't either, or perhaps they're afraid to make a stir. Dumbledore couldn't interfere, partly because of the restrictions on magic in the Muggle world, and partly because of other issues that are revealed in the later books (which I won't discuss in detail because I don't think you've read that one yet, Edena). 

Similarly, the relationship between Harry and Snape seems very 'real' to me because it mirrors what real people would likely do. People resent other people for often very trivial reasons, but there's usually very little that can overcome that visceral response, especially not rational thought.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Oct 4, 2006)

Kid Charlemagne said:
			
		

> As to the Hermione-Harry power issue, Hermione seems to be more book-learned, but Harry seems to have the greater natural talent.  Since you haven't read all the books I don't know what I can tell you without spoilers.  Harry casts several spells that most other kids just plain can't do.  He's especially good with the Defense Agaisnt the Dark Arts spells.




Mainly because he's had several teachers who've come in and specifically taught him. Teachers and the research that he's gotten Hermoine to do for him.

[sblock]He's had Snape try to teach him mind-blocking techniques. Not that Harry was quite the learner against Snape. It'd be interesting to see if he really can pull it off in Book 7[/sblock]



> In regards to the Snape-Harry conflict, Snape can't afford to look chummy with Potter.  As you get to the end of Half-Blood Prince, you'll see why.  Snape is playing a very dangerous, high stakes game, and it would likely be blown by getting chummy with Harry.




Getting chummy with Harry might've made people thought him too nice instead of that "Bad Teacher" every kid dreads in school. Harry certainly dreaded Snape's potions classes due to being around Snape and not being really good at making potions. His specialization lay elsewhere: facing Voldemort. 

Kinda makes ya wonder what brought on the "Curse of the Defense Against The Dark Arts Teachers"..... talk about the crummy job that you'd think no one would want.... but several have craved it. Including one Severus Snape.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Oct 4, 2006)

Ilium said:
			
		

> Not to mention the fact that most wizards can teleport at will and no muggle building will have any protection against it.
> 
> Teleport into the enemy command building, drop off a Boggart, teleport out.  Wackiness ensues.




Yeah. But they have to be at least a certain age and have a license to do so. And probably rules against such actions. It'd be the same thing as using magic in the muggle world and against wizard law. The same law that got Harry into trouble on at least one occasion.


----------



## Tiberius (Oct 5, 2006)

Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> Kinda makes ya wonder what brought on the "Curse of the Defense Against The Dark Arts Teachers"..... talk about the crummy job that you'd think no one would want.... but several have craved it. Including one Severus Snape.




Dumbledore addresses this point in Book 6.

[sblock]Tom Riddle, already on his path to immortality and possibly having already created a Horcrux, returned to seek the post as DAtDA instructor. Dumbledore theorized that he was looking to make use of the vast repository of magical knowledge that is the school in his quest. When Dumbledore turns him down for the job, he curses the position. Hogwart's hasn't had a Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher for more than a year since.[/sblock]


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Oct 5, 2006)

(finishes The Half Blood Prince, and sighs wearily, and sadly)


----------



## TheNovaLord (Oct 5, 2006)

Meloncov said:
			
		

> For example, he can cast a far more powerful patronus. The spells Harry has down he does really, really well. Hermione, however, is competent in far more spells, so it comes down to versatility versus power.




sounds classic wizard versus sorceror

JohnD


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Oct 5, 2006)

TheNovaLord said:
			
		

> sounds classic wizard versus sorceror
> 
> JohnD




Yep. Harry seems more the sorcerer than a wizard. That is if you're applying D&D context to HP. He learns more by intuition than by actual bookwork. Whereas Hermoine is the opposite.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Oct 5, 2006)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> (finishes The Half Blood Prince, and sighs wearily, and sadly)




Aye. That was a bummer at the end. 

[sblock]How many of you think Hagrid's next?[/sblock]


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Oct 5, 2006)

I've forgotten how to do the Spoiler tag thing you're doing (it is well for me I'm not at Hogwart's!)
  I wish to ask the moderators if I can set up a second, Spoiler marked (in the title) Harry Potter thread?

  I think you have something there:  Harry makes the better Sorcerer, and Hermione the better Wizard.


----------



## Ilium (Oct 5, 2006)

To see how to do a spoiler, just click the Quote button on Darth K'Trava's post.  You'll see what he typed including the sblock tags.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 6, 2006)

Meloncov said:
			
		

> For example, he can cast a far more powerful patronus. The spells Harry has down he does really, really well. Hermione, however, is competent in far more spells, so it comes down to versatility versus power.




We really don't know this, though. The only patronus that Hermione's ever cast, that we've seen, was in the DA meeting and so relative power is impossible to judge. But I think you do have a point that whenever Harry manages to get a spell down (which takes a while), he's usually pretty good at it.

As Umbran points out, the main difference between the two, aside from Hermione being a supremely quick study of things magical as well as personal, is that Harry's a do-er. A bit too impulsive at it, perhaps, but he takes risks, he scrambles up quick and effective plans, and manages to succeed.


----------



## Ilium (Oct 6, 2006)

I agree.  Harry seems able to function under the kind of pressure that makes most people go to pieces.

In d20 terms, he seems to be able to Take 10 on casting rolls even when in combat or under stress.


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Oct 6, 2006)

Ilium said:
			
		

> I agree.  Harry seems able to function under the kind of pressure that makes most people go to pieces.
> 
> In d20 terms, he seems to be able to Take 10 on casting rolls even when in combat or under stress.



That or he's got a bucketload of Action Points.

I'm still inclined to give the power advantage to Harry, not only for the extra oomph he can put into his spells when in a pinch (there's a pretty good editorial over at Mugglenet.com that describes the instances that Harry's made use of "excessive force" with his spells, especially when they should have a much milder effect).  When he gets his act together and focuses, he is able to learn new spells pretty quick, such as the Summoning Charm he mastered in just over a day in Goblet of Fire, and so far he's the only non-adult known to have conjured a Patronus in a combat situation, let alone one powerful enough to chase away a flock of dementors (something we've only seen Dumbledore do).  He's also done wandless magic at least once, and that's supposed to be very difficult to accomplish.  For the non-verbal spells, that's more a case of study than power, as Hermoine apbly proves, being the quickest to get used to non-verbal magics.

Hermoine's the brains of the outfit to be sure, but she's not always able to make the best use of what she knows.  Kind of reminds me of the Aesop Fable of the cat and the fox, where the cat only has one trick to avoid a pack of dogs (climbing up a tree) while the fox has a plethora of tricks, but ends up getting caught because he couldn't decide which of his many tricks to use.


----------



## sniffles (Oct 6, 2006)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> (finishes The Half Blood Prince, and sighs wearily, and sadly)



Ah, yes, welcome to the club. We shall all sit glumly together awaiting release of the next book.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Oct 7, 2006)

We do indeed, and apparently anything could happen ...
  When is the book being released?  Anyone?

  Let me try to address the Harry versus Hermione issue from a Dragonlance perspective.
  Remember the (dreadful) Test of the Towers of High Sorcery?
  The Test tested personal dedication to wizardry, understanding of one's own self, judgement (no kender EVER passed the Test), intellect and magical aptitude, general wisdom, and specific understandings concerning magic (such as, how to use it to best effect in combat.)
  Passing the Test allowed a character to proceed past 3rd level.  Failure meant death (no exception ever made.)  Those who passed were often permanently injured, physical and/or psychologically.  Temporary severe injury was certain.
  Some notables who did pass the Test included Raistlin, Par-Salian, Justarius, Ladonna, Dalamar, Palin, and Fistandantilus. 

  Let us say that the Harry Potter characters meet all the requisites for taking the Test, ignoring the age requirement, and assuming they are the equivalent of 3rd level.
  Who is most likely, and who is least likely, amongst them, to pass or fail this test, in your opinion?  (obviously, you need to understand Dragonlance and the Test to answer the question here ... I know many of you on ENWorld know about Dragonlance!)

  Also, for the purpose of this question, assume each of the Harry Potter characters has finished their 5th year at Hogwart's, and taken their OWL.  Thus, they are of relatively equal ages, for the purposes of this question (16 years of age, typically.)  Use their thinking and understandings at the end of their 5th year at Hogwart's, for the purpose of determining their qualifications for the Test.

  Here is my take on the question:

  Hermione Granger (likely to pass the Test)
  Harry Potter (likely to pass the Test)
  Draco Malfoy (likely to pass)
  Ginny Weasley (likely to pass)
  Ron Weasley (somewhat likely to pass)
  Percy Weasley (likely to fail)
  Dean Thomas (likely to fail)
  Katie Bell (likely to fail)
  Fleur De'Cleur (very likely to fail)
  Lucy Lovegood (very likely to fail)
  Neville Longbottom (very likely to fail)
  Pansy Parkinson (extremely likely to fail)
  Lavender Brown (extremely likely to fail)
  Crabbe (almost certain to fail)
  Goyle (almost certain to fail)
  George Weasley (almost certain to fail)
  Fred Weasley (almost certain to fail)


----------



## billd91 (Oct 7, 2006)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> We do indeed, and apparently anything could happen ...
> When is the book being released?  Anyone?
> 
> Let me try to address the Harry versus Hermione issue from a Dragonlance perspective.
> ...





I think you're way off on some of these. Fred and George, assuming they'd even bother to take the test, would pass it with flying colors. No characters in the stories so far have been as comfortable with themselves and driven to accomplish the things they want to accomplish than Fred and George. Truth to tell, they'd probably find some loophole around parts of it and fool the test itself.
Neville Longbottom gets stronger and more confident as the stories move along. He'll surprise you in book 7, I'd bet on it.
Percy Weasley would probably also pass. He may have certain social problems, but he's ambitious and talented enough to make head boy. He's also clearly as brave as his father and elder brothers when it comes to personal risk. He'd pass.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Oct 7, 2006)

Could you rank them, then?  And add in the characters I missed?  (I know I missed quite a few, too.)


----------



## WayneLigon (Oct 7, 2006)

Barendd Nobeard said:
			
		

> As for letting House Slytherin still exist, well, the old proverbs are best.  Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer.




Being in House Slytherin doesn't mean you're a Dark wizard. A number apparently come from that House, but Slytherin seems to be more about power and self-advancement than evil.

Even then, though, being a Dark wizard apparently doesn't come with an automatic black ball or jail sentence. They know where an entire shopping district for Dark wizards exists. The Slavic school that attends the Tri-Wizard Tournament has Dark teachers and such; it's likely that Viktor himself will probably be a Dark wizard.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 7, 2006)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Could you rank them, then?  And add in the characters I missed?  (I know I missed quite a few, too.)




I'm just not sure I see much of a point to guessing at most characters. Lavender Brown, Dean Thomas, Katie Bell, and Pansy Parkinson are characters we actually know very little about with respect to their magical skill. They're in the background with a few appearances on stage at best.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Oct 8, 2006)

I'm making best guesses, based on how they've reacted to events, and on their achievements at Hogwart's.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 8, 2006)

I'm not really sure why the issue of the danger of sending kids to Hogwarts even comes up, given the physical, emotional and pyschological danger and damage people send their children into in regular, real life school every day. I have yet to meet someone who has come through compulsory "education" without considerable scarring.


As far as the Harry/Hermione thing they pretty much state that Hermione is better than Harry at everything save Flying and Defense Against the Dark Arts. The world of Harry Potter seems to have very little concept of "raw power" in magic, like we find in most fantasy. We know that Dumbledore and Voldemort are considered vastly more powerful than most other Wizards, but beyond that its not gone into much. Since we rarely see magical combat, and since the magic is almost always based on predefined spells rather than personal direct usages of magic, its hard to define.


I'm not sure I entirely believe in the "Great Author" concept. How good a story is is almost entirely a matter of opinion, and even technique is subjective. I enjoy her writting, and I think she is a great "plotter" a skill I greatly lack as a writer. Even though I have never read Mystery fiction, she seems to me more like a Mystery writer, with her intricate plots, and all the twists, and the fact that especially in the early books, there is usualy a "whodunit" mystery of some kind, or more than one.
  I think J.K. Rowling's work has had a huge impact on literature and culture, and will long be remembered. I think the impact is mostly positive.
  For those of us who are hardcore fantasy fans, there are some flaws. Mostly coming, I think, from the fact that she doesnt really seem to be a "fantasy author." She has never really defined the nature or workings of magic in her world, explained the difference or split-off point between Muggles and Wizards, or really developed a mythology for the magical aspects of her world. However, she has made magic powerful, and its created a few inconsistencies, like why the Weasleys despite being poor, would have issues with broken down or tattered possessions, since its obviously easy to repair and alter things with magic. 
  I personally dislike the fact that she pulls a Star Wars RPG type thing and catagorizes almost any spell that does real harm or could kill someone as "Dark" or "Forbidden" magic. I dont personally consider violence or even killing as inherently evil things...some times one must do such things in defense of yourself or another. It also seems a little odd...I wonder if killing another person, regardless of circumstances or how you do it, automatically lands you in Azkaban, since using Avada Kadvra against another person does so, again regardless of circumstances.
  I also dislike that most magical creatures have been "dumbed down" into basically animals. But those are all just my tastes...I think Rowling is a very talented writer.

I definitely agree with the statement that although there is a LOT of magic in the books, they arent about magic. Honestly the magic is mostly plot devices and window dressing...some times to much so for my taste.





> Harry Potter emphasizes the profound unfairness of the world, in allegory.





I'm not sure it specifically tries to do that, but it may nevertheless.




> What level would Harry Potter be, in his various years, in D&D? Ron? Hermione? McGonagal? Snape? Dumbledore? Voldemort? What manner of translation would be needed to make Hogwart's into a 3rd edition setting, or vice versa?





I think its mostly pointless to even speculate, because the two are so totally different. Rowling has thrown a lot of magical stuff in with seemingly little regard for its implications...DND on the other hand careful weighs things before including them (unless its Divine stuff of course.)





> In Harry Potter, it seems wizards rule the world. Do they? Would they do so in D&D, if they could so freely cast spells instead of using the Vancian system? Or perhaps their need for focuses (wands) is a crippling drawback? If they are so powerful, what would one do with fighters, rogues, and clerics to compensate them in a Harry Potter setting?





In any world featuring mage-types that wield magic capable of doing nearly anything, and in which there are large numbers of said mage-types, they almost certainly could rule said world if they wished, unless there is a larger limitation at play. In Earthsea for instance, Wizards are powerful enough to rule the world, but their knowledge of the Pattern and Balance prevents them from doing so. 

