First of all let me say how much I truly love these books! They're amazingly fun! But nothing is perfect...
1) In book 3, Aunt Marge says that if Harry had been dumped on her doorstep, she would have refused to claim him and sent him to an orphanage. Given that Vernon and Petunia Dursley both loathe and fear their scruffy nephew, why didn't they do so themselves?
2) Hagrid is described as "twice as tall as a normal man and at least five times as wide." This makes him... eleven feet tall and almost eight feet wide. Although this can easily be explained by hyperbole on the narrator’s part, I must say I am surprised at this degree of exaggeration from an otherwise trustworthy source.
3) What would have happened if Harry had been able to read his first letter? How on earth would the Hogwarts authorities expect him to send an owl? ("We await you owl no later than July 31.") Were the mechanics of owl-post contained in Dumbledore’s letter too?
4) Ron complains that Professor McGonagall does not favor the students in her house, which seems like a very mild censure to me. Not only does she disfavor some of her little Gryffindors, she seems to actively discriminate against them! Let us compare two sets of punishments she hands out in this book and book 3:
i) Harry and Hermione have apparently tricked Draco Malfoy into going into a restricted area after curfew; their apparent snare has also gotten Neville Longbottom in trouble.
The intended result of the culprits’ action: some students get undeserved detentions and a small number of points might be taken undeservedly from a rival house
The punishment she assigns: detention for everyone and 150 points from Gryffindor
iii) Malfoy, Flint, Crabbe, and Goyle dress up as Dementors in order to terrorize Harry during a game of Quidditch.
The intended result of the culprits’ action: Harry could have been seriously hurt had he panicked and fallen off his broom. Additionally, the game would have been lost, putting the culprits’ house in a high lead for the Quidditch championship. So we’re talking cheating, sabotage, and the attempt to physically incapacitate another student.
The punishment McGonagall assigns: detention for eveyone and 50 points from Slytherin. 50 points?!?!?! That’s what she took from her own house when poor Neville sneaked out at night to warn his friends that a rival student was about to frame them! (It is also the number of point awarded to Harry for defeating the most evil wizard in history...!) Why is McGonagall being so harsh on her own students-- or so lenient with her rival’s students?
5) Dean Thomas' coverage of the Quidditch matches is extraordinarily funny. However, I am still surprised that Snape and the Slytherins haven't gotten him removed for repeatedly insulting their team.
6) Look, I understand the point of having students do something useful in detention. But going into the Forbidden Forest to track down a unicorn killer? They could have been really hurt-- or worse! As much as I hate to agree with Draco Malfoy, I have to say that if any of those students had been hurt, their parents would have had somebody fired within a week!
7) The details of the Quidditch season at Hogwarts mystify me. Gryffindor is listed as playing each other house once-- only once. There are only four houses. If each house plays every other only once, that comes to a grand total of six games per season. Pretty lame season if you ask me.
How come the Quidditch players have to supply their own brooms? Doesn't this give unfair advatage to teams whose players have rich fathers? Why can't the school shell out for its own athletic equipment?
And by the way it does sound like Quidditch
is the Witch equivalent to soccer,so are there
other Quidditch teams around the world?Are there
other schools like Hogswarts in other countries?
Is there a Quidditch World Cup?
This is the first time I have read any of the
Harry Potter books and I must say I rather enjoyed
it a whole lot,so can't wait to read the rest!!:)
BTW:Liked the way [line ruthlessly censored as it would spoil the ending for those that haven't read the book. Your Friendly Tyrannical Moderator] to help Harry.
Hey! These books are evil!
In Chamber of Secrets, we see some posters of Ron's favorite Quidditch team (ninth in the league), and in Prisoner of Azkaban, the Quidditch World Cup is mentioned a few times.
For more information on Hogwarts (but I reccomend going there only it you have read all the books) goto http://hogwarts.virtualave.net
Lee Jordan commentates Quidditch. Check out Fanfiction.net. There are about five hundred HP stories. Check out the ones by Blaise, Katie Bell, Gypsy and Miss Padfoot -they're the best ones.
Anyone else felt that the book was a little too black and white? that the bad guys were too bad ad the good guys too good?
I mean especially Harry's family, and the ending when his house wins.
Absolutely, Omer! The closest anybody gets to shades of grey in this entire series is Sirius Black in _Prisoner of Azkaban_, and even he is pretty fuzzied up by the book's end.
My big problem with Hogwarts in general is that the student sorting is too black and white. Gryffindor is universally the "cool people" dorm; Ravenclaw is the "we're not cool but at least we're smart" dorm; Hufflepuff is the "we're not cool or smart-- face it, we're complete losers but at least we're virtuous losers" dorm; and Slytherin is the "evil people destined to be scruffy and depraved and eventually beaten up by the Gyffindors" dorm. I mean, if you're not put in Gryffindor, why bother to keep on living?
More nitwise, this system is socially hazardous. No wonder Slytherin keeps turning out Dark Wizards if all the people there have a certain determined disregard for the rules! That house is pretty well recognized as a BREEDING GROUND for evil. Why hasn't somebody changed the sorting rules already in the interest of breaking up the cliques of unsavories and putting potential evildoes in houses with other students who will set them a good example?
Yeah Shira
in fact, I was extreamly disappointed when the bunch ended up at the grey whatever place. I thought they'd end up in Hufflepuff. That would've been more itneresting.
Also it could have been like less obvious - I mean, you just KNEW Harry will have two friends, a girl and a boy, and that he'll be the best broom flyer like ever and that he'll allways think about what to do next, and that...
know what I mean?
Well, it *IS* a kids' book. It helps to have black and white...
OK... but it is like a national best seller. Millions of adults read is it. Why?
