SPOILER WARNING: A thread about the Harry Potter books

[Edena_of_Neith]

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]

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]

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).

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

- 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]

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]

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

- 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.