Its hard to say in Harry Potter, mostly again because of Rowling's odd aproach to magic. Huge pocket-dimension tents are commonplace, yet there is almost no offensive magic..



Just some of my thoughts..


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Oct 9, 2006)

Would anyone like to rank them according to their survival chances against the Dragonlance Test?
  Anyone?

  I was a DL fan (still am) and knew a lot of DL fans.  We all knew about the dreaded Test, and I just thought it might be an appropriate way to sort these characters (no, it is not the definite measure of who is the 'best wizard' - Par-Salian and Fistandantilus alike would throw conniption fits if they heard me say that - but it does have it's merits.)


----------



## shilsen (Oct 9, 2006)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Would anyone like to rank them according to their survival chances against the Dragonlance Test?
> Anyone?




[Spock]There is not enough data to formulate a viable conclusion, Captain.[/Spock]


----------



## Loincloth of Armour (Oct 9, 2006)

Who is stronger in magic, Harry or Hermione?  Hard to say, Harry after all has 'main character' powers that allow him to survive certain death.  It would cut the series short if he didn't.

There were two times where their relative levels of magic _could_ have been compared directly: the third year DADA final and their O.W.L.S.  As Hermione says herself in OotP:

_"You beat me in our third year - the only year we both sat the test and had a teacher who actually knew the subject."_

However... the part of the test Hermione failed and Harry passed was facing off against a boggart.  Harry had been facing boggarts _all year_ thanks to Professor Lupin: Hermione had _never_ faced one.  Not exactly a fair measure of skill.  As shown when Harry faced his first boggart, he fainted.

And consider their O.W.L.S: Hermione Outstanding in everything, except DADA, where she took Exceeds Expectations.  Harry's only Outstanding was DADA, which is to be expected from someone who had gone through the stuff he's done over the years.

It should also be noted that Hermione was designing N.E.W.T. level spells of her own design (coin messaging and SNEAK hexes) long before anybody else.  That has to take skill and power.

While others in the DA were having trouble summoning their Patronus, Hermione had her silver otter sailing around.

And in Goblet of Fire (pg 529), Hermione was able to blast through Harry's Shield Charm.

I think it comes down to the fact that Harry is a better combat mage.  He's faster on the reaction, quicker on the uptake and generally more sure of himself when faced with immediate life-threatening situations.  He reacts a split-second faster and generally makes the right choice when under pressure.

Hermione is (unquestionably) smarter and knows more lore and spells than Harry ever will.  From the examples I'd say she holds the edge in power and ability as well, she's just a bit slower on the move when the time comes for action, which gives Harry the edge in DADA stuff.

She's also not the main character, so she losses in the 'plot happens' category.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 9, 2006)

Loincloth of Armour said:
			
		

> There were two times where their relative levels of magic _could_ have been compared directly: the third year DADA final and their O.W.L.S.  As Hermione says herself in OotP:
> 
> _"You beat me in our third year - the only year we both sat the test and had a teacher who actually knew the subject."_
> 
> However... the part of the test Hermione failed and Harry passed was facing off against a boggart.  Harry had been facing boggarts _all year_ thanks to Professor Lupin: Hermione had _never_ faced one.  Not exactly a fair measure of skill.  As shown when Harry faced his first boggart, he fainted.




I was actually just reading this. It's my son's bed time story. You're mis-remembering parts of this but it's not really that important. We don't know, ultimately, how their grades are formulated over the course of the year. Though I think we can assume that the boggart episode in class, in which neither Harry nor Hermione get to face it, is only one of many practical lesson classes that add to their grades. I would presume that throughout the course of the year, Harry manages to pull ahead of Hermione. But then, with all the extra tutoring he gets, that's to be expected.
Harry excels through 2 things: being quick and decisive on his feet (and wand) and in working hard to master something when he's well motivated to do it.


----------



## Loincloth of Armour (Oct 9, 2006)

billd91 said:
			
		

> I was actually just reading this. It's my son's bed time story. You're mis-remembering parts of this but it's not really that important.




Actually I've got both books open before me.  I'm talking about the end of year exam, not the boggart the other members of the class faced early in the year. 

Prisoner of Azkaban page 234:

_'Excellent, Harry,' Lupin muttered, as Harry climbed out of the trunk _[with a boggart] _grinning.  'Full marks.'_

and a few lines lower

_Hermione did everything perfectly until she reached the trunk with the boggart in it._

The only difference between them there was their response to the boggart.  Professor Lupin had been helping Harry face boggarts all year to help him deal with Dementors.  As far as we know, it was Hermione's first time facing off against one.  Harry didn't do any better his first few times against a boggart.




> Harry excels through 2 things: being quick and decisive on his feet (and wand) and in working hard to master something when he's well motivated to do it.




We mostly agree.  But even when motivated ("I'm going to be facing a dragon!") he still has a heck of a time learning the summoning charm in Goblet of Fire.  Other than broom flying (and divination) Hermione pretty much cleans up in learning and using spells.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 9, 2006)

Loincloth of Armour said:
			
		

> Actually I've got both books open before me.  I'm talking about the end of year exam, not the boggart the other members of the class faced early in the year.




Fair enough. I'm not up to that point again in the book and it has been a few years since I had last read it.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Oct 11, 2006)

I think that   ...

  [sblock]

  Voldemort has already won, and won completely, as of the end of Book Six.

  Harry Potter has said he would not return to Hogwarts if it reopened.  Consider that, folks.
  At the end of Book One, he practically considers it his home (in the film, he says this, but in the book it's pretty much implied.)  Now ... he wouldn't return to it, if it reopened?  He has gone from considering it home, to hating it to the point of never returning, even to finish his education?
  Voldemort did this.  Voldemort sent his people in to bring grief to Harry Potter.  And Voldemort is indirectly responsible for the horrors visited on Harry by many other people.  Most of Harry's bad Hogwart's experiences stem from Voldemort ... and they have added up and now Harry hates the school even more, it would appear, than he hates the Dursleys.

  And now, consider this ...

  Hogwart's is a heavily fortified fortress.  If you take the combined strength of Voldemort's enemies and the student body (the majority of whom oppose Voldemort) and their parents (if sheltered at Hogwarts) and those fey creatures who stand with Hogwarts, you have a strong army in a strong citadel.
  Which is desperately needed because Voldemort is back in his full might, and he has his army fully readied and on the offensive now.  And Voldemort is stronger than any opposing wizard in the world, in a one on one match.  Dumbledore, his only equal, is dead and gone.
  Harry Potter is smart enough to know this.  Indeed, he and his friends remark on it before McGonagall foolishly closes the school (but then, McGonagall was never very smart ... )

  Panicked parents trying to defend their children, alone in their poorly defended and/or undefended and/or undefendable houses, is a real bad idea right now.  As Harry and his friends noted.
  The Ministry of Magic?  They are total incompetents, and they lost to Voldemort long ago.  They cannot protect anyone.

  So why would Harry Potter abandon Hogwarts, when he knows Hogwarts is the best defense his peers (including the Weasleys, and Hermione, and his other friends) have?
  Or does Harry simply not care enough about his peers anymore?
  Perhaps Harry is so damaged from the way he has been treated, at Hogwarts (through Voldemort), at Hogwart's (due to the way things are done at Hogwarts), by the Ministry of Magic, and by others ... they he simply does not care anymore?

  I think this is the case.  The new Harry Potter:  the Harry Potter who no longer cares, who no longer feels, who is hard and cynical and uncaring.
  How could Voldemort *possibly* have won a greater victory, than to have accomplished this?  I could not imagine a greater victory.
  They could go and kill Voldemort completely (all those Horcruxes, everything) and all his followers ... but Voldemort has still won.  He has won for all eternity, if Harry Potter has become the thing he appears to have become.

  I must confess that this is extremely disheartening.  But there it is.  Voldemort has won.  Voldemort is persevering, if nothing else ... and patience and perseverence pays off.
  He has destroyed Harry Potter.  Everything else he does, from this point forth, is chickenfeed in comparison.

  [/sblock]


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 11, 2006)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> I think that   ...
> 
> [sblock]
> 
> ...




I think you are totally wrong.

In a meta sense, you are wrong because that would make for a really lousy story. Especially so for a story that is aimed at children.

In a thematic sense, you are wrong because [sblock]it presupposes that Harry's actions amount to such a catipulation, rather than an attempt to change from playing defense (which the "good guys" have been doing up until now), to playing offense in an attempt to hunt down and eliminate the threat at the source. It also assumes that Harry _won't_ go back to Hogworts, which I think is a big assumption, despite his stated intentions not to.[/sblock]


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Oct 11, 2006)

If I am right, then:

  [sblock]

  I think the Harry Potter books should be in the same category as Dicken's famous Oliver Twist stories.  
  To place the Harry Potter books in the same category as, say, the Oz books is not appropriate.  The level of angst, pain, and outright horror in Harry Potter is too great to allow for that.
  This is ironic, since Book One was in the category of the Oz books, and one might have thought the whole series would have continued in that vein.  However, each book is darker than the last one, the series becomes rapidly darker than even Pinnochio is (the book), until it leaves the Oz category and joins the Oliver Twist realm.
  I am guessing that many would approve of this, obviously.

  As I have said before, and say again, it looks like the bad side wins.  It seems the bad side has already won.  No regular magic needed to do it.  Just a heart corrupted by too much horror and pain.  Or as Dumbledore would have said, the destruction of the greatest magic of all.
  The jury is out until Book Seven arrives.  But there is this lurch in my stomach that says Rowling will fulfill my expectations.  I hope she doesn't, but I'm guessing she will.

  (sighs)

  Edena_of_Neith

  [/sblock]


----------



## Storm Raven (Oct 11, 2006)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> If I am right, then:
> 
> [sblock]
> 
> ...




I still think you are completely off-base here.

[sblock]First off, the Oz books are not, and really have never been, the right comparison. Roald Dahl's books are more in line with the Harry Potter universe. BUt that is neither here nor there.

Basically, having the books end with Voldemort winning, and having won already by the end of Book Six, would make for a really lousy story. It would kill the series, destroy books sales for Book Seven, and probably eliminate any significant market for the books in the future. Good children's book series last forever, as new generations of children are given them by their parents to read. Susan Cooper wrote _The Dark Is Rising_, and the rest of books in her series in the sixties, and they are still in print. Madeline L'Engle's books have had similar durability. Laura Ingalls Wilder's books have lasted even longer.

But writing a Book Seven in a way that make Voldemort "already have won" by the end of Book Six (or having Voldemort win at all) would kill this. Most readers would react badly to such an outcome. Word of mouth would destroy the books current sales, and then kids who have read the series as they came out wouldn't bother to hand their kids copies in fifteen years. Rowling would be shooting herself in the foot.

Plus, I think you are reading way too much into Harry's desire not to return to Hogworts in the upcoming year. First off, you assume that he won't, which I think is a dubious assumption. Each year events have conspired to get Harry to Hogworts on schedule and more or less in one piece. The bulk of the characters built up over six books are there, and avoiding the location will simply toss those characters aside for no real good reason. I think that Harry will decide to be back, probably after, say, Dumbeldore's painting, McGonegal, and Hagrid point out that trying to fight Voldemort on his own without completeing his education probably won't work.

Second, I think you take Harry's proactive decision ("I'm going to go out and get Voldemort") far too negatively. Deciding to hunt down and confront your enemy is not necessarily despair, it could very well be determination and courage. Look at it this way: every time Harry has confronted Voldemort (or his minions) up until now, it has been at a time and place of _their_ choosing, not his. And yet he has survived every time, and even dealt them setbacks. Perhaps if he chooses the time and place for the fight, things will go differently.[/sblock]


----------



## Umbran (Oct 11, 2006)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> If I am right, then:
> 
> [sblock]
> As I have said before, and say again, it looks like the bad side wins.  It seems the bad side has already won.  No regular magic needed to do it.  Just a heart corrupted by too much horror and pain.  Or as Dumbledore would have said, the destruction of the greatest magic of all.
> [/sblock]




Well... [sblock]
...of course it looks like the bad side wins - that's simple dramatic structure.  It is always darkest just before the dawn, and all that.  You have the most dramatic possibilities if the good guys are against the ropes, struggling hard, just before the end.  If the good guys were in a decent position goign into the last book, it doesn't seem all that spectacular if they do win.

Plus, given some facts, we know that Hogwarts is not where Harry has to be if he's going to win.  Assume, for the moment, that leaving Voldemort alive is not an option - it only delays the inevitable.  So, Voldemort must be slain.  That means there's a stack of horcruxes (horcruxen?) that need to be found and destroyed.  Unless Voldemort is extremely stupid, they won't all be found at Hogwarts.  Hence, Harry has to be elsewhere to destroy them.

Now, Voldemort may well still have some pyhrric victory, because of the outside chance that Harry himself is a horcrux...[/sblock]

And btw, it is far easier to carry on conversation if you label the thread as containing spoilers, and do away with all the spoiler blocks.  Note how much of the conversation now needs to be blocked off - it is nigh impossible to talk about the books in this manner without revealing things from the books - so spoilers are inevitable.


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Oct 11, 2006)

Like Umbran said, Boox Six is "the darkness just before the dawn."

As a comparison, look at Empire Strikes Back.  Unless Luke & Co. have a really wonky description of victory, they got their butts kicked.  But in the next movie they manage to turn it around and topple the Empire.

As for Harry's comments at the end of Boox 6, we're seeing him immediately after what has to be one of the most traumatic moments of his life, and he's still reeling from it.  Once he's had a chance to "cool his jets," Harry's outlook might change drastically.  He'd be a complete idiot to think he could accomplish his mission without help.  Just becuase he has to fight the final fight on his own doesn't mean he can't accept a little help along the way, as has been proven many times by Ron, Hermoine, and many others throughout the series, even though each book often ends with Harry facing the main threat on his own (save Book 5, where he was really in over his head in that case).

He probably will go back to Hogwarts (which I imagine will re-open), using it as a sort of base of operations while trying to complete the rest of his mission.

And we get spoilers added to the title of this thread?


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Oct 11, 2006)

Spoiler Warning is up.  If I create another thread (if this thread reaches 500 posts and overloads) I will put Spoiler Warnings up for subsequent threads.


  SPOILING WARNING FOR ALL FUTURE POSTS IN THIS THREAD

  -

  -

  -

  SPOILER WARNING

  -

  -

  -

  SPOILING WARNING

  -

  -

  -


  Ok ...