Also, I think that by the time I could read, this kind of black and white characters were already too dull for me, but I'll give that the benefit of the doubt.
Who Shall Nitpick the Nitpickers?
Shira, it was Lee Jordan that gave coverage of the Quidditch matches, not Dean Thomas.
mmm... Do the publishers believe the American public is ••••••? why was the book's title changed from 'the philosopher's stone' to the sorcerers' stone?'
Well, in view of the fact that the James Bond movie "Licence Revoked" had to be renamed "Licence to Kill" because - allegedly - a large number of Americans when asked didn't know what 'revoked' meant; and in view of the fact that the movie "The Madness of George III" had to be renamed "The Madness of King George" because - again allegedly - American people asked what had happened to the films "The Madness of George" and "The Madness of George 2", I think the answer is a resounding yes - the publishers do believe that Americans aren't very bright (this is not MY opinion, by the way!). Though I'm surprised at the publishers' caution - I would have thought that most people (of any nationality) would have at least a vague idea what a philosopher is! Could it instead be a copyright thing? Is there a book in the States that bears a similar title (the 'philosopher's stone' bit at least)?
I heard that the title was changed because American publishers worried that American parents wouldn't want their kids "reading about philosophy" and that American kids are generally more interested in sorcerers than philosophers anyway. I didn't hear anything that obnoxious.
Especially as, obviously, the device described in the book is in fact A PHILOSOPHER'S STONE! Did they also change the text to refer to it as a Sorcer's stone in the novel itself?
I do think that its a shame, keeping the book in its original titles would help teach the public a facet about middle age mythology, at the very least.
Initially, changing it to Sorcerer's Stone kind of bugged me, but when you get down to it, it's just a name. Legendary persons and items are frequently referred to by different name even when they are basically the same. And it's not necessarily just variations in spelling. For example, the Arthurian character Nyneave is also known as Vivien. So I wouldn't worry about it too much.
When worrying over Prof. Snape's intention to referee the upcoming Quidditch match, Harry reminds his friends that Gryffindor has no reserve seeker: if Harry cannot or will not play, the team will lose by default. Whose dumb idea was this? Why doesn't the team have a reserve seeker? (Especially since Quidditch games have the potential to go one for days and even months, necessitating a changing of the guard so that the players can pop out for meals and rest.)
I noticed something interesting...
The Ministry of Magic has a wizard team on hand that deals with magicians that do magic within the sight of muggles....
For example, the Sirius Black case in the third book. He apperently blows up a street, the team swoops in and erases the memory of the witnesses and gives the story that a gas line broke and expoding...
If the first Potter movie is a success, perhaps they can have a movie based on this team of wizards, and call it... Wizards in Black!
From Chapter Seven -- The Sorting Hat:
And now there were only three people left to be sorted. "Thomas, Dean," a Black boy even taller then Ron, joined Harry at the Gryffindor table. "Turpin, Lisa," became a Ravenclaw and then it was Ron's turn. He was pale green by now. Harry crossed his fingers under the table and a second later the hat shouted, "GRYFFINDOR!"
Harry clapped loudly with the rest as Ron collapsed into the chair next to him.
"Well done, Ron, excellent," said Percy Weasley pompously across Harry as "Zabini, Blaise," was made a Slytherin.
"...there were only three people left to be sorted." Dean Thomas, Lisa Turpin, Ron Weasley, and Blaise Zabini are four people, not three.
Yotsuya, the key word is "people." Slytherins are not people, they are doomed cunning evil wicked demons destined to plot with Lord Voldemort to destroy the human race. ;-)
Details, details!
Why are people posting here about the next two books? Some of us don't want spoilers, okay!!?
Yotsuya, you got my first nit. I have a couple others:
1) When Wood is explaining the rules of Quidditch to Harry at his first practice, Harry acts like he hasn't heard it before--but Ron spent most of the train ride to Hogwarts giving him "the finer points of the game".
2) At one point, Harry says that if he doesn't play, the Gryffendor Quidditch team can't because he is their only Seeker, "there are no reserves". Later, we find out that they played the final game without him (since he was unconscious of course). I must wonder who played Seeker for Gryffendor in that game.
Sorry Sarah, but there are a lot of really good nits that only appear by comparing what one book says to what another says.
SPOILER (not really):
In this book Hagrid says that there wasn't a single Dark Wizard who wasn't in Slytherin. Not only is this a false statement, Hagrid knows it's a false statement! In Book 3, the famous Prisoner of Azkaban convicted of killing 13 people with one curse is from Gyffindor and Hagrid talks about him! (And for those of you who have read the book, the REAL menace is also from Gryffindor.)
Pardon, but do we know for certain that both Black and Perrigrew were from Gryffindor? For that matter, do we know for certain that James Potter was from Gryffindor? True that it's common for family members to be in the same house, but it's not universal.
You are most correct, sir. Rowling has never named a house or houses for Moony, Padfoot, Wormtail, and Prongs. However, given what we know about the character of James Potter (he was neither scheming nor ambitious, and he was very brave) I can guarantee you he wasn't in Slytherin. And it is highly unusual at Hogwarts for two best friends doing a "double act" to be found in separate houses, which suggests that Sirius wasn't a Slytherin either.
There is no confirmation that Moony, Padfoot, Wormtail, and Prongs were in Gryffindor, but I can guarantee that Padfoot and Wormtail were not both in Slytherin, making Hagrid's Slytherin-bashing still inexcusable.
Okay, the J.K. Rowling interview of Oct. 16 has confirmed that James Potter and Lily Evans were both in Gryffindor. (Other bit of trivia: James played Chaser for the Lions.)
