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.