  I think Rowlings made a mistake here.
  The Empire Strikes Back is a good analogy, but it would have accounted for books 3, 4, and 5 in the Harry Potter series (the middle books.)  We are at the end of Book 6.
  Where is there enough time for Harry to find Voldemort's four remaining Horcruxes in Book Seven?  Return of the Jedi needs Books 5, 6, and 7, as it were, not just book 7 (even if you leave out those ewoks ...)

  What we need are Books 7, 8, and 9.  Maybe 10.  Voldemort carefully concealed his Horcruxes.  Finding them and taking them out should take a while.

  On another front, Harry is supposed to take Voldemort out.  Fair enough.
  But is he going to just go off and do this alone?  He should realize from his own background that teamsmenship is the only way to win.  He needs Hermione and Ron.  He needs Neville and Lucy.  He needs Ginny.  He needs George and Fred.  He needs McDonagall, Sprout, Flickwick, Hootch (sp?), and Lupin.  And yes, he needs Snape (unfortunately, seems like Voldemort has pretty much convinced everyone on that one.)

  Voldemort, if he shows up alone to fight Harry Potter, would be awfully foolish to do so, in my opinion.  A smart Voldemort would have every ally he could summon to the fight, and hurl them at Harry first.
  Indeed, if Voldemort looks at the facts, he will see that teamwork is what beat Dumbledore.  Draco opened the door, and the Death Eaters came in force.
  So if Harry DOES insist on fulfilling the prophesy literally (he just runs off and takes on Voldemort alone, as Luke did the Emperor alone), he is history.  He is only a 6th level student at Hogwarts (and, I would argue, not the best or brightest of those students) not the greatest living wizard (Voldemort) in the world.

  Should Rowling have made things dark?  Probably.
  But why this dark?  Why focus on the dark so very much?
  I would like to see more of Flitwick and Sprout, more of Hagrid, more of Nick, more merriment and humor and lightness.  Not everything Hogwarts is Snape, or Filch, or sadistic Ministry of Magic badness.
  It just seems like Voldemort and his influence has come in and taken over, right from the start.  Before Harry ever had a chance to really grow to love Hogwarts as he should have loved it, Voldemort came in and poisoned everything.  Voldemort, persistent Voldemort, just threw his poison splattering over every character and every event, until Hogwarts made the Dursleys seem friendly in comparison.
  This is why I say it should go in the Oliver Twist category.  That famous series, by the renown Charles Dickens, focused on the darkness and tragedy also.  But I think this series is going to be a little rough on kids.  It needs to lighten up:  not everything is grim gloom.

  If Rowling kills Harry Potter, as some people thought she might do, then my point is made in spades.  But I hope that it doesn't come to that.  What is the point of that?  Where is the joy in reading for the reader if that happens? 
  If Ron and/or Hermione fall, the same thing goes, to a lesser extent.

  Just some thoughts.

  Edena_of_Neith

  SPOILER WARNING

  -

  -

  -

  SPOILER WARNING

  -

  -

  -

  SPOILER WARNING


----------



## Merlion (Oct 11, 2006)

> Where is there enough time for Harry to find Voldemort's four remaining Horcruxes in Book Seven? Return of the Jedi needs Books 5, 6, and 7, as it were, not just book 7 (even if you leave out those ewoks ...)





Well bear in mind that book 7 is probably going to be quite a long book regardless, just judging from the ones going before it. And there are only 4 horcruxes remaining, and he does have some information to go on.


Basically Rowling is just going to have to reign in the sub-mysteries and focus on tying up the story in book 7. 




> But is he going to just go off and do this alone? He should realize from his own background that teamsmenship is the only way to win. He needs Hermione and Ron. He needs Neville and Lucy. He needs Ginny. He needs George and Fred. He needs McDonagall, Sprout, Flickwick, Hootch (sp?), and Lupin. And yes, he needs Snape (unfortunately, seems like Voldemort has pretty much convinced everyone on that one.)





He will no doubt realize that as book 7 progresses, although I wouldnt be surprised if it did come down to just him and Voldemort in the end.




> But why this dark? Why focus on the dark so very much?





Because its the end of the story. Because as mentioned, the darker things look towards the end, the more powerful it will be when good triumphs in the end. 




> I would like to see more of Flitwick and Sprout, more of Hagrid, more of Nick, more merriment and humor and lightness





Thats what the first four books...well, the first three and most of four...were for. Even though things took a more serious tone in book 3, from the begining till the end of Goblet of Fire, the story is pretty lighthearted. Now its time to really get serious. 




> It just seems like Voldemort and his influence has come in and taken over, right from the start. Before Harry ever had a chance to really grow to love Hogwarts as he should have loved it, Voldemort came in and poisoned everything.





I disagree. Harry comes to love Hogwarts immediately, and experiences four years of (very eventful) happiness there. Nothing that has happened has actually changed that.




> This is why I say it should go in the Oliver Twist category. That famous series, by the renown Charles Dickens, focused on the darkness and tragedy also





I'm not really a big fan of genre labels or catagories, so this doesnt really make any difference to me. 




> But I think this series is going to be a little rough on kids. It needs to lighten up: not everything is grim gloom





Except right now, everything is. That will change in the course of book 7 (unless Rowling turns out to be an idiot).





> If Rowling kills Harry Potter, as some people thought she might do, then my point is made in spades. But I hope that it doesn't come to that. What is the point of that? Where is the joy in reading for the reader if that happens? If Ron and/or Hermione fall, the same thing goes, to a lesser extent.






I agree entirely on both counts. Killing any of the three main characters would be a very poor decision on various levels. I also feel that killing off any of the central, well loved good guy types would be unwise as well. Hagrid, McGonagall, Lupin, the Weasly parents etc should, in my opinion, all make it through. Really the only main character who's death I wouldnt consider a huge mistake would be Snape. 


The thing I dislike about current events is that for me, for reasons I'm not sure I entirely understand, the current situation in the book is wearing the rather tenious suspension of disbelief about things like the seperation of the Muggle and Wizard worlds a bit thin.

Also I dislike the execution of the Horcruxes. I have no problem with the fact that they are cliche; I dislike the bit about "killing breaks apart the soul". Apparently not just murder but any killing. Which ties into my overall dislike of Rowling's aproach to magic where any spell that could truly hurt someone physically is "dark" and/or forbidden


----------



## Merlion (Oct 11, 2006)

Oh and also my other disapointment...and I'm sure I will get some negative replies for this but oh well...is this.


The Harry Potter series, mainly Harry's life itself could easily be cast as a metaphor for growing up gay (or different in any way, but come on he lived "in the closet" for 11 years litterally), and I had thought there might be a slim chance that she might've been planning to really do something with that. Have Harry be gay, or at least go through a period of confusion, or at least have a gay student character in there somewhere.


However it now looks as if that is unlikely. Of course disapointment probably isnt the right term...I knew it was unlikely, since it would create immeasurable horribly negative backlash for her and everyone related to the books and movies, but my impression of Rowling's personality made me think something just might happen.

But thats fine, it just means I will have to create some young gay rolemodels in fantasy fiction myself


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Oct 12, 2006)

Hold up there.  Let's not go off in that direction.  This is ENWorld, and it could get this thread closed.  (You know how sensitive the moderators are here to anything that could be considered political, and indeed political = trouble so they are quite right to suppress such talk, IMO.)

  A more appropriate course, within the context of ENWorld's rules, would be to say that Harry Potter was born an OUTCAST.  
  Many children are born as outcasts, and grow up as outcasts.
  Harry Potter can do magic (in our game, we'd call him a sorcerer with the ability to also be a wizard.)  That sets him apart.  That makes him different.  In the eyes of Aunt Petunia, that makes him a freak.  Sadly, there are so many correlations to this kind of thing In Real Life that th analogy fits all too well.  And I think every 11 year old knows it well, and can easily recognize what Rowlings is doing.

  Why don't we keep it on that tone?  Let's avoid a subject that is basically verboten on ENWorld.  We all get the picture that Harry Potter is an outcast.

  (look of irritation)

  Now, after what the Dursleys did to him, it would have been NICE if he had received more support at Hogwarts at the start, and later on.
  By dark, I'm referring to the dark from Book One.
  For example, you'd think McGonagall would have more brains and judgement.  Instead, she ignores danger right in front of her.  Harry, Hermione, and Ron lost all faith in her intelligence and judgement (with good reason) early on, were rebuked when they tried to obtain her help, and finally took saving Hogwarts and stopping Voldemort into their own hands.  (A pitiful shame, that First Years had to stop Voldemort when a cadre of professionals was there who supposedly knew what they were doing.  Of course, it made for a GREAT story, but again it reflects badly on McGonagall.)
  Snape is ... well, when you give in to hatred, bad things happen.  The Emperor in Return of the Jedi would have loved Snape (use your feelings, boy.  Let the hate, flow through you!)  In Snape's case, he is intelligent enough, but hatred has made an idiot out of him nonetheless.
  Hagrid?  Great guy.  No problem there.  The more Hagrid, the merrier.  
  Flickwick?  Nice guy.  I wish we could have seen more of him.
  Hooch?  Threatening to expel students for flying?  Ok, why wasn't Draco Malfoy expelled? (and don't tell me she didn't know.  Half the school witnessed and/or learned what happened.)
  Sprout?  Very neat character, very wizardry.  No problem there.
  Quirrel?  Doing his job for Voldemort.  No problem there.  One of the most competent of the teachers, actually.

  Dumdledore, nice guy.  Archetypical nice old wizard.  So why does he allow bullying, abuse, and general badness at the school?  He is not omniscient, but he knows enough (he found Harry at the Mirror of Erised quickly enough) to know better.
  Or does he believe mistreatment, abuse, and bullying builds character?  Draco Malfoy believes that, but Draco Malfoy is honest about it.

  And that's just Book One.  The problems get worse, and the darkness deeper, in Book Two, and so on through Book Six.

  If it had not been for his friendship with Ron and later Hermione, Harry would never have confronted Voldemort, Voldemort would have returned early, and finis Hogwart's and everyone else.
  Then these people, the staff at Hogwarts and the Ministry of Magic, go around acting superior and like ingrates to the boys and girl who saved them.  LOL.  (Snape should have been on his knees thanking Harry from the end of Book One on (50 points to Gryffindor for this, 50 points to Gryffindor for that!)  Or would he have have preferred the tender mercies of Voldemort?  And Voldemort WOULD have seen a traitor for a traitor, which Snape was.  We know all too well the painful fate Voldemort accords his own servants, much less traitors.)


----------



## Merlion (Oct 12, 2006)

> Hold up there. Let's not go off in that direction. This is ENWorld, and it could get this thread closed. (You know how sensitive the moderators are here to anything that could be considered political, and indeed political = trouble so they are quite right to suppress such talk, IMO.)





Discussion of politics is forbidden. I am in no way discussing politics. I'm discussing something I felt about a particular aspect of a work of fantasy fiction.

If the moderators dont like it, they are of course free to remove it, warn me, ban me etc. But it is already understood that politically or religious topics may arise somewhat in discussion of the main things this site is about; it happens all the time. There have been entire threads discussing the experiences of gay gamers in their RPG groups etc with no problems.




> Why don't we keep it on that tone? Let's avoid a subject that is basically verboten on ENWorld. We all get the picture that Harry Potter is an outcast.




Yes of course we do. And he is an outcast regardless. But that doesnt have anything to do with what I am talking about. I am talking about the possibility that he may eventually have been portrayed as being gay (something even some literary observes have commented on).

Of course if its not something you personally wish to discuss, I'm not going to make you. But wether or not the conversational direction is apropriate is up to the mods. They arent going to automatically close your thread. If they consider it a problem...which is a big if judging from my own past experiences, they will post and warn me. If they do, I wont bring it up again. But its a topic people on ENworld have shown themselves to be capable of discussing reasonbly.




> For example, you'd think McGonagall would have more brains and judgement. Instead, she ignores danger right in front of her. Harry, Hermione, and Ron lost all faith in her intelligence and judgement (with good reason) early on, were rebuked when they tried to obtain her help, and finally took saving Hogwarts and stopping Voldemort into their own hands. (A pitiful shame, that First Years had to stop Voldemort when a cadre of professionals was there who supposedly knew what they were doing. Of course, it made for a GREAT story, but again it reflects badly on McGonagall.)





One, I wouldnt call this "dark."

Two, children face this sort of thing, and worse, at ALL schools, with great frequency.

Next, some of it is simply writers neccesity. Having McGonagall get involved and solve the problem wasnt what the author had planned. As you say it does reflect badly on McGonagall, but it made for a good story. I think Rowling has gotten better at handling that in later books.




> Snape is ... well, when you give in to hatred, bad things happen. The Emperor in Return of the Jedi would have loved Snape (use your feelings, boy. Let the hate, flow through you!) In Snape's case, he is intelligent enough, but hatred has made an idiot out of him nonetheless





We dont really know exactly what Snape's whole deal is yet. However I tend to agree...I never really understand people who show no regard for the feelings of others.




> Dumdledore, nice guy. Archetypical nice old wizard. So why does he allow bullying, abuse, and general badness at the school? He is not omniscient, but he knows enough (he found Harry at the Mirror of Erised quickly enough) to know better.





This is an odd one for me. On the one hand, as I mentioned in an earlier post, it seems odd to me to be surprised that a school would allow/turn a blind eye to bullying, because its standard procedure in all schools. In the case of most public compulsory schools such as those here in the US, bullying is in fact part of the insitution's real purpose.

However, this is a fantasy school of magic run by a very powerful, very benevolent wizard. So there are I think two answers to why this is in this situation.

One: Dumbledore believes that he should allow people to make their own decisions, rather than using his power to force people to behave themselves. He'd rather have them figure it out on their own.

Two (the real reason), because it would interfere with the author having the events she wants to take place, take place.




> If it had not been for his friendship with Ron and later Hermione, Harry would never have confronted Voldemort, Voldemort would have returned early, and finis Hogwart's and everyone else.Then these people, the staff at Hogwarts and the Ministry of Magic, go around acting superior and like ingrates to the boys and girl who saved them. LOL. (Snape should have been on his knees thanking Harry from the end of Book One on (50 points to Gryffindor for this, 50 points to Gryffindor for that!) Or would have have preferred the tender mercies of Voldemort? And Voldemort WOULD have seen a traitor for a traitor, which Snape was. We know all too well the painful fate Voldemort accords his own servants, much less traitors.)





People dont always do the right, logical, or sensible thing. In fact, they frequently do the oposite. And in stories, if your characters always do the best thing, you rarely have much of a story.

Also I think it reflects the life of children and young people very well. From age 5 or 6 children are sent into a hostile enviroment full of adult strangers who may or may not give a fflip about them. Their word is rarely accorded much credence. And they are kept in this state of subservient childhood even after their minds and body's are mostly grown. 