Also, her interview confirmed many people's suspicions that Mrs. Figg in this book is the same person as witch Arabella Figg mentioned in the end of Book 4. Arabella Figg is part of "the old crowd" of anti-Voldemort insurgents, along with Prof. Lupin and some of Dumbledore's other old cronies. If this is so, why didn't Mrs. Figg tell Harry he was a wizard at any of the times Harry had to stay by her? It's not like Harry took the surname Dursley or otherwise masked his true identity. Dumbledore wanted him to know something about himself, his family, and his past (that's why he left the letter) and it's really obvious that Harry didn't know anything, so why didn't she help the poor kid out?
The interview also allegedly gave the name of book 5. Wasn't it going to be "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix"?
Scott, it's a working title. I believe she said she has two other possible titles, just that Order of the Phoenix is the most likely at this point.
Kira, who says that they got along? Their relationship could have been (and probably was) like the relationship between Lily and Mrs. Dursley.
She's one of the first three people Dumbledore wants to alert to Voldemort's return. Being a member of the "old crowd" implies a certain level of camaraderie, yes?
Loony Theory TimeTM: On the Chocolate Frog Card for Dumbledore, it states that he defeated the dark wizard Grindelwald in 1945. The year, along with the name sounding Germanic, has given me the idea that Grindelwald was one of Hitler's psychic advisers. What do you think, sirs?
Misting:
Any time Harry sees his relatives in the mirror:
"I see dead people!"
Under the heading of "Wow, am I dumb!":
I never realized until I read it on hissyfit.com that Diagon Alley can be read as "diagonally" and Knocturn Alley can be read as "nocturnally"!
J.K. Rowling just continues to amaze me...
When Hermoine (sp) Granger was sent her letter inviting her to join Hogwarts, how did she and her family react? As Muggles, wouldn't they have thought it a joke? Not having an owl, how would they reply? How would they know where to pick up her school supplies, or how to get on the train? Or do they send someone like Hagrid to all the Muggle-born students?
Does is ever say anywhere what time period these stories are taking place during? Is it the present, or not too many years ago?
In the second book, Harry, Ron, and Hermione attend Nearly Headless Nick's 500th deathday party. It was stated there that he died in 1492. I think you can do the math.
Which raises a nit. At the sorting Banquet, Nick tells Harry that he hasn't eaten in nearly 400 years. He's been dead for 500.
Second sorting nit. The book says that there were only three sortings left, but then four kids get sorted (two before Ron, then Ron, then Blaise Zabisi).
See Yotsuya's and my post for June 20-21, 2000.
Why is it that Harry's scar sometimes burns when he's around Prof. Quirrel (and his pal in the turban), but sometimes it doesn't? Does it only burn when Voldemort gets especially angry? Or does Voldemort not hang out in the turban all day?
Probably the former.
47-alert: There are 700 sorts of foul which can be committed in Quiddich, and they were all commited in a world cup game in 1473.
Duke, in the movie it seems to happen whenever Quirrel has his back to Harry, which kinda makes sense.
Duke, in the movie it seems to happen whenever Quirrel has his back to Harry, which kinda makes sense.
Whoops, sorry about that, his "post" twice.
BIG nit: The day, when Hagid and Harry were in Gringotts, they met Quirrel first, and he shook (? vokab?) Harrys hands. Quirrel touched Harry! Why could he do that? Vol... Sorry, You-Know-Who has already enslaved Quirrel!
Why must Nicolas Flamel DIE after the Philosopher's stone was destroyed? He made the stone, and so he should be able to make another one. (Or should You-Know-Who THINK, that Flamel must die and there will never exist another Philosopher's Stone?)
Actually, as I understand it, Voldemort decided to "attach" himself to Quirrel after the meeting in Diagon Alley. Notice that, at that first meeting, there is no mention of Quirrel's peculiar turban.
Because, Andreas, as soon as he finishes another Stone, Voldemort will try and steal that one! The only way to prevent him from coming back to life (at least with a Philosopher's Stone) is to make sure there are no Philsopher's Stones for him to use.
On the other hand, now that Book 4 has come and gone he's up and about anyway, Nicholas might as well make himself another one, 'cuz the damage has been done! ;-)
D.K. Henderson's right, and I quote: "When I failed to steal the stone from Gringotts, he was most displeased. He punished me...decided he would have to keep a closer watch on me..."
The first time Quirrell is described as wearing the turban is at the sorting ceremony, although in the movie he's got it on in Diagon Alley. Which I suppose is a movie nit, of sorts, and ought to go on the movie board.
(Or maybe You-Know-Who is just attracted to people with unusual and convenient headgear.)
I heard that the title was changed because American publishers worried that American parents wouldn't want their kids "reading about philosophy" and that American kids are generally more interested in sorcerers than philosophers anyway. I didn't hear anything that obnoxious.
I am afraid Omer is correct. Fun as it may be to indulge in conspiracy theories, the dull fact is that the publishers of the book and the film just didn't believe the ordinary American would know what a philosopher was.
Peter.
On a related note...I once had a paperback of Dick Francis' TWICE SHY. When later I picked up a hardback copy of the book, I discovered that some (expletive deleted) had gone through and changed various British idioms to American. ("Pips" to "Seeds", "Nappies" to "Diapers", etc.) I was extremely offended. Even if I wasn't aware that British people refer to seeds as pips, the context of the sentence would have made it obvious. This was a British book, written by a British author about British people, and someone thought me incapable of comprehending a few simple words!!!!
It doesn't offend me. British English and American English are two different languages. And Peter, the publishers didn't think that Americans didn't know what philosophers were, just that they didn't care to *read* about them.
The original UK edition - i.e Philospher's Stone was also distributed in Canada. (This is the smaller, reddish hardcover without the shiny embossed title.)