Hogwarts is still a lot better than real schools.


----------



## shilsen (Oct 12, 2006)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> If Rowling kills Harry Potter, as some people thought she might do, then my point is made in spades.  But I hope that it doesn't come to that.  *What is the point of that?  Where is the joy in reading for the reader if that happens?*
> If Ron and/or Hermione fall, the same thing goes, to a lesser extent.




Just a simple question - why are you assuming that engendering joy in the reader is the only point to a story? While that might be a laudable aim, that's hardly the only possible one. There are thousands of great stories out there that don't end with a sense of joy for the reader, but that doesn't stop them from being excellent stories nevertheless.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Oct 12, 2006)

shilsen said:
			
		

> Just a simple question - why are you assuming that engendering joy in the reader is the only point to a story? While that might be a laudable aim, that's hardly the only possible one. There are thousands of great stories out there that don't end with a sense of joy for the reader, but that doesn't stop them from being excellent stories nevertheless.




  That's quite true.  In the stories of Charles Dickens, things are quite grim but the stories are extraordinary.
  Harry Potter doesn't *have* to survive for the Harry Potter series to become Classics.  He doesn't even have to live for these to be great children's stories.
  I just sorta thought it'd be nice if he did live.  And if Hermione and Ron lived.  That's just me.  I was a fan of the Oz books as a kid, and would not have liked it if Dorothy, the Scarecrow, and the Tin Woodsman all died.  (Well, ok, the Oz books are aimed at a younger audience than Harry Potter is, but that's the best analogy that comes to mind at the moment.)

  So your point is made.  I just wish that Rowlings wouldn't kill any of the three main characters.  Personal taste.

  And ... I may get nuked for this, but ...

  I would consider it to be false advertising in a literary sense, if they do.
  Book One is a MUCH LIGHTER book than Book Six, and it advertises a lighter story with a lighter ending.  So, if the series ends in a trainwreck of this sort, no warning of this was given to the reading in Book One, and that reader might just feel betrayed.  (In the First Star Wars Trilogy, we at least know *where* Anakin is headed.  There is no question as to the galatic trainwreck there.  We were forewarned.  We might not have been forewarned about *Jar Jar Binks*, but we know Anakin becomes Darth Vader.)


----------



## frankthedm (Oct 12, 2006)

shilsen said:
			
		

> Just a simple question - why are you assuming that engendering joy in the reader is the only point to a story? While that might be a laudable aim, that's hardly the only possible one. There are thousands of great stories out there that don't end with a sense of joy for the reader, but that doesn't stop them from being excellent stories nevertheless.



Rowling has made her cash already. Hell if she makes it end badly, she can retire in peace, rather than having hordes of fans who continuously want more more more. Her being successful makes fan favorite characters legal targets for being killed at the writer’s whims.

The comment about Potter being a closet dweller was very funny and should be used to annoy potter fans as often as possible.  

Heck, in book 6 I assumed Rowling was making a bit of a joke at the Harry 'slash' Draco fan fiction that overloads the net. 

If Hagrid gets done in, I just hope it is while doing what he loves, taking care of really dangerous creatures.

Put me in the camp that hopes Harry is one of Lord Moldybutt’s phylacteries {horcrux}.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Oct 12, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> Discussion of politics is forbidden. I am in no way discussing politics. I'm discussing something I felt about a particular aspect of a work of fantasy fiction.
> If the moderators dont like it, they are of course free to remove it, warn me, ban me etc. But it is already understood that politically or religious topics may arise somewhat in discussion of the main things this site is about; it happens all the time. There have been entire threads discussing the experiences of gay gamers in their RPG groups etc with no problems.




  I'm just trying to keep this thread as congenial as possible.  We have serious differences over Harry Potter, and we do not want an argument.  Just a discussion.  I've seen too many threads closed due to overheating and arguing.
  A little courtesy and caution are in order, is all.  Harry Potter may or may not be gay.  If he turns out to be gay, and this is in the books (a lot of money says it won't be) then we can discuss it freely, no?



			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> (snip)
> 
> Of course if its not something you personally wish to discuss, I'm not going to make you. But wether or not the conversational direction is apropriate is up to the mods. They arent going to automatically close your thread. If they consider it a problem...which is a big if judging from my own past experiences, they will post and warn me. If they do, I wont bring it up again. But its a topic people on ENworld have shown themselves to be capable of discussing reasonbly.




  Think of it this way:
  I am writing here, on ENWorld, knowing the real life equivalent of Professor McGonagall (but with far more intellect than McGonagall) is watching and reading everything I, and you, say.  Now in the books McGonagall could be pretty strict: would you cross her, or provoke her?  Or would you be quietly respectful?  
  Me, I'd be quietly respectful.  The last thing I want is a real life equivalent of a McGonagall temper fit thrown at me (anymore than Harry wanted 150 points taken from Gryffindor, plus detention, plus public humilation, plus the entire school turning on him, plus McGonagall's continued anger and outrage.)
  Call that my ENWorld Philosophy.  




			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> One, I wouldnt call this "dark."




  It is dark because Rowlings chooses to focus on it.
  Consider the plight of Neville Longbottom.  We know that Harry and his friends have the psychological strength to withstand the public humilation and public denunciation that they received from everyone in the school, after the 150 point + detention punishment received, right?
  But what about Neville.  I do not honestly think Neville could have withstood this.  (although he can withstand it if Rowlings makes him withstand it, obviously.)  I think that someone like Neville would have cracked up.  He would have quit Hogwarts and gone home, probably right then.  Or just cracked up, been unable to continue his studies, and flunked out at the end of the year.
  So, ask yourself this:  why didn't Neville go to Dumbledore?  He should have.  And if he would not, why didn't Harry go to Dumbledore and explain?  The incident was Hagrid's fault.  Hagrid choose to acquire the dragon.  Why should Neville pay for what Hagrid did?  Why should Neville be broken over Hagrid's illegal behavior?
  Again, I do not think Neville could have survived what happened.  The author made him survive it.  I think honestly that he would have broken and quit, or flunked out.  Certainly, what happened did not help him with his studies or his grades!  All of this, because he want out afterhours to help some friends stay out of trouble?  Neville never knew what was going on.  He never knew anything about a dragon.
  Where was Dumbledore.  This is what I call 'Dark.'




			
				Merlion said:
			
		

> Two, children face this sort of thing, and worse, at ALL schools, with great frequency.
> Next, some of it is simply writers neccesity. Having McGonagall get involved and solve the problem wasnt what the author had planned. As you say it does reflect badly on McGonagall, but it made for a good story. I think Rowling has gotten better at handling that in later books.




  True enough, and true enough.  If McGonagall was up to the challenge, there would be no story.  This, however, is a flaw in itself:  why is she deputy headmistress if she is not 'up to it'?  Dumbledore would not appoint an incompetent as deputy.
  I think Rowlings should have approached this from a different storyline.  Just my opinion.  (Quirrel incapacitated her?  Deluded her?  Sent her off on a wild goose chase?)


  I don't question that children are mistreated.  They are, in spades.  Many are destroyed by this mistreatment.
  Rowlings intended her books, I think, as an anthology to real life, so you would expect bullying and harshness in Harry Potter.
  I just think she should not so empathize this, for lack of better terminology.  Yes, there is darkness, but there is also light.
  Seems to me that, by the end of Book Six, the light has been stamped out.  Again, just my opinion, and none of us will know until Book Seven is released.  But if Harry turns out cynical, uncaring, and - worst of all - mundane, then the light is gone.  With it goes the special quality of this set of books, where friendship, loyalty, honor, courage, and the spirit of youth makes the good things happen.


----------



## kingpaul (Oct 12, 2006)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I think that any novel that can't be held in one hand to read is too long!



No offense, but your hands must be fairly small then.


			
				Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> At one point I thought I was reading a Wheel of Time novel, if you know what I mean...



I never got to that point in reading the HP books.


----------



## kingpaul (Oct 12, 2006)

Berandor said:
			
		

> As to Snape, I hope he turns out alright. It certainly seems that way to me, kind of blatantly so, which means I'm dreading that I'm wrong.



No, I agree with you. I think Snape will turn out alright in the end as well.


			
				Berandor said:
			
		

> And is it just me, or does anybody else now picture Snape as Alan Rickman? It's almost automatic when I read about him.



No, not just you. Since I've watched the movies, I see/hear the characters from the movies as the ones in the books. And for me, its the 1st Dumbledore that has stuck.


----------



## kingpaul (Oct 12, 2006)

Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> [sblock]How many of you think Hagrid's next?[/sblock]



[sblock]I don't. I've got the feeling that its actually going to be Draco. After his encounter with  Dumbledore, he's *really* beginning to rethink his allegiances. He bites it switching sides.[/sblock]


----------



## shilsen (Oct 12, 2006)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> That's quite true.  In the stories of Charles Dickens, things are quite grim but the stories are extraordinary.
> Harry Potter doesn't *have* to survive for the Harry Potter series to become Classics.  He doesn't even have to live for these to be great children's stories.
> I just sorta thought it'd be nice if he did live.  And if Hermione and Ron lived.  That's just me.  I was a fan of the Oz books as a kid, and would not have liked it if Dorothy, the Scarecrow, and the Tin Woodsman all died.  (Well, ok, the Oz books are aimed at a younger audience than Harry Potter is, but that's the best analogy that comes to mind at the moment.)
> 
> So your point is made.  I just wish that Rowlings wouldn't kill any of the three main characters.  Personal taste.




Whch is perfectly fine. I was just pointing out that you were moving from personal taste to an assumption that it's generally applicable to all, or even most, readers.



> And ... I may get nuked for this, but ...
> 
> I would consider it to be false advertising in a literary sense, if they do.
> Book One is a MUCH LIGHTER book than Book Six, and it advertises a lighter story with a lighter ending.  So, if the series ends in a trainwreck of this sort, no warning of this was given to the reading in Book One, and that reader might just feel betrayed.  (In the First Star Wars Trilogy, we at least know *where* Anakin is headed.  There is no question as to the galatic trainwreck there.  We were forewarned.  We might not have been forewarned about *Jar Jar Binks*, but we know Anakin becomes Darth Vader.)




I know what you mean, but I think you're at least partly ignoring the context here. The Wizard of Oz, for example, was published as a single book. Consider how many years Rowling's books have spanned. Even if she had a general plan at the beginning, it's completely understandable, if not inevitable, that it would change over time. Also, consider that the audience she first wrote for has grown and matured while the series has gone on, so they would possibly lose interest in the series if it didn't similarly grow and mature. 

In short, I think a "false advertising" accusation is a little shortsighted, though I understand your perspective.


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Oct 12, 2006)

To get back to Harry and the Horcruxes (sounds like a 50's band, don't it?)...

Rowling's left a lot of possiblities that the search could go much quicker than we think.  After all, there's RAB (mostly speculated to be Sirius' younger brother Regulas), and that the real locket is actually at 12 Grimmauld Place.  There's also Kreatcher, who may know plenty about the horcruxes due to having been helping Regulas Black track down/find them.  And I highly doubt the remaining Order of the Phoenix members are going to abandon Harry at this point in the game, especially not the last Marauder or the Weasleys, who see Harry as pretty much being one of their own.

Yeah, right now things are looking bleak for the good guys.  From the common appearance, with Dumbledore's death, Voldemort looks poised to take it all.  But how many times in other stories and films have we seen the Big Bad on the precipice of victory only to be toppled by the hero that was deemed at best a minor threat at the last moment?  And when it's against all odds, doesn't that make the final victory for the good guys that much sweeter?

If anyone's interested in some theories, some of which are really good, check out the editorial section over at www.mugglenet.com.  Even Mrs. Rowling has been impressed with the editorials written there.  They've pondered the seeking of the horcruxes, as well as the final battle between Harry and Voldemort.  I personally think that the simple fact Harry is so easily able to conjure a corporeal Patronus is going to play a part in the final battle.  Of course, who's to say that Dumbledore didn't plan on his not being around when the time came for Harry to face his destiny, and thus leaving Harry some advice or tips on really advanced defensive magic?

***

As for Snape and his "teaching" methods, perhaps Dumbledore's reason for not intervening is to teach the students (and younger readers) some real-world lessons in that you're not going to be able to get along with everyone, and you've just got to work around that.  But then again, most reputable schools would have tossed a teacher like Snape out on his greasy bum a long time ago, where Albus kept him around since he knew that he'd have need of Snape's spying services again some day.

***

Since the movies came out, my mind's eye has been painting the characters as looking/sounding like their respective actors.  Of course, I only started reading the books after seeing the first movie, so that's not that surprising.


----------



## Ilium (Oct 12, 2006)

Donovan Morningfire said:
			
		

> Since the movies came out, my mind's eye has been painting the characters as looking/sounding like their respective actors.  Of course, I only started reading the books after seeing the first movie, so that's not that surprising.




I started reading the books when they first came out, and I have _always_ pictured Snape as Alan Rickman (or someone very much like him).  When I found out he was going to play the role I was very pleased. 

Gary Oldman as Sirius Black took me by surprise, though.  He did a greate job, but I pictured somebody more physically imposing.

But the award for brilliant HP casting has to go to Kenneth Branagh as Gilderoy Lockhart.  Perfect.


----------



## Merlion (Oct 13, 2006)

> I'm just trying to keep this thread as congenial as possible. We have serious differences over Harry Potter, and we do not want an argument. Just a discussion. I've seen too many threads closed due to overheating and arguing.





I dont see what any of that has to do with anything I've posted. I havent become heated or argued anything. And as I have said, the subject of orientation, of gay characters in stories, and the experiences of gay gamers have been discussed here with no problems. 




> A little courtesy and caution are in order, is all. Harry Potter may or may not be gay. If he turns out to be gay, and this is in the books (a lot of money says it won't be) then we can discuss it freely, no?





You dont seem to have understood my post at all. The 6th book pretty much makes it clear that he is straight. I was mentioning my feelings on that fact, since I had felt like there were signs that he might not be, and signs also that Rowling might eventually at least include a nod to the added diffaculties of growing up gay, specifically. 

There are few to no deccent gay characters in fantasy, even less who are young, and that makes me sad. Rowling seemed like an author who might try to change that, but now it appears not to be the case. 

I think your making a bit of a mountain out of a mole hill here.




> Me, I'd be quietly respectful. The last thing I want is a real life equivalent of a McGonagall temper fit thrown at me (anymore than Harry wanted 150 points taken from Gryffindor, plus detention, plus public humilation, plus the entire school turning on him, plus McGonagall's continued anger and outrage.)