Which led to a whole mess of confusion in Canuck buyers as to whether these were two different books or not; also from US tourists wondering the same thing in reverse.
So I spent most of one Christmas season explaining the difference...frequently to desperate parents who were getting massive whine action on the 'When's the next Harry Potter coming oooooouuuuut?!' front and hence took a lot of convincing.
Just one of the many joys of bookselling...
I also got a chance to watch reactions when I explained the reason for the title switch. Most people (including the author of a New Yorker article I read at the time) were upset by the implication - regardless of actual intent - that they somehow weren't sophisticated or intelligent enough to 'get' the Britishisms. (Bear in mind that North American culture views British ditto as a sort of benchmark of high-class, as per Masterpiece Theatre.)
Personally, I'm with D.K. and the New Yorker guy - the changes were silly and superfluous. I mean, now that we've got kids reading, what's the harm in expanding their cultural horizons a little?
It doesn't offend me. British English and American English are two different languages. And Peter, the publishers didn't think that Americans didn't know what philosophers were, just that they didn't care to *read* about them.
Well Warner Brothers named the film the Sorceror's blah blah because they were afraid American's wouldn't know what a philosopher was, so I don't see why the book should be so different. Anyway, when did "I heard that . . ." become fact for you? Shouldn't you qualify that statement somehow?
Peter.
Peter,
Wrong. The *BOOK* was published in the US as "Sorceror's Stone", Warner Bros. had nothing to do with it.
So it was a complete coincidence then? 
The book publishing firm for Harry Potter decided to pretend the Stone owner was a Sorceror to bow to a right-wing conspiracy and Warner Brothers independently made exactly that decision through fear that Americans wouldn't know what a philosopher was? That is a pretty absurd position, Scott.
Peter.
Yeah, the book was retitled far in advance of the film. Since US fans already knew and loved 'Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone', why mess with their little minds?
As for the retitling, Peter is half-right. As noted above, I have a LOT of experience with Harry Potter-mania, and the explanation I heard over and over again - including, again, in the New Yorker - was that American publishers were convinced the concept of a 'philosopher's stone' - not actual philosophers - would be too arcane for US kiddie audiences.
Peter...just to clarify in case my post above hasn't made it clear...Warner Brothers made no independent decisions about retitling the film. The change had already been made by Scholastic, the publisher of the US edition, and was retained for the film for the very simple reason I stated above.. No conspiracy necessary.
Well, I don't think Scholastic should have changed the name. American's could have figured out what a "philosopher's stone" is.
Merry
That is perfectly valid position, Merry. However, kerriem and Scott and correct... Warner Bros wanted to make a film out of an extremely well-known American book and saw no reason to make the title of that movie any different than the title of that same American book.
Anyway, when did "I heard that . . ." become fact for you? Shouldn't you qualify that statement somehow?
LOL! Peter, you old pirate, you crack me up! punches Peter in the arm in a friendly manner I have indeed dropped my customary cautious "I heard... but..." No, I haven't heard anyone from Scholastic confirm the matter, though I haven't heard anything to the contrary or anything better. Starts to add... but thinks better of it... mrphlgrphlhahahahahahaha!
In reading everyone's various opinions concerning the renaming of "...Philosopher's Stone" to "...Sorcerer's Stone", I've come to the conclusion that I must be a somewhat ignorant American, who doesn't get British-isms. Sure, I knew what a "nappy" was, and I suppose I thought I knew what a philosopher was, but I guess I never equated it to being someone who brews elixir of life with his Philosopher's Stone. (Hmmm, unless, maybe Socrates didn't really drink hemlock. Maybe it was elixir of life, and he's really still around today, and, say, there just might be a conspiracy behind this after all...) To me, a "Sorcerer" sounds more suited to that line of work. So why should I read "Philosopher", and get the meaning behind it? If it's just a British connotation, I'd appreciate some education in the matter. And I apologize on behalf of all the other Americans who don't get it, either.
After scanning the page, I don't see any explanations, so -- the philosopher's stone doesn't really have anything to do with philosophy in the modern understanding. It's a concept from alchemy; philosopher was often used to mean "alchemist" in medieval texts, which is why Chaucer can say of the Clerk of Oxford:
But al be that he was a philosophre
Yit hadde he but litel gold in cofre...
which puns on the two meanings of the word. The philosopher's stone was the substance believed to be the key to changing lead into gold. I'm not aware of any actual tradition linking it with the ability to live forever, though.
Anyway, since the myth of the philosopher's stone has a historical basis, the American wording changes it from something some people might know to something nobody would know about anyway, since the name never existed... ;-)
Thanks for the explanation, Lea. Actually, today I decided to look in a dictionary that's far less abridged than the one I own, and an entry for "philosopher's stone" was in it. It mentioned the alchemy angle, and even made brief mention of elixirs (but nothing about living forever, alas...). That extra background about Chaucer was interesting, though. Well, now I can appreciate the British title for this book more than before, and even feel a little peeved myself that it was changed. Maybe Rowling should have dropped a line somewh
That was ugly. I'll finish...
Maybe Rowling should have dropped a line somewhere in the book to explain the significance of the name. Then again, maybe not.
You're quite welcome.
Incidentally, there's another mention of alchemy in the Canterbury Tales -- the Canon's Yeoman (who's not in the General Prologue, btw; he shows up late) is an alchemist's assistant who's grown disillusioned with the "elvyssh trade" he practices. There's a lot about that in the story Chaucer has him tell -- one of my favorite professors says it's a metaphor for disillusionment with the creative act, or more specifically with the idea that fiction or satire can bring about real change (which is the project of the Tales).
Well, that was off-topic, wasn't it? (Though the notion of alchemy as a metaphor for the creative act -- a loaded one, as alchemy doesn't work -- is a good thing for me to think about: I'm working on a thesis on the comedies of Ben Jonson, and one of the most famous is The Alchemist, who is not actually an alchemist but a con artist...)
Just reread this book (again!) It suddenly occurred to me--if it is such a dreadful crime to slay a unicorn, how is it that shops and such are able to deal in unicorn horns? I can see a unicorn giving some hairs from its tail if asked nicely--as Fawkes gave two tail feathers. But what living unicorn would give up its horn?
I also found a British idiom that had not been altered to American. In the hut on the rock, after Hagrid had arrived and the Dursleys finally fled to the other room, Hagrid tossed Harry his coat and said "You can kip under that...." I'm surprised that they didn't change it to, "You can SLEEP under that...."
A rather icky question for you British out there--what is the spelling for booger? In the movie, it sounded like it would be spelled bogie. Just curious.
I would dearly love to read British editions of the books, just to see what changes were made, other than the title and a few words. By the way, I know that the titles were different for the first and the fourth books, but were there different titles for THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS and THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN?
Maybe they fall off periodically like antlers?
For two, "sweaters" become "jumpers" and "schedules" become "timetables." Spelling is according to the Queen's Englsh. And as far as I know, "Goblet of Fie" is teh same in both countries.
Thanks.
By the way, I know that the titles were different for the first and the fourth books, but were there different titles for THE CHAMBER OF SECRETS and THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN?
Nope, those two are pretty straightforward and weren't changed...and as Kira pointed out, neither was the fourth, 'Goblet of Fire.' I mean, Harry Potter and the Cup of Fire (or whatever) would just have been silly.
Seems to me that I have heard tales of unicorns giving up some tail-hairs if 'asked nicely'. Dunno about the horn, though. Merat's suggestion is probably correct; or alternatively pieces of the horn could break off (or wear away) in the course of the unicorn's life, a la elephant tusks.
I had the idea that the fourth book was THE DOOMSPELL TOURNAMENT in Britain. Perhaps it was the working title. All I know is, when we had the book on order in our library computer, it was "Doomspell Tournament" and, after several months, abruptly changed to "Goblet of Fire".
Yep, Harry Potter and the Doomspell Tournament was the working title. (It appeared that way in our store database too.)
IIRC, it was changed within a few months of release date.
Just finished the first book today. Loved it. Glad I can finally play in this sandbox.
I got started on the second one today too.
QUESTION: Why is the house with the symbol of a badger called "Hufflepuff?" (Page 34 of the book names explicitly refers to the animal.) Gryffindor is symbolized by a lion, whose body a Griffin incorporates. Ravenclaw by a raven, and Slyterin by a snake—an animal that slithers. What’s the connection between a badger and "Hufflepuff"?
Shira Karp: Given that Vernon and Petunia Dursley both loathe and fear their scruffy nephew, why didn't [send him to an orphanage] themselves?
Luigi Novi: People have contradictory impulses and personality traits. They might feel no guilt in treating him like dirt, but might not have been able to bring themselves to abandoning him. Another example of conflicting traits is Snape. He goes out of his way to keep Harry safe, but only begrudgingly, as a way to pay back his father, and treats the kid like trash.
Shira Karp: What would have happened if Harry had been able to read his first letter? How on earth would the Hogwarts authorities expect him to send an owl? ("We await you owl no later than July 31.")
Luigi Novi: I would’ve imagined the owl would’ve known to pick it up once Harry had written his reply on it, much as they seem to "know" (or whoever seems to know) that he wasn’t getting them, exactly where he lived, etc.
Omer: Anyone else felt that the book was a little too black and white? that the bad guys were too bad ad the good guys too good? I mean especially Harry's family, and the ending when his house wins.
Luigi Novi: Well, yeah, and could Harry’s rival, Draco Malfoy, possibly have had a more ominous "Okay, everyone, I’m the bad guy" name? But hey, the books are primarily aimed at a young audience.
Shira Karp: My big problem with Hogwarts in general is that the student sorting is too black and white. I mean, if you're not put in Gryffindor, why bother to keep on living?
Luigi Novi: Exactly! I mean, why don’t they just close down Slytherin House, and expel every student the sorting hat picks for it? Perhaps they feel the students will simply go to one of the other magic schools, and this way, they can keep an eye on the little sh*ts. But you’d think they’d make a concerted effort to STEER these kids away from being such nasty little Antichrists. Also, the book contradicts this point a bit, because on page 114, McGonagle says that "each house has its own noble history, and each has produced outstanding witches and wizards."
Omer: OK... but it is like a national best seller. Millions of adults read is it. Why?
Luigi Novi: There are many different qualities that make a good story. Story complexity, realism, three-dimensional characters, humor, sharp dialogue, moral ambiguity, subtext, etc. Some stories have some but not others. Sure, moral ambiguity and complexity are things that are generally considered good, but sometimes a simple story can still be entertaining. The Disney animated summer movies come to mind.
Omer: Especially as, obviously, the device described in the book is in fact A PHILOSOPHER'S STONE! Did they also change the text to refer to it as a Sorcer's stone in the novel itself?
Luigi Novi: Unfortunately.
Sarah Perkins: Why are people posting here about the next two books? Some of us don't want spoilers, okay!!?
Luigi Novi: YEAH! What she said!
Kira, you even labeled a spoiler as such, but then said "not really", so I read it. ARRGGGGH!!!
(Frankenstein voice):Spoilers……..bad!
Ray: I never realized until I read it on hissyfit.com that Diagon Alley can be read as "diagonally" and Knocturn Alley can be read as "nocturnally"!