Why would any fits be thrown at you because I said I'm disapointed that Rowling didnt include any gay characters? They only close threads when people continue to fight and be nasty or post inapropriate material non stop. None of those things have happened or are likely to, and they always begin by requesting that the person drop the subject. In the unlikely event of that happening I've already said I will.





> It is dark because Rowlings chooses to focus on it.





I still wouldnt use the word "dark", but thats just me. What your describing would be more like intense, gritty, unfair.  I also wouldnt say she focuses on those things. basically incidences of authority types ignoring stuff serve to allow those parts of the story to continue. Granted, its also often contradicting what she's established about her characters personalities.




> Again, I do not think Neville could have survived what happened. The author made him survive it. I think honestly that he would have broken and quit, or flunked out. Certainly, what happened did not help him with his studies or his grades! All of this, because he want out afterhours to help some friends stay out of trouble? Neville never knew what was going on. He never knew anything about a dragon.





Dumbledore later exonerated them all for that, and gave Neville a special reward for his bravery in standing up to them, so I dont think thats a very good example.




> Where was Dumbledore. This is what I call 'Dark.'





These things, the incidents of authority figures not solving problems are what I call characterization or plotting mistakes. She (arguably) sacrificed some of the credibility of how she has depicted the characters personalities in exchange for those characters not destroying part of her plot. 




> True enough, and true enough. If McGonagall was up to the challenge, there would be no story. This, however, is a flaw in itself: why is she deputy headmistress if she is not 'up to it'? Dumbledore would not appoint an incompetent as deputy.





If anyone's competence is in question, its Rowlings. But truthfully, especially for a writer like Rowling who's main strength...and obession, is highly structured plots and sub plots and mysteries and what not, she is often going to make sacrifices in other areas in order to maintain her plots, or to make maintaining them easier.

Its not what I would do, but I'm not a plot-based writer.




> I think Rowlings should have approached this from a different storyline. Just my opinion. (Quirrel incapacitated her? Deluded her? Sent her off on a wild goose chase?)





Indeed. But, that does take more effort, and also takes up more time and word-space. 




> Seems to me that, by the end of Book Six, the light has been stamped out




To return all the brighter afterwards.




> But if Harry turns out cynical, uncaring, and - worst of all - mundane, then the light is gone. With it goes the special quality of this set of books, where friendship, loyalty, honor, courage, and the spirit of youth makes the good things happen.





The thing is, the chances of that happening are basically none. The only way I see any chance of that kind of thing happening...in any objective way...is if she does decide she never wants to write Harry stories again and doesnt want anyone yapping at her about it. But even thats unlikely because it wouldnt work, and it would turn her fanbase against her. I really, really dont think we have anything to worry about.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 13, 2006)

Merlion said:
			
		

> You dont seem to have understood my post at all. The 6th book pretty much makes it clear that he is straight. I was mentioning my feelings on that fact, since I had felt like there were signs that he might not be, and signs also that Rowling might eventually at least include a nod to the added diffaculties of growing up gay, specifically.
> 
> There are few to no deccent gay characters in fantasy, even less who are young, and that makes me sad. Rowling seemed like an author who might try to change that, but now it appears not to be the case.




I can see how Harry Potter's version of being an outcast/outsider can look a bit like being gay or at least parallel some of the issues (being "in the closet" and so on). But I think it had more to do with Rowling using some of the same trappings of being gay to make him more of an outcast to his family and muggle society. It like the way X-men 2 used the same imagery in dealing with being a mutant. "Have you ever tried not being a mutant?" is the line that comes to mind. There are some interesting social parallels being drawn but I think that's all Rowling was shooting for.
Not that you still couldn't use Harry Potter in a very sympathetic way when addressing gay teens and how to deal with the social difficulties of being different...


----------



## billd91 (Oct 13, 2006)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Seems to me that, by the end of Book Six, the light has been stamped out.  Again, just my opinion, and none of us will know until Book Seven is released.  But if Harry turns out cynical, uncaring, and - worst of all - mundane, then the light is gone.  With it goes the special quality of this set of books, where friendship, loyalty, honor, courage, and the spirit of youth makes the good things happen.




You throw in the towel too easily. 

There are a lot of people who are thinking Harry's going to be one of the casualties of the series in the end. I can see why. But I think it would be a bad ending and so far Rowling has shown that she's probably smart enough to know that. 
Think about it: If Harry dies in the confrontation with Voldemort, we end the 3rd straight book eulogizing some sympathetic character. Boring. It would be a horrible rut to get into. A better ending would be for Harry to be taking stock of what to do now, perhaps learning a lesson about what it means to be a heroic while also being an ass (I'm betting Snape is one of the characters who gets cacked by Voldemort for turning on him... yes, I believe Snape is still under cover in the Death Eater camp and opposing Voldemort even though he killed Dumbledore).
Because doing too much euologizing dead heroes would be bad for Book 7, I hope the "unexpected" deaths that Rowling had not originally planned happen early, in the first couple of acts.

Horcruxes: I think one may in Hogwarts. Makes some sense. Hidden right under everybody's nose. Probably the main reason Voldemort returned to ask for the Defense Against the Dark Arts job as Dumbledore surmised.
I think there will be some evidence of what horcrux Voldemort was intending to make by murdering Harry at the scene of the murders of his parents. Aside from Bill and Fleur's wedding, Harry's trip to his infant home will take up most of the book's opening chapters.

Other character:
Snape will be dead by the end of book 7
Draco will turn against Voldemort and, grudgingly, help Harry
Ollivander - currently referred to as missing - kidnapped by Voldemort to make him a new wand... one that cannot lead to a repeat of the priori incantatum since it will no longer be a brother to Harry's wand, but I doubt Ollivander will count as one of the 2 unexpected deaths that Rowling has talked about
Fred and George - we haven't seen the last of them, and I'm really hoping they aren't the 2 unexpected deaths... but it sure would have an effect
Percy - will see the light and join his parents - quite possibly one of the 2 unexpected deaths
Hagrid - he's the lead candidate, I think, for being one of the unexpected deaths
Moody - he's the other lead candidate, I think, for the unexpected deaths Rowling has talked about
Lupin and Tonks - survive to get married and, dare I say it, squeeze out a few puppies
<oh, I can't believe I said that...>


----------



## Merlion (Oct 14, 2006)

> I can see how Harry Potter's version of being an outcast/outsider can look a bit like being gay or at least parallel some of the issues (being "in the closet" and so on). But I think it had more to do with Rowling using some of the same trappings of being gay to make him more of an outcast to his family and muggle society





I dont know her intentions. Well apparently it looks now like she never even intended for it to be hinted out, however I almost wonder how she couldnt have. Some of the things are pretty obvious, especially given her fondness for wordplay and the like. Like the fact that he wasnt kept in the basement or the attic or a specially built cell, he was kept in the closet. 

I wont even go into the issues of his relationship with Ron (especially in the fourth book, where Ron is deemed the person most important to him, and wherein they have what could easily be seen as a "lover's spat").

Its not just me either...like I said I've seen at least one article from some columnist or critic or something talking about it. Wether she intended them or not a lot of parallells can easily be made.




> It like the way X-men 2 used the same imagery in dealing with being a mutant. "Have you ever tried not being a mutant?" is the line that comes to mind





That was intentionally. the whole bit with Bobby's parents was very obviously a coming out scene.

It was almost certainly not intentionall at first, but the X Men are widely seen used and felt as a metaphor for being gay, for various obvious reasons, and I think that seen was in homage to that fact.




> Not that you still couldn't use Harry Potter in a very sympathetic way when addressing gay teens and how to deal with the social difficulties of being different...





No, but it would still be nice for a writer to come right out and do it, rather than just having similiar issues etc.

However as I said all else aside, thats something I hope to remedy myself one day.





> Ollivander - currently referred to as missing - kidnapped by Voldemort to make him a new wand... one that cannot lead to a repeat of the priori incantatum since it will no longer be a brother to Harry's wand, but I doubt Ollivander will count as one of the 2 unexpected deaths that Rowling has talked about





I had never thought about this but your almost certainly right. Of course it raises questions about the whole "the wand chooses the wizard" bit, and wether one can have two wands at once...





> Hagrid - he's the lead candidate, I think, for being one of the unexpected deaths





I very strongly hope not. This for most readers would be almost as bad as killing one of the main three. She's already killed Harry's mentor and one of his main surrogate father figures. 

I hope any further deaths are characters we arent quite as emotionally attached to. Percy would be good for this as you've mentioned.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Oct 15, 2006)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> No offense, but your hands must be fairly small then.




When my sister was little, she would say "I don't mean to be rude but..." and would then proceed to be rude.

Your comment above was completely unnecessary (and completely wrong). Please consider what you type more carefully in the future.

If you ever feel the need to type 'no offense' before your sentence, you should probably not type it at all.

Regards


----------



## Plane Sailing (Oct 15, 2006)

(Moderator)
Merlion, please drop your 'gay issues' comments in this thread please.

Edina asked you not to derail the thread, now I'm telling you. If you can't do that, then don't post in this thread again please. You may start a new thread to discuss some of those issues if you really want.

Please email me if you don't understand these instructions.

Thanks


----------



## kingpaul (Oct 15, 2006)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Your comment above was completely unnecessary (and completely wrong). Please consider what you type more carefully in the future.



I was considering what I said.  You said:



			
				Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I think that any novel that can't be held in one hand to read is too long!




And it to was that statement that I was responding to. I stated "No offense" because some people do find discussing anatomy offensive (which, from your response, you do), while some don't. My statement was not intending to be offensive, and I wanted that out in the open that I was not giving offense.



Which then must mean that I have extremely large hands if I can hold the book one-handed while reading. *shrug* My apologies for causing you to take offense. None was offered.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Oct 15, 2006)

I have been reading Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets in depth, and ...

  I really do not like Percy.
  He takes 5 points from his own House, because of a verbal quarrel with his brother?
  Truly here is something to give mirth and merriment to House Slytherin!  Who needs Snape, when there is Percy?

  I know Percy goes bad later on.  I can see why that would happen.
  I don't particularly wish to see anyone die in the novels, but if 2 major characters have to go, I hope Percy is one of them (and not, say, Ron or Ginny.)


----------



## kingpaul (Oct 15, 2006)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> I really do not like Percy.
> He takes 5 points from his own House, because of a verbal quarrel with his brother?



Yeah, Percy is definitely not on the top of my "favorite character list". He strikes me as somone who thirsts for power and recognition. This may, partially, stem from the fact that he comes from such a large family and was, therefore, not the focus of constant attention.


----------



## Chimera (Oct 15, 2006)

Speculating as to who might bite it in 7;

As much as I wouldn't be happy about it, Dramatic Flow might dictate that someone well-liked bites it early in the book, so as to increase the tension and make you salivate for the end.

In which case, it might be someone like Mr. or Mrs. Weasley.     

Which would really get me, as I love those two characters.  Arthur Weasley has been a big favorite of mine since the movie scene where he turns to Harry and the boys and says "How'd it go?" in reference to them stealing the car to rescue Harry.  That moment MADE that character for me.

But you could see how that might "help" the story.

I think Draco survives, due to cowardly running away when the pressure is on him.

Snape will probably die, giving his life to help Harry.  Of course, that's assuming that he's filling the role I think he's filling.

Harry sacrificing himself in order to take down Voldemort (such as if he is actually the last Horcrux) and save his friends (who are all present and in danger) would be a very emotional end to the series.

(And Rowlings has already spoken/speculated on the idea of killing off Harry if only to prevent others from writing later Harry Potter novels.)


----------



## Loincloth of Armour (Oct 16, 2006)

kingpaul said:
			
		

> Yeah, Percy is definitely not on the top of my "favorite character list". He strikes me as somone who thirsts for power and recognition. This may, partially, stem from the fact that he comes from such a large family and was, therefore, not the focus of constant attention.




Percy is not on the top of many people's favourite lists (except for 'Who do you want to see die?' lists), but remember that neither is he bad.

He's younger than Bill and Charlie, two brothers that his parents obviously love.  Both of them seem to have been adventrous (although not as much as George and Fred), and so maybe he set out to be different from his older brothers by being 'the good boy.'

Seeing how much trouble the twins were giving his parents probably helped cement the idea that he should not cause his parents any trouble.  Thus locking him into rules, regulations, and structure.  

You are probably right in that with such a large family, he looked for attention via power and recognition.  If he gets power he will be seen, maybe by his family, maybe by others.  In any case, he will be noticed.

He has taken things to extremes, but there is no hint that he'd join Voldemort's side.  He's not evil, but he is ambitious, and he has made choices that are perhaps not the best.  Since he was in Gryffendor he does have courage, to what extent we're not sure.

Yes, he is shallow, self-gratifying, petty and holds a grudge, but considering how evil some people are in the books, he's only somewhat worthy of derision.

And if you were the favourite target of Fred and George's pranks for years on end, you'd probably feel like abandoning your family at times.

He is proof that not everybody makes the right choices and that sometimes family and friends do dumb things.  That's life.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Oct 16, 2006)

Considering your article above, it seems to me you're right.  Percy has the Middle Sibling problem, as it were.


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Oct 16, 2006)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> When my sister was little, she would say "I don't mean to be rude but..."



"Ah, but accidental rudeness occurs quite often, I'm afraid to say."
- Albus Dumbledore (paraphrased from Half-Blood Prince)

As for Percy, remember also Dumbledore's line in Philospher/Sorcerer's Stone...
"It takes a great deal of courage to stand up to your enemies, but it takes a great deal more to stand up to your friends."

Percy is standing up for what he believes is right (rules and regulations) in the face of his family.  And standing up for what you believe is right against your parents can take a lot of courage.

After all, courage isn't only about brave deeds and noble actions.  It's also about sticking to your guns in the face of adversity; i.e. doing what is "right" instead of what is easy.  Now, I think Percy is the world's biggest prat, but he's not in Voldemort's pocket.

As for the who bites it and who doesn't, I've been afraid for Hagrid for some time.  As for Harry, after all the crap the boy's gone through, he deserves a "happily ever after" in that he takes down Voldemort and goes on to live a (fairly) normal life, surrounded by friends and adoptive family (heck, he's a member of the Weasley clan in all but name).