Luigi Novi: I didn’t either. But The Mirror of Erised was just a bit too obvious.
D.K. Henderson: When Hermoine (sp) Granger was sent her letter inviting her to join Hogwarts, how did she and her family react? As Muggles, wouldn't they have thought it a joke? Not having an owl, how would they reply? How would they know where to pick up her school supplies, or how to get on the train?
Luigi Novi: Personally, I wondered, how and why are Muggles invited in the first place? Is a matter of "ya gotta know someone," and there are some Muggles lucky enough to know magicfolk, and about the magic world, and can apply?
Duke of Earl Grey: Why is it that Harry's scar sometimes burns when he's around Prof. Quirrel (and his pal in the turban), but sometimes it doesn't?
Luigi Novi: I assumed it was a deliberate thing on Voldomort’s part.
By kerriem. Personally, I'm with D.K. and the New Yorker guy - the changes were silly and superfluous. I mean, now that we've got kids reading, what's the harm in expanding their cultural horizons a little?
Luigi Novi: I think they should’ve called it Harry Potter and Piranha Guy.
(A thousand house points to whoever gets that reference.)
D.K. Henderson: If it is such a dreadful crime to slay a unicorn, how is it that shops and such are able to deal in unicorn horns?
Luigi Novi: I assumed they’re captured, the horns are sawed off, and they’re released.
And guys, if you must have spoilers, both here, and on other boards, PLEASE use a spoiler warning, and an "END SPOILER WARNING" indicator?
Gordon, if you could please post a disclaimer kindly suggesting this to posters on the boards for each of the books, I would appreciate it. I think other newcomers would as well. Thanks.
When mentioning the results of final exams at the end of the book, Rowling makes a point of mentioning that Goyle passed, but doesn't mention Crabbe. Why not?
You'll be finding the explanation for the names of the houses in the second book.
I think she does mention both Crabbe and Goyle, just in passing. They were hoping that that both of them would flunk out, but noooooo.....
No, just Goyle. On page 307, it reads,
"They had hoped that Goyle, who was almost as stupid as he was mean, might be thrown out, but he passed too. It was a shame but as Ron said, you couldn't have everything in life."
And thanks for the heads up in the second book.
Why is a first year student made Quidditch announcer? Shouldn’t it be an older student?
The announcer is Lee Jordan, who is in the same year as Fred and George Weasley (i.e. third).
Oh. He looked younger, closer in age to Harry. I just reviewed that part of the book, and yeah, it refers to him as the Weasley twins' friend. Thanks, Gordon.
Gordon Lawyer >Loony Theory TimeTM: On the Chocolate Frog Card for Dumbledore, it states that he defeated the dark wizard Grindelwald in 1945. The year, along with the name sounding Germanic, has given me the idea that Grindelwald was one of Hitler's psychic advisers. What do you think, sirs?
As far as I've read on other sites (the german http://www.eulenfeder.de/ has a box with very good explanations about the meanings of all the names), the year is indeed a reference to the end of WWII, the grindelwald probably is a reference to the monster grendel, which beowulf has to slay in the old english poem.
>D.K. Henderson: When Hermoine (sp) Granger was sent her letter inviting her to join Hogwarts, how did she and her family react? As Muggles, wouldn't they have thought it a joke? Not having an owl, how would they reply? How would they know where to pick up her school supplies, or how to get on the train?
>Luigi Novi: Personally, I wondered, how and why are Muggles invited in the first place? Is a matter of "ya gotta know someone," and there are some Muggles lucky enough to know magicfolk, and about the magic world, and can apply?
From the 2nd book I got the impression that somehow the ministry can detect the use of magic. When a muggle-born person uses magic without knowing it, surely it would be better to educate him/her than leaving him to find out on his own? Harry had used magic before, too - the disappearing glass, the incidents at school, hair growing back, shrinking sweater - so he should know how to control it before something really bad happens.
But I've often wondered about it, too: if somebody showed hermione how to get to diagon alley and so on.
About slytherin house: we only notice the obnoxious people of slytherin. there may be some good guys and girls in there, too, which never cause attention. Also, as shown in the coming books, dumbledore believes in giving people second chances. He probably hopes that being in a school like hogwarts, with lots of good people around, will make a strong impression on the might-be baddies of slytherin than kicking them out so they will be influenced only by the dark side.
about hagrids remark that all dark wizards came from slytherin: I thought he was speaking generally, as people often do.
>D.K. Henderson: If it is such a dreadful crime to slay a unicorn, how is it that shops and such are able to deal in unicorn horns?
Luigi Novi: I assumed they’re captured, the horns are sawed off, and they’re released.
>
I don't think that unicorns can be captured that easily (you normally need a virgin, and they seem to be quite smart). I assumed they wait till a unicorn dies of natural causes and then use the horn.
>Omer: Anyone else felt that the book was a little too black and white? that the bad guys were too bad ad the good guys too good? I mean especially Harry's family, and the ending when his house wins.
Luigi Novi: Well, yeah, and could Harry’s rival, Draco Malfoy, possibly have had a more ominous "Okay, everyone, I’m the bad guy" name? But hey, the books are primarily aimed at a young audience.
>
I don't quite agree. Already in this book, also in the coming ones, people act different from their attitudes. For example, Snape is mean and unpleasant, but not evil. (He has a reason for saving Harrys life, but he is still on the side of the good people.) So people don't have to be nice and likeable in order to be good.
Also, in the following books there are a lot of in-jokes only adults will get.
I wouldn't call it a simple story. After all, Harry and his friends fight against evil, which is a classic and yet always modern story. Of course, stories about school are most attractive to kids, but that doesn't make them simple.
I agree, Constanze. In reading the latter three books, the characters have become a bit more complex, especially in the case of Snape. But it was probably a good idea on Rowling's part to make things a bit simple character-wise in the first book, get reader's hooked and asking for more, and then fleshing things out.
Constanze: I don't think that unicorns can be captured that easily (you normally need a virgin...
Luigi Novi: So? All a unicorn hunter would have a to do, then, would be to go to a Star Trek convention. He could find all he needed there.
Seriously, though, that may be a part of unicorn lore, but it wasn't established as being a part of Rowling's books (the "Potterverse"?), and for all we know, she may have a totally different premise for it. Besides, if this is true in the Potterverse, then how did Voldemort capture one? Is he a virgin?
Oh my God! NO WONDER he's so angry!
If, as Mr. Ollivander says, the wand chooses the wizard, then how come Ron's wand is a hand-me-down?
As a poster calling himself "Harry Potter" pointed out to me on the Chamber of Secrets board, Ollivander says you'll never get as good results with another wand, but you can still use a wand other than a one picked the traditional way, as Professor Lockhart tries to use Ron's wand against him at the end of Chamber of Secrets.
1. Prof. Lockhart was a screw-up.
2. Ron's wand was broken, held together with Spell-O-Tape™, and wasn't working very well anyway.
Luigi Novi,
I meant a female virgin - how many females do you find at a Star Trek con?
So far, I've had the impression that Rowling does her research in following the established lore for her "Potterverse" Of course, there are many different views about some aspects of magic/fantasy.
Probably Voldemort could capture and slay it because he is such a powerful wizard.
Shira,
1) In book 3, Aunt Marge says that if Harry had been dumped on her doorstep, she would have refused to claim him and sent him to an orphanage. Given that Vernon and Petunia Dursley both loathe and fear their scruffy nephew, why didn't they do so themselves?
SPOILER
in Book 4, we learn that Dumbledore has some special protection for Harry whenever he is with the Dursleys. Probably part of this magic is that the dursleys can't drop him off at the orphanage.
End spoiler
I don't know british rules and laws, but if relatives are still living and capable of raising children, (because they have a child of their own), would the orphanage even accept harry?
There may be another reason: They saw that harry would be a nice little house-elf, whom they could sqash and who would serve them. (they couldn't know that it would backfire).
Doesn't England have child welfare authorities (or whatever the heck they call them)?
Why doesn't Harry tell his public school teacher about his abuse?
Because it's the type of abuse that's really tricky to prove. No one really beats on Harry, except for Dudley, and that could really just be laughed off as "boys will be boys." Sure, they treat Harry very poorly, but I don't think there would much for a social worker to use to say that Harry was abused.
And locking him in a closet under the stairs isn't abuse?
That would be a grey area- they are giving him a room. If there's a British law that says children should be put up in the best possible rooms, then, okay, they can get nailed.
Look at it this way. The Dursleys are horrible parents, and yes, they are abusive, but not the type of abusive they could ever get arrested/prosecuted for.
Except that the room is actually a closet, (did it have a light in it?), and was very unclean, filled with dust (especially when Dudley jumped on the stairs), and probably insects.
Yes, it's not the most luxurious room in the house. It's not the safest environment, but I don't think social workers should be prowling around and jumping on people whose child-rearing habits involve the slightest bit of danger.
It's more, I realize, emotional abuse rather than strictly physical abuse. Harry is treated as close to a non-entity as possible in the Dursley household. So if a social worker happened across this scene, what would they do?
a) become so worried, they'd remove Harry from the home
b) be worried but recognize that there's really not much they can work with if they want to claim abuse, and move on
c) not care
I think B. Anyone else?
Ah, but I think you are missing the point. If there's a claim of abuse from the alleged victim, all those situations become evidence of the claimed abuse.
Okay, they become evidence, but how strong is said evidence? I still don't this would be enough to warrant more than a cursory investigation and maybe a "hey, maybe you should treat this kid better, or we'll be back." I wonder what the Durselys would do in such a situation- as they're so obsessed with their reputations, would they be scared enough by such a warning to change?
In the US, the theory is get the kid out first and determine guilt or innocence later. I don't know if UK law/policy is similar.
I would say A. Locking a kid in a closet filled with dust and insects, and without light is abuse, period.
And emotional abuse is just as unacceptable as physical abuse.
In the US, the theory is get the kid out first and determine guilt or innocence later. I don't know if UK law/policy is similar.ScottN
Right, but the bureaucreacy (hmmm... didn't spell that right at all) is such that the workers may not elect to take Harry in, as there are more obvious cases already cluttering their desks. It's a sad thing, but social workers are far busier than they should be.
And emotional abuse is just as unacceptable as physical abuse.Luigi Novi
Right, but is it easier or harder to prove?
Probably harder in that it doesn't leave a bruise, but ultimately I think it would depend on how well the child could marshall his strength to stand up and speak out against them and convince the authorities.
It looked like there was a light in there in the movie. And I have been in apartments that have been that dirty before. It didnt seem like that horrible a situation as to environment. Now locking the door from the outside was on the otherside of the coin and can be considered here in the US forcible detention a misdemeanor at the very least. As for the emotional treatment, Being a nonentity and not the favorite son is one of those gray area things that the burdon would be on the socialist workers rather than the parent. One should not allow the government to have too much power and ease to invade people's lives. Harry does seem to have a few more problems than average but his public persona does not appear to be too broken. These are just my own thoughts and observations and are not considered to be anyone elses unless they wish to do so.
Ok and that was a real conversation stopper.