I don't think Harry is an "accidental" Horcrux, as they have to be destroyed before Voldemort can be taken down, and from the sounds of it creating a Horcrux is a deliberate act, and Voldemort was going to use Harry's death for his seventh Horcrux.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 16, 2006)

Donovan Morningfire said:
			
		

> Percy is standing up for what he believes is right (rules and regulations) in the face of his family.  And standing up for what you believe is right against your parents can take a lot of courage.
> After all, courage isn't only about brave deeds and noble actions.  It's also about sticking to your guns in the face of adversity; i.e. doing what is "right" instead of what is easy.  Now, I think Percy is the world's biggest prat, but he's not in Voldemort's pocket.




That may be, but I'm willing to bet that Percy will finally show some greater moral courage in the final book, admit he was wrong, and patch it up with his parents. 
Hmmm.... at attack of some sort at the wedding of Bill and Fleur that makes Percy reassess and brings him back to the family?


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Oct 17, 2006)

billd91 said:
			
		

> That may be, but I'm willing to bet that Percy will finally show some greater moral courage in the final book, admit he was wrong, and patch it up with his parents.
> Hmmm.... at attack of some sort at the wedding of Bill and Fleur that makes Percy reassess and brings him back to the family?



Actually, I'm kind of hoping that Percy doesn't "patch things up" with his family.  I think just having him do an about-face would be a disservice to his character.  Throughout the first three books we've always seen him holding himself apart from the rest of his family at school, and he pretty much was "momma's little angel," which naturally made him a target for Frorge and Gerd.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Oct 17, 2006)

I watched the Harry Potter films (1, 2, 3 and 4) in order, then bought all the books at once and have since read them out of order:  1, 5, 6, and now 3.
  That is, I just read Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azrabah.  And I just gotta say it:

  BRAVO!  BRAVO!

  A big thumbs up to this book.


  -

  Edit:  But what is Arithmancy?


----------



## kingpaul (Oct 17, 2006)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Edit:  But what is Arithmancy?



I'm guessing its another name for Numerology.


----------



## sckeener (Oct 17, 2006)

Loincloth of Armour said:
			
		

> Since <Percy> was in Gryffendor he does have courage, to what extent we're not sure.




Courage without morals is close to being just ambition...

Which just makes me think both Gryffendor and Slytherin are very close to being the same house, same alignment....just Gryffendor is LN with good tendencies and Slytherin LN with Evil tendencies.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Oct 18, 2006)

Both Gryffindor and Slytherin seen to think it's ok if you:

  Break the school rules.
  Harass, tease, and play injurious jokes on other students.
  Assault other students (including ones in your own house.)
  Play dirty.
  Lie to the staff, trick the staff, and make tom-fools out of the staff.
  Realize that it's all about what you can get away with.

  However, Gryffindor seems to appreciate the value of friendship, loyalty, and courage in standing up for your beliefs and values.
  Slytherin doesn't value any of these things.

  It is pretty hard to excuse James Potter, Sirius Black, Lupin, or Peter Pettigrew for what they did to Snape and to other students.  Detention did not stop them.  Short of expelling them, they should have been relegated to Filch's mercies for several weeks.  
  Just my opinion.


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Oct 18, 2006)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> It is pretty hard to excuse James Potter, Sirius Black, Lupin, or Peter Pettigrew for what they did to Snape and to other students.  Detention did not stop them.  Short of expelling them, they should have been relegated to Filch's mercies for several weeks.



In Book 5, Sirius comes right out and says that he and James were jerks, not looking to apologize for what they did back then, only saying that he and James were different people.  Only Lupin seemed to try to apologize for it, but Sirius cut him off.  Also, the only one we see tormented is Snape.  I don't think they would have been as popular overall if they made a habit out of tormenting every other student like you seem to imply.  Given that James and Sirius were compared favorably to the Weasley twins, I'd imagine their antics were along a similar vein.  During the Marauders' school days, they may have had a file drawer all to themselves much as Fred and George had.

As for pranks, most of what we've seen have been perpetrated by the Weasley twins.  And they seem to go out of their way (most of the time) to ensure there's no lasting damage, save when they've been provoked (such as a Slytherin trying to attack them prior to a Quidditch game).  Heck, they were even willing to test their entire line of joke products on themselves before using them on anyone else.

Also, the reason Fred and George stand out is because we're seeing the entire book through the "Harry filter," in that we generally only read about the stuff that Harry notices or happens around him.  I'm sure Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff have their troublemakers; we just don't know about them becuase they're out of Harry's sight.  Also, prior to Professor Slughorn, we've had a pretty narrow view of Slytherins courtesy of Malfoy and his ilk.  There may well be a peeping tom in Hufflepuff with a proclivity for sneaking peeks into the girl's showers that we don't know about simply because his antics haven't shown up on Harry's rader.

I think your view on the tactics of Gryffindor and Slytherin is grossly simplified, but I've not the time to rebut them at the moment.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 18, 2006)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Both Gryffindor and Slytherin seen to think it's ok if you:
> 
> Break the school rules.
> Harass, tease, and play injurious jokes on other students.
> ...




I think the terms you're looking for are:

Gryffindor: high spirited, but with their hearts ultimately in the right place

That's what makes up the difference between Gryffindors and Slytherins, and a whopping big difference is it. It's only a superficial comparison that makes Gryffindor seem a lot like the Slytherins. There may be Slytherins that don't have their hearts in the wrong place, but it's hard to argue they've really got them in the right place.


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Oct 18, 2006)

billd91 said:
			
		

> I think the terms you're looking for are:
> 
> Gryffindor: high spirited, but with their hearts ultimately in the right place
> 
> That's what makes up the difference between Gryffindors and Slytherins, and a whopping big difference is it. It's only a superficial comparison that makes Gryffindor seem a lot like the Slytherins. There may be Slytherins that don't have their hearts in the wrong place, but it's hard to argue they've really got them in the right place.



To build on what you said a little.

True Gryffindors do what they know is right, even if it costs them, holding true to what they believe.  They'll bend rules where needed, some a lot more than others, but generally stick to "what is right" over "what is easy."  For the Weasley twins, they view it as "right" that they "liven things up," though by their own admissions they've always stopped just shy of real mischief prior to Umbridge taking control of Hogwarts in OotP.  For Hermoine, it would be easy to just let Ron (and Harry to a degree) flunk out, but she sees it as right that she helps her friends succeed.  For most of Harry's earlier escapades (Books 1 and 2), it would have been easy for him to sit them out and mind his own business, but it was the right thing to get involved.

True Slytherins can be "brave," but they'll use any and all means at their disposal to look out for number one.  In the end, a Slytherin's biggest focus is on themselves.  So far, we've only seen in the books that Slytherins have foul purposes, but again we're only seeing things as Harry sees them, with the closest Slytherin we've meet so far to being "good" is Slughorn, who is most certainly self-indulgent, but by all appearances doesn't by into the pure-blood mania, setting him apart from the rest of the Slytherins we've seen so far.  We've also got Snape the wild card, and though his loyalty appears to lie with Voldemort after HBP, I'm pretty sure he's been playing both sides against each other to his benefit, with the events of HBP forcing him to finally "choose" a side.


----------



## sniffles (Oct 18, 2006)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> I watched the Harry Potter films (1, 2, 3 and 4) in order, then bought all the books at once and have since read them out of order:  1, 5, 6, and now 3.
> That is, I just read Harry Potter and the Prisoner of *Azkaban*.




Fixed it for you.   



			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Edit:  But what is Arithmancy?



I don't think they've ever really explained it, but I have the impression that it's rather like numerology. The magical expression of mathematics.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Oct 19, 2006)

But what did you'all think of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, compared to the other books?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 19, 2006)

Just my 2 cp (and there are untagged spoilers, so don't read it if they bother you):



The Harry Potter books will always have a place in my heart because, after the first film, I could hear a child behind me whisper "The book was better".    

However, while I find the HP books to be adequate reading, they don't hang together well (certainly there is no unified theory of magic behind the snippets of classes we see), they are adequately written (but not inspiring), and I keep reading them more for the soap opera quality rather than because each new book is a brilliant gem.

I think that The Philosopher's Stone was a book intended to be taken lightly, a fairly good children's adventure yarn that proved far more popular that expected.  The next book, Chamber of Secrets, is the weakest IMHO.  Having killed off her main villian, JKR is forced to make the _memory_ of him into the villian.  I feel that the Chamber movie was superior to the book, for no other reason than that the film makers had a better idea as to where the series was going than JKR did when she wrote the book.  I know that this isn't what JKR says, but I think it shows in the plotting, the writing, and the retconning that comes in the later books.

Only on the 3rd book do we see any sense that there is a metaplot, and it is done by (apparently) retconning what happened previously.  Also, in this book JKR seems to realize that she has to do something about the magic system she created in the previous two books, and begins to take steps to retcon what is being taught at Hogwarts.  I would say that her writing definitely grows here.  There are still quite a few problems (the biggest that the whole muggle world/magical world dichotomy is given only the barest lip service; the second biggest that only Harry Potter, of all the children the Death Eaters killed, was apparently loved enough by his parents to be protected!).

Will she be remembered 20 years from now?  Undoubtably.  She is very good at getting the "children in school" thing right.  She uses a very strong premise with the "special boy" and "underdog" combined theme.  

As for The Half-Blood Prince, I think it is fairly obvious that:



Spoiler




Snape isn't really a bad guy.  He is going undercover in a plan concocted by Dumbledore.

This plan requires that Snape be trusted absolutely, so Dumbledore allowed himself to be "killed" and Harry to witness it.

Dumbledore isn't actually dead.  Which is why attention is given in the book to a potion that can fake the effects of death.




So, while I agree that they are interesting and have energy, I don't buy that they are great literature.  The depth of the series has increased over time, but not to the degree that many people seem to think.

IMHO, anyway.


RC


----------



## sckeener (Oct 19, 2006)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> But what did you'all think of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, compared to the other books?




I thought the time turner was the plot device of a lazy author.  I hate time travel in my novels.

What I did like about PoA is that the series finally started having an edge.  Starting with that book I got the feeling that we were dealing with shades of gray and more mature themes.  

IMHO Order of the Phoenix is still the best (though I do not think JKR can write men in love well) and Goblet of Fire is the worst.


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Oct 20, 2006)

I liked PoA as book.  It just had the feel of a good mystery, with enough red herrings, as all along the reader is lead to believe that Sirius Black is the turncoat.

The Time Turner I had no issue with, but then I think Rowling handled it pretty well, or at least a lot better than other authors of books for kids would have done.

Wasn't thrilled with the movie, as it seemed to change things simply for the sake of changing them, and completely cut out the Marauders' plotline, as well as the significance of the shape of Harry's Patronus; which I wouldn't be surprised if in Book 7 it takes a new form, given the traumatic death of the wizard he most admired.

Raven Crowking,
Hate to break it do you, but in an emphatic statement from Rowling herself, Dumbledore is deadier than disco.  She killed him so that Harry has no major protectors left and now has to confront Voldemort alone, as befits the Campbellian Hero Myth that she's been using as a very general guideline for Harry's story.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 20, 2006)

Donovan Morningfire said:
			
		

> Raven Crowking,
> Hate to break it do you, but in an emphatic statement from Rowling herself, Dumbledore is deadier than disco.  She killed him so that Harry has no major protectors left and now has to confront Voldemort alone, as befits the Campbellian Hero Myth that she's been using as a very general guideline for Harry's story.





Maybe.  We'll see.

However, as written, I have a very hard time believing that Dumbledore being actually dead was her intention when HBP was released.  It could be that, since D's survival (and means thereof) is so glaringly obvious that she changed her mind thereafter.  I, for one, see no evidence in the HP books that JKR's statement about having the overarching plot worked out since Book 1 is true, so I can't give that much weight.

RC


----------



## billd91 (Oct 20, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Maybe.  We'll see.
> 
> However, as written, I have a very hard time believing that Dumbledore being actually dead was her intention when HBP was released.  It could be that, since D's survival (and means thereof) is so glaringly obvious that she changed her mind thereafter.  I, for one, see no evidence in the HP books that JKR's statement about having the overarching plot worked out since Book 1 is true, so I can't give that much weight.
> 
> RC




I thought his magical appearance as a portrait in the headmaster's office sealed the deal. Dumbledore is dead. But note that because of his portrait, he's still available to offer advice if not protection (meaning he still gets to be a contributing character... I wonder if he could communicate through his Chocolate Frog trading cards?). That's why I thought it pretty obvious Dumbledore is definitely dead.
His death was also foreshadowed by Hagrid's statements that he's not worried as long as they had Dumbledore. I had been expecting Dumbledore's death before Sirius Black's.


----------



## billd91 (Oct 20, 2006)

sckeener said:
			
		

> I thought the time turner was the plot device of a lazy author.  I hate time travel in my novels.




I thought she handled it pretty well, particularly since they smashed the hell out of the time turners in the Department of Mysteries so there was no way to go back and undo the deaths of Sirius and Dumbledore.
Rowling covered her tracks nicely there.


----------



## sniffles (Oct 20, 2006)

billd91 said:
			
		

> I thought his magical appearance as a portrait in the headmaster's office sealed the deal. Dumbledore is dead. But note that because of his portrait, he's still available to offer advice if not protection (meaning he still gets to be a contributing character... I wonder if he could communicate through his Chocolate Frog trading cards?). That's why I thought it pretty obvious Dumbledore is definitely dead.
> His death was also foreshadowed by Hagrid's statements that he's not worried as long as they had Dumbledore. I had been expecting Dumbledore's death before Sirius Black's.



I certainly hope Dumbledore is genuinely dead. I would hate to have gone through such a wrenching experience only to have Rowling press the reset button at the end of the next book. That would be a disservice to her readers.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 20, 2006)

billd91 said:
			
		

> I thought his magical appearance as a portrait in the headmaster's office sealed the deal. Dumbledore is dead.




I hope you realize that the living can appear in those sorts of mobile pictures, and have many times in the various HP novels.


RC


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Oct 21, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I hope you realize that the living can appear in those sorts of mobile pictures, and have many times in the various HP novels.
> 
> RC



But can you interact with those mobile pictures as opposed to the interactive portraits of dead people that we've seen?

As billd91 mentioned, when Harry was ushered into the Headmaster's office after Dumbledore's death, there was a new portrait of the recently-deceased prior Headmaster.

I agree with sniffles in that it would severly cheapen the overall story and the significance of Snape's actions if Dumbledore were to appear alive and well in Book 7.  Not to mention that Rowling has painted a pretty through picture that once you die, there's no coming back, such as with Sirius (what a crummy way to go for such a neat character, but at least he died during a pitched battle with the bad guys).

Not saying we won't have some form of interaction with Dumbledore, as his portrait is around to dole out a few last bits of sage advice to Harry.  And considering how clever the man is, he probably knew that the odds of him cashing out before Voldemort's defeat were about equal to the proverbial snowball in hell, so he's probably left behind something for Harry to help him along the way, such as instructions on how to find/destroy the Horcuxes, or maybe even some really advanced spellwork that will give Harry a much needed leg-up when he finally does face Voldemort.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 21, 2006)

If Dumbledore didn't orchestrate his "death", and he died as shown in HBP, he simply is _not_ the clever man we've been led to believe.

RC


----------



## billd91 (Oct 23, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If Dumbledore didn't orchestrate his "death", and he died as shown in HBP, he simply is _not_ the clever man we've been led to believe.
> 
> RC




It's not a question of being clever. It's a question of saving Draco Malfoy, whatever the cost. Remember the argument between Snape and Dumbledore. I think Dumbledore told Snape he had to protect Draco even if that meant killing him (being Dumbledore, darn pronouns) and Snape was having a hard time with that.


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Oct 23, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If Dumbledore didn't orchestrate his "death", and he died as shown in HBP, he simply is _not_ the clever man we've been led to believe.
> 
> RC



Well, also think back to Dumbledore's words on the subject of death to Harry in Book 1.

"To the well-organized mind, death is but the next great adventure." (or somesuch)

I don't think Dumbledore knew when and where he was going to die, but like I said, I'm sure he knew the clock was ticking (especially after he got maimed when destroying the ring horcrux), and he certainly wouldn't be clever if he didn't put into motions plans in the event that he did die.  After all, he made sure that Harry knew the secret of how his mortal enemy had "cheated" death, and so better equip him for the task should Albus fall along the way.  As for the draught of living death potion, Albus never had the time to take it, and I'm pretty sure Voldemort would have used an actual poison to safeguard one of his precious horcruxes.

I agree with billd91 that Snape was forced to kill Dumbledore on the headmaster's prior instructions that every step is to be taken to safeguard Draco.  To the headmaster of a school, the welfare of a student would easily take precedence over his own, plus he also planned on Snape still having a role to play for the good guys.  Whether it is Snape's intention to carry through with whatever Dumbledore ultimately planned or has truly returned to the Death Eater fold is still the subject of some very lively debate.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Oct 23, 2006)

Dumbledore is not all knowing or all clever, by any means.  He has made terrible, drastic mistakes.  Some of his mistakes are caused by his ethical stance, such as allowing Tom Riddle to enter Hogwarts.
  He did not figure out Voldemort could return through Quirrel.  Harry, Hermione, and Ron beat him to it.
  He did not figure out the Chamber of Secrets situation.
  He could not save Sirius Black or Buckbeak.  Harry and Hermione had to do that.
  He did not figure out the Tri-Wizards Cup was a portkey trap, or that Wormtail had infiltrated his school.
  In the end, Draco Malfoy outwitted Dumbledore.  He found a way through all the defenses set up by Dumbledore (and all the others) through the items and the Room of Requirement ((not bad, Draco ...))

  Incidentally, Rowlings says (according to the website I visited) that McGonagall is an old softy.  I must disagree with her.  Heh.  LOL.

  I like Fleur (I like Hermione even more, but Fleur is second ... and Ginny third.)  Now, if only Ron Weasley had been 5 years older, perhaps he could have won her ...


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Oct 24, 2006)

Edena,
Well, Dumbledore does say that he is much cleverer than most folks, but that being so also means that his mistakes are correspondingly larger.  Of couse, since we only see things through the Harry-filter, there's often a lot more going on in regards to Dumbledore that we don't see.  But I agree that he's far from all-knowing, and he admits so himself, which I think is a large part of his charm.

As for Riddle, Dumbledore always believes in giving people a second chance, believing in the inherent goodness of others.

For a lot of the other cases, he didn't have all the necessary tools/information needed to do the job, as it were.  For Quirrel, it was only at the dramatic confrontation that Harry learned who the guilty party was; throughout the book he was adamant it was Snape.  Albus knew that Voldemort was lurking around, trying to get the Stone, but I'm sure that Vapermort took steps to hide his presence right under his enemy's nose.

Portkey trap?  It was set up by an imposter that was doing a wonderful job of impersonating on of Dumbledore's trusted allies that Dumbledore himself was fooled.  Hard to prevent a plot when the person most trusted to thwart it is the instigator, and especially if as the movie showed Dumbledore asked "Moody" to keep an eye on Potter.

Of course, there's also the conceit that stories about Harry Potter would be a great deal less interesting if Dumbledore was able to solve the case in the matter of a few pages.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Oct 24, 2006)

I'm not saying Dumbledore is stupid, merely that he makes mistakes.
  One of his greatest mistakes was sending Harry to live with the Dursleys.  A point Dumbledore basically admitted to ... to the Dursleys themselves.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 24, 2006)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> I'm not saying Dumbledore is stupid, merely that he makes mistakes.
> One of his greatest mistakes was sending Harry to live with the Dursleys.  A point Dumbledore basically admitted to ... to the Dursleys themselves.





Which was, really, the only way that JKR could ret-con the Dursleys into making sense.


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Oct 25, 2006)

Yeah, sending Harry to the Dursleys was a mistake in terms of Harry's growing up, but when he did it, Dumbledore's #1 priority was "Keep Harry Safe/Alive," which required sending him to his only living relative, Petunia Dursley.  Sadly, his hopes that they would give Harry a happy childhood were woefully misplaced.

And I really don't think it was ret-con, more that it wasn't until the end of Book 5 that we finally learned why he had to keep going back.

Think what you will, but I honestly believe that Rowling's had the major plot-points planned out from the beginning, especially regarding Harry.  There's been far too many subtle nods in earlier books to things that become major in later stories for it to be coincidental.  She sneaks in something that looks minor, like Animagi (McGonagall in the opening of Philosopher's Stone) or Divination (making it look like a load of bunk) that prove to be crucial elements of the plot of a later book, such as the Marauders in PoA or the Prophecy in OotP.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 25, 2006)

Donovan Morningfire said:
			
		

> Think what you will, but I honestly believe that Rowling's had the major plot-points planned out from the beginning, especially regarding Harry.  There's been far too many subtle nods in earlier books to things that become major in later stories for it to be coincidental.





Sorta like Enterprise had been planned out when the original Star Trek series was conceived?  There are far too many subtle nods in Star Trek to things that become major in Enterprise for it to be coincidental......  

Sorry, but I don't buy it.  I don't think there was a real sense of where the series was going until #3 at the earliest.


RC


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Oct 25, 2006)

On another issue, I think McGonagall should have accepted Neville into her class (changing forms, changing things) after he only attained an Acceptable on his O.W.L.
  The reason?
  Neville played a part in saving the school, especially in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.

  Is that playing favorites?  Yes.  Is it unfair?  Yes.
  Should Neville receive special treatment for aiding Hogwarts?  Yes, IMHO.

  As for Harry Potter, he should have been accepted into any NEWT class he wished into, period.  Ditto Hermione and Ron Weasley.  Without them, there would have been no Hogwarts to teach NEWT classes in.


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Oct 25, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Sorta like Enterprise had been planned out when the original Star Trek series was conceived?  There are far too many subtle nods in Star Trek to things that become major in Enterprise for it to be coincidental......
> 
> RC



You're comparing apples and chainsaws with that (incredibly pathetic) attempt.

I'm guessing any point in any series, if they go explain in any detail about things from the past, either past stories or things prior to when the stories take place, you call it a ret-con?


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Oct 25, 2006)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> On another issue, I think McGonagall should have accepted Neville into her class (changing forms, changing things) after he only attained an Acceptable on his O.W.L.
> The reason?
> Neville played a part in saving the school, especially in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix.
> 
> ...



The problem there is it would require McGonagall to show blatantly undue favoritism, something she's never done and would be horribly out of character for her.  She has allowed a slight bending of the rules where appropriate (Hermoine and the Time Turner, advising Harry when it came to dealing with Umbridge), but for the most part she's a "by the book" type of teacher.

She's done a fair amount to hold Harry to the same rules as any other student, and if anyone should get special treatment for past deeds, it's him.  But other than not being expelled for flying during his first year (he got on to the Quidditch team based on skill, not favoritism), Harry's had to toe the same academic line as everyone else.

As for Neville, after having spent the past five years teaching the boy, she'd have a pretty good idea whether he could keep up with the course work.  It's not that much different than Honors classes in real world schools; you only get in if you've got the academic track record to show you can keep up.  And frankly, Neville's been pretty lackluster through most of his academic life, only excelling in Herbology and probably scraping by in his other classes (save for Potions, which he's abysmal at due to Snape).


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 26, 2006)

Donovan Morningfire said:
			
		

> You're comparing apples and chainsaws with that (incredibly pathetic) attempt.
> 
> I'm guessing any point in any series, if they go explain in any detail about things from the past, either past stories or things prior to when the stories take place, you call it a ret-con?





Absolutely not.  There are many writers who clearly do know the story they are telling from word one, and those writers are not making laboured attempts to make previous details make sense.  

There are some obvious, and big, examples.  Why is Harry protected from Voldemort?  Because his mother loved him and was willing to die for him.  Hmmmm.  And, when the Death Eaters were active, _*Harry was the only child so loved by his parents*_?  Seems more like an explaination that left Harry vulnerable was needed, but certainly not a good one.  (I believe I mentioned that before.)

Why is Harry sent to the Dursleys?  At this point, let it be remembered, He Who Must Not Be Named is dead.  Sure, he has servants, but they are being rounded up.  So the most powerful wizards in Britain decide that, rather than protect Harry themselves, they'll stick him in bondage with the most abusive family they can find.  Of course, they watch over him, so they know the family is abusive, right?

Or, perhaps, in the first book they simply left Harry with the Dursleys because they were his closest living relatives, and all the rest is ret-con.

Which makes more sense?

And why exactly is it that neither Voldemort nor any Death Eater knows that a parent's love can protect a child?  Oh, yes, they are "blind to it"....but surely the most willfully blind must have run into this effect before?

And why exactly is it that none of the other wizards seems to know about this effect either?  After all, when it comes down to it, Harry's survival shouldn't have been that miraculous.  (Unless, of course, it was determined that the survival was a miracle _before_ it was determined how the survival occured.)

Frankly, the books are fun, light reads....but they do not stand up under even the mildest scrutiny.  Hence, my belief that they are ret-conned.


RC


----------



## billd91 (Oct 26, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> There are some obvious, and big, examples.  Why is Harry protected from Voldemort?  Because his mother loved him and was willing to die for him.  Hmmmm.  And, when the Death Eaters were active, _*Harry was the only child so loved by his parents*_?  Seems more like an explaination that left Harry vulnerable was needed, but certainly not a good one.  (I believe I mentioned that before.)




Then again, and this argument applies to the closing points of your posting as well, we don't really have a lot of evidence that Voldemort and the Death Eaters were targeting kids specifically. Plus, we don't yet know everything that happened when Lilly was murdered. Did she start a spell on Harry that would be finished with her own sacrifice? We know that the Potters were close to Dumbledore, they knew about the prophecy and that Voldemort was gunning for them and Harry in particular, might Dumbledore have given them the skinny on some magic and other power that Dumbledore has said a few times throguhout the series Voldemort undervalues?



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Why is Harry sent to the Dursleys?  At this point, let it be remembered, He Who Must Not Be Named is dead.  Sure, he has servants, but they are being rounded up.  So the most powerful wizards in Britain decide that, rather than protect Harry themselves, they'll stick him in bondage with the most abusive family they can find.  Of course, they watch over him, so they know the family is abusive, right?




May I also point out that the abusive family is also a staple in various forms of juvenile literature ranging from fairy tales to coming-of-age stories. Nothing at all wrong with playing within the genre.


----------



## sniffles (Oct 26, 2006)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Dumbledore is not all knowing or all clever, by any means.  He has made terrible, drastic mistakes.  Some of his mistakes are caused by his ethical stance, such as allowing Tom Riddle to enter Hogwarts.
> He did not figure out Voldemort could return through Quirrel.  Harry, Hermione, and Ron beat him to it.
> He did not figure out the Chamber of Secrets situation.
> He could not save Sirius Black or Buckbeak.  Harry and Hermione had to do that.
> ...



Dumbledore is certainly not all-knowing, or perfect. I think the expectation that he is Harry's expectation. Part of the maturing process of the characters is their discovery that adults make mistakes too. 

Part of the reason Dumbledore does not figure out all these things before the kids do is that the kids are the heroes of the story, so it would undermine that to have someone else do all the work. But realistically, Dumbledore is the head of a big school and one of the most important and powerful wizards in the wizarding world. He has spent a lot of his time trying to convince the Ministry of Magic that the Death-Eaters are still a threat, and in _Half-Blood Prince_ he's quite busy trying to find Voldemort's Horcrux. He's also just one elderly man. He simply doesn't have the time or energy to be on top of every detail.

And I have to point out that indirectly it was Dumbledore who saved Sirius Black and Buckbeak. I doubt it would have occurred to Hermione to use the Time-Turner for that purpose without Dumbledore's intervention.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 26, 2006)

billd91 said:
			
		

> Then again, and this argument applies to the closing points of your posting as well, we don't really have a lot of evidence that Voldemort and the Death Eaters were targeting kids specifically. Plus, we don't yet know everything that happened when Lilly was murdered. Did she start a spell on Harry that would be finished with her own sacrifice? We know that the Potters were close to Dumbledore, they knew about the prophecy and that Voldemort was gunning for them and Harry in particular, might Dumbledore have given them the skinny on some magic and other power that Dumbledore has said a few times throguhout the series Voldemort undervalues?





If you find the books to be internally self-consistent, then so be it.  I hope you will understand, though, that they do not even remotely seem so to me.  

This isn't to say that you can't play "Maybe it's because of this....Maybe it's because of that...." games with the material.  And those games can be fun; I enjoy guessing at what the underlying reality of the _Star Trek_ and _Doctor Who_ universes must be.  But then, no one ever tried to claim that _Star Trek_ or _Doctor Who_ was all figured out from the beginning either -- and if they did, they'd also have to explain why there are continuity gaps one could drive a truck through before I'd believe them.  


RC


----------



## billd91 (Oct 27, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> This isn't to say that you can't play "Maybe it's because of this....Maybe it's because of that...." games with the material.  And those games can be fun; I enjoy guessing at what the underlying reality of the _Star Trek_ and _Doctor Who_ universes must be.  But then, no one ever tried to claim that _Star Trek_ or _Doctor Who_ was all figured out from the beginning either -- and if they did, they'd also have to explain why there are continuity gaps one could drive a truck through before I'd believe them.




Of course with both of those, you couldn't really figure things out from the beginning. With the original Star Trek series, writing asignments for episodes were largely bid out at one time and there wasn't a lot of coordination between writers. That was the way series were often produced in the 1960s. I wouldn't be surprised if the Dr. Who series worked under similar arrangements.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 27, 2006)

True.  There's no shame in not having a complete series worked out from the first book, especially when you don't yet know what a hit that book will be.  I am just...shall we say, skeptical?...of the claim that the HP series was worked out in that manner.  


RC


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Oct 29, 2006)

I have to concur with you, Sniffles.
  As for McGonagall, she is certainly by-the-book.

  Here's one that piqued me:  When Harry used Snape's spell on Draco in The Half Blood Prince, Snape had him.
  I mean, he *had* him.  He had him red handed, literally.  Harry had just used a Dark Spell on a fellow student, a sure fire reason for Expulsion.
  Snape did not get his book back, because Harry hid it, but he still had the evidence to have Harry expelled.

  Why didn't Snape pounce, after all those years of trying?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Oct 29, 2006)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Here's one that piqued me:  When Harry used Snape's spell on Draco in The Half Blood Prince, Snape had him.
> I mean, he *had* him.  He had him red handed, literally.  Harry had just used a Dark Spell on a fellow student, a sure fire reason for Expulsion.
> Snape did not get his book back, because Harry hid it, but he still had the evidence to have Harry expelled.
> 
> Why didn't Snape pounce, after all those years of trying?




Could it be that Snape isn't really a bad guy and that he is going undercover in a plan concocted by Dumbledore?


----------



## The Forsaken One (Oct 29, 2006)

I see hermi and harry as Sakura and Naturo from the Naruto animated series -.-.

One is smarter and has much much more control over het potential and power while the others "personal resevoir" of magical energy/chakra/Power points/whatever is much and I mean MUCH MUCH bigger. That compared with a natural talent for magic results as stated before in a novice somtimes doing magic stuff that rivals or even exeeds the powers of the most veteran wizards.

The problem is with naruto and harry, they can hardly call upon it at will. They can only really access it from some innate point as from instinct when for example they are under a heavy emotional state as anger or grief.

Good example is the Harry vs voldemort fight where he really lays down the law by accessing his inner "resevoir" and reveals his true potential and whipes the floor with voldemort. What he really needs is a) how to control that power and b) how to readily access it.

I think that is what people ment with "has more raw power".


----------



## Tiberius (Oct 29, 2006)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Here's one that piqued me:  When Harry used Snape's spell on Draco in The Half Blood Prince, Snape had him.
> I mean, he *had* him.  He had him red handed, literally.  Harry had just used a Dark Spell on a fellow student, a sure fire reason for Expulsion.
> Snape did not get his book back, because Harry hid it, but he still had the evidence to have Harry expelled.
> 
> Why didn't Snape pounce, after all those years of trying?





I suspect that even if he had tried, he wouldn't get very far. Harry was defending himself from an Unforgivable Curse, after all. In fact, he probably did Malfoy a favor by saving him from a one-way trip to Azkaban.


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Oct 30, 2006)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> I have to concur with you, Sniffles.
> As for McGonagall, she is certainly by-the-book.
> 
> Here's one that piqued me:  When Harry used Snape's spell on Draco in The Half Blood Prince, Snape had him.
> ...




It'd be interesting to see if Harry can stand up to Snape. After all the mind control lessons he'd had from Snape and failing miserably. It'll probably take an extreme condition for Harry to be able to block his mind, like he did with the Patronus.


----------



## shilsen (Oct 30, 2006)

Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> It'd be interesting to see if Harry can stand up to Snape. After all the mind control lessons he'd had from Snape and failing miserably. It'll probably take an extreme condition for Harry to be able to block his mind, like he did with the Patronus.



 Personally, I think it'll take Rowling deciding he should be able to, or not. I'm funny like that


----------



## Squire James (Oct 31, 2006)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> I have to concur with you, Sniffles.
> As for McGonagall, she is certainly by-the-book.
> 
> Here's one that piqued me:  When Harry used Snape's spell on Draco in The Half Blood Prince, Snape had him.
> ...




Several Possibilities:

1.  Snape had a lot of things on his mind at the time, and it simply slipped his mind.

2.  He didn't think what Harry did was any big deal, compared to the other stuff that was going on at the time.

3.  He's saving it for blackmail when Harry geeks Valdemort and takes over Hogwarts ("By Jove, Harry, you WILL make me Defense of Dark Arts teacher NOW and FOREVER!).


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Nov 1, 2006)

shilsen said:
			
		

> Personally, I think it'll take Rowling deciding he should be able to, or not. I'm funny like that




That may be but it's fun to speculate.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Nov 1, 2006)

Severus Snape would squash Harry Potter.

  Harry Potter threw his best efforts against Snape, when Snape was fleeing with Draco, and Snape disdainfully slapped those spells out of the air.  
  And this was when Harry was motivated by the death of Dumbledore, which should have strengthened his magic.


----------



## wolff96 (Nov 1, 2006)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Harry Potter threw his best efforts against Snape, when Snape was fleeing with Draco, and Snape disdainfully slapped those spells out of the air.
> And this was when Harry was motivated by the death of Dumbledore, which should have strengthened his magic.




Or possibly weakened his magic, as he was torn apart by grief.  Not to mention his probable feelings of guilt over having not done enough to prevent Dumbledore's death.

Personally, I love the series.  It's not the best literature ever written, but I would put it high on my list of 'favorite reads'.  

I'm just wondering how she's going to shoehorn a bunch of Horcruxes, the resolution of  the Snape issue (a final word on whether or not he was acting for Dumbledore), and a final magical showdown with Voldemort -- plus denouement -- into the final book without rushing anything or producing something that looks like a phonebook.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 1, 2006)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> And this was when Harry was motivated by the death of Dumbledore, which should have strengthened his magic.




Or pushed a kid whose ability is somewhat undisciplined already into a far more sloppy and undisciplined state of mind that would be incapable of standing up to an accomplished and powerful wizard. Harry has proven adept at cobbling together a defense and distractions by fast thinking. He has yet to show a lot of ability at mounting an offense. Given the outcome of the HBP, I think Harry will seriously begin to apply himself to that task. I sense a training montage coming...


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Nov 1, 2006)

wolff96 said:
			
		

> Or possibly weakened his magic, as he was torn apart by grief.  Not to mention his probable feelings of guilt over having not done enough to prevent Dumbledore's death.
> 
> Personally, I love the series.  It's not the best literature ever written, but I would put it high on my list of 'favorite reads'.
> 
> I'm just wondering how she's going to shoehorn a bunch of Horcruxes, the resolution of  the Snape issue (a final word on whether or not he was acting for Dumbledore), and a final magical showdown with Voldemort -- plus denouement -- into the final book without rushing anything or producing something that looks like a phonebook.




Judging by the size of the last one, it'll be phonebook size.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Nov 1, 2006)

I don't see a Harry versus Voldemort showdown coming (ala Luke versus Darth Vader in The Empire Strikes Back, as it were:  'The Magic is with you, young Potter, but you are not a Wizard yet.')
  I think Harry is going to have to use more tact, if he wishes to defeat the greatest living wizard in the world.  I see Harry, Hermione and Ron, coming up with some plans ...


----------



## Chimera (Nov 2, 2006)

billd91 said:
			
		

> I sense a training montage coming...




Ok, who else immediately thought of the Montage scene and song in _Team America: World Police_?


----------



## Evil Monkey (Nov 5, 2006)

Chimera said:
			
		

> Ok, who else immediately thought of the Montage scene and song in _Team America: World Police_?




/hijack

Or the original episode of South Park the idea came from (and the song).  IIRC, it's the one where Stan is trying to learn how to ski.   

We now return you to your originally scheduled thread topic...


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Nov 6, 2006)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> I don't see a Harry versus Voldemort showdown coming (ala Luke versus Darth Vader in The Empire Strikes Back, as it were:  'The Magic is with you, young Potter, but you are not a Wizard yet.')
> I think Harry is going to have to use more tact, if he wishes to defeat the greatest living wizard in the world.  I see Harry, Hermione and Ron, coming up with some plans ...




Or else you'll see more than one showdown... Harry losing the first one (several) and then he manages to win the last one at the end.... after getting his butt literally handed to him in the ensuing fight before the last-minute win (typical Hollywood movie ending).

Hope that's not the case. Giving in to Hollywood stereotypical cheesy endings.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Nov 13, 2006)

Hey there, all.  
  I'm trying to remember the names of all the teachers at Hogwart's through the 6 books, and am not doing it.  Could someone help?
  I've got:

  Albus Dumbledore, Headmaster of the School
  Miranda McGonagall, Assistant Headmaster of the School and Head of House Gryffindor
  (something) Flitwick and Head of House Ravenclaw
  Severus Snape and Head of House Slytherin
  (something) Hooch
  (something) Pomfrey
  (the history professor)
  (something) Sprout (and Head of House Hufflepuff?)
  (something) Hagrid
  (something) Quirrell
  Rupert Lupin
  Mad-Eyed Moody (or (something) Moody)
  (something) Slugworth
  (that bad woman from the Ministry of Magic in book 5)
  (something) Lockhart
  (the divination professor)

  Who am I missing?  Anyone know the first names?  Thanks much.

  Edena_of_Neith


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Nov 13, 2006)

Listing and Bios of the Hogwarts staff 

Mugglenet, and by extension Leaky Cauldron, are _the_ two best sites for info on the Potterverse, both on the released books and in collecting rumors and announcements regarding the upcoming book as well.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Nov 16, 2006)

Thanks much there, Donovan.  
  Who would you say is your favorite Hogwart's teacher?  Who would you say is the best of the Hogwart's teachers?


----------



## Squire James (Nov 18, 2006)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Thanks much there, Donovan.
> Who would you say is your favorite Hogwart's teacher?  Who would you say is the best of the Hogwart's teachers?




Snape is the Howard Cosell of the Harry Potter world!  He's my least favorite AND my most favorite...

As for "best teacher", that honor apparently goes to "the Half-Blood Prince".  That semi-mythical figure was a lot better at teaching (Harry) Potions than Snape ever was!  Ironic, isn't it?


----------



## Darth K'Trava (Nov 18, 2006)

Squire James said:
			
		

> Snape is the Howard Cosell of the Harry Potter world!  He's my least favorite AND my most favorite...
> 
> As for "best teacher", that honor apparently goes to "the Half-Blood Prince".  That semi-mythical figure was a lot better at teaching (Harry) Potions than Snape ever was!  Ironic, isn't it?




Yup. VERY ironic. 

Especially since it seems that Snape intimidates Harry and it shows in his classwork.


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Nov 18, 2006)

Darth K'Trava said:
			
		

> Yup. VERY ironic.
> 
> Especially since it seems that Snape intimidates Harry and it shows in his classwork.



That or Snape just has a lousy teaching method.  After all, how well can you do in a subject if the teacher is constantly giving you low grades simply for breathing?  It's been shown time and again that he is blatantly unfair to non-Slytherins, with Harry and Neville being singled out for especially unfair treatment.

For my favorite teacher, I'd have to say it was Fake!Moody.  Considering the guy did such a great job that he convinced Dumbledore that he was the real deal, it was probably pretty close to how the real Moody would have taught.  Heck, maybe for Book 7 we'll have the real Mad-Eye teaching Defense against the Dark Arts...


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Nov 21, 2006)

I think of Snape as being an Anti-Hero  (Thomas Covenant is also an Anti-Hero, but I think Snape would throw a Cruciatious Curse on me if he ever heard me say that.)

  Severus Snape is arrogant, prejudiced, petty, vindictive, and not a very good teacher.
  Yet ...
  He is extraordinarily bright, a prodigy at potions and dark arts among other things, maintains exacting self discipline and control (especially in crisises where such control makes all the difference), and is loyal to Dumbledore and the Order of the Phoenix to the point of death and worse than death.

  He's a man you can love and hate, both, at the same time.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Nov 21, 2006)

Harry should have realized something was very wrong when Mad-Eyed-Moody merely asked to 'borrow' the Marauder's Map.
  The real Mad-Eyed Moody would have confiscated it at once.  (Lupin did so when he discovered it in Harry's possession, and he was considerably less paranoid and exacting than Mad-Eyed Moody.)

  Harry should have gone to Dumbledore right then and there, confessed about the Marauder's Map, and pointed the finger of suspicion at Moody.  This was a life and death game Voldemort was playing, as Harry found out the hard way when Sirius Black was killed.


----------



## Donovan Morningfire (Nov 21, 2006)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Harry should have realized something was very wrong when Mad-Eyed-Moody merely asked to 'borrow' the Marauder's Map.
> The real Mad-Eyed Moody would have confiscated it at once.  (Lupin did so when he discovered it in Harry's possession, and he was considerably less paranoid and exacting than Mad-Eyed Moody.)
> 
> Harry should have gone to Dumbledore right then and there, confessed about the Marauder's Map, and pointed the finger of suspicion at Moody.  This was a life and death game Voldemort was playing, as Harry found out the hard way when Sirius Black was killed.



Well, Harry had no reason to suspect fake Moody as being just that, a fake.  Nobody had confided in him what the signs were, so he didn't really know that Voldemort was up to something.  Also, prior to all that, Moody had gone out of his way to earn Harry's trust and respect, such as the subtle hint about how to deal with the dragon, humiliating Malfoy who had tried to curse Harry when his back was turned, and just in general impressing the lad with his depth of knowledge about defending yourself from the Dark Arts.  He swallowed Moody's story about hunting for Voldemort's agent (again having no reason not to trust the man), already suspected something was afoot (why was Barty Crouch sneaking around in Snape's office when he was supposedly sike), and figured the map would prove a great boon to a highly-skilled Auror, a man whom Harry liked and respected.  Besides, from Harry's point of view, it was better that Moody had it than Snape or Filch, who'd try and use it to get Potter in a lot of trouble.  Also remember from Harry's first year when he kept accusing Snape of wanting the Philsopher's Stone, and how his suspicion proved to be wrong?  He's not about to go accusing Moody, who from Harry's view hasn't done anything wrong, especially when he's convinced that at long as he's at Hogwarts, he's safe from Voldemort's reach.

In hindsight, it wasn't the best idea giving Fake!Moody the map.  But then again, Harry isn't known for his sound judgemental processes.  He's much better at the spur-of-the-moment, sudden-death decisions.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Nov 22, 2006)

I agree fully with you, Donovan.  Well put indeed.


----------