Since I'm not a brit, I have to guess, but I think that despite the fact that public awareness for child abuse has risen in the US, that doesn't necessarily apply to other countries in the same measure. AFAIK, in the UK beating of children in public schools by the teacher was banned only a few decades ago. (I've heard that in US private, christian, schools, bodily punishment is still allowed, because the parents consent, and often these parents beat the children at home, too, but Social services doesn't take the children away!)
I guess it depends largely on whether the child (harry) would feel it to be such an unusual situation that he would go for help in the first place - but since he isn't beaten, he probably thinks its the normal way things are in life. He also has nothing to prove his story to outsiders, which would make it hard to start it. Also, how important is privacy? Would the social service or teachers start to investigate even if harry did tell them? I don't think so - its too hard for outsiders to comprehend how destructive emotional abuse is, as it consists of so many little things in an overall context. Taking these little things to an outsider, uncle vernon will have small problem explaining them. After all, parents are allowed to punish their children, so he could claim harry lives under the stairs to be punished for something. Think of how uncle vernon would tell the story of how dudley was shocked by the snake! Poor Dudley, he is so delicate!
A reminder from your Friendly Tyranical Moderator: The conversation seems to be drifting a bit off topic. If you wish to continue discussing child abuse in its various forms, I'm sure there's a board for it over at the Kitchen Sink. If not, you can probably have one created.
Um, I dunno about that. If the conversation is about child abuse as it relates to Harry Potter, doesn't that make it on-topic? Of course, this inquiry will no doubt start a whole new conversation over if said other conversation is on-topic, and the new conversation would probably be off-topic.
We know, that Harry comes to Hogwarts in Autumn 1991 due to Near Headless Nick's deathsday-Party in book 2.
While going to the hut on the island, Harry thinks, that "Tomorrow will be tuesday, his 11th Birthday".
Later, while visiting Hagrid, it is mentioned, that Gringotts was broken into (right word?) on July, 31st, Harrys Birthday.
Nit. July, 31st, 1991 was a Wednesday.
Possible Anti-Nit: Hagrid entered the hut on the island one second after midnight on Harrys birthday (tuesday) After doing some magic on Dudley }-D Hagrid mentioned, that they had to do a lot in the Diagon Alley tomorrow. Does he mean on wednesday? If so, Harrys Birthday would be on July, 30th, and Harrys statment after reading the newspaper should read "...the day after my birthday..." ...?
We've had similar day of the week nits elsewhere (I posted them on one of the other HP boards).
Also, the book contradicts this point a bit, because on page 114, McGonagle says that "each house has its own noble history, and each has produced outstanding witches and wizards." Yeah, but a) it's admitted that Voldemort was an "outstanding wizard", which is why it was such a huge thing that he turned evil, and b) she could just be mollifying the kids who get stuck in less-respected houses.
I notice a lot of people complaining that the books are too simplified, too black-and-white, etc etc etc. Good children's books (and I'm sorry, but the Harry Potter series is decidedly aimed towards kiddies) are plot-driven, not character-driven. Kids don't want to read about people discussing their innermost feelings; they want action and mysterious goings-on and 'splosions and all that good stuff. Also, kids don't handle shades of grey very well. It's too much to absorb, and goes over their heads. This does require the Dread Exposition, much to the annoyance of the adult audience. And by the way, the labelling and marketing of a book as children's literature does not lessen its value. The Harry Potter series is far better quality than the vast majority of nebulous novels geared towards adults, such as, oh say, things of the Danielle Steele oeuvre. And adults can enjoy the subtleties inserted here and there. Plus, the way the series is headed, there's going to be more grown-up elements and less black-and-white issues (Harry's fight with Ron in GoF, for instance).
Besides, if this is true in the Potterverse, then how did Voldemort capture one? Is he a virgin? I don't think he captured the unicorns he killed...he probably took them out from a distance as they fled. Of course, he was in Quirrell's body at the time...perhaps it's not Voldemort's purity you should be questioning.
Why doesn't Harry tell his public school teacher about his abuse? Because otherwise he would have been whisked away from the Dursley's, and wouldn't know anything about his family, and couldn't be tracked down by Hogwarts, and there would be no plot!
NITS:
When Harry and Co enter the chamber where the Philosoper’s Stone is hidden, Quirrell has already been there. He bewitched a harp to make Fluffy fall asleep, he knocked the troll out, and he caught the key with the broken wing. But when the children enter the chessboard, all the figures are intact. Shouldn’t they have killed each other in Quirrell’s game? Most interestingly, in Snape’s challenge, all the potion bottles stand in their original places, and none has been drunken yet! How on earth did Quirrell get past the fire? Snape is the only person that does not trust him, thus he would never have told him what to do, and Snape is a Potions master, thus he would have chosen a very difficult potion for the solution. There is no way Quirrell could have got past without tampering with the bottles.
What exactly is the point of the chessboard and of Snape’s challenge? All the other challenges aim at denying anyone’s access to the Stone, but these two mainly try to divide the clever from the dumb. The only persons with a right to get the Stone are Dumbledore and Flamel, and none of them would have to actually accept the challenges.
How could the wizards and witches possibly keep their existence a secret? Take James and Lily Potter, for example. Lily comes from a Muggle family, all of which get to know about magic as soon as she is accepted to Hogwarts. Her sister Petunia tells her husband about it, and these two are the Dursleys who despise magic. Anybody else would probably spread the news like a wildfire. Lily marries James and has a son. If they hadn’t both been killed, Harry would have grown up a wizard, would have done magic at elementary school as he did even now, and would have made lots of kids believe in magic. And that’s just one family! Look at how many Muggle-borns are accepted to Hogwarts, and how many mixed marriages are mentioned! Also, Hogwarts only takes something like fourty students a year (there are four boys in Harry’s dormitory and probably as much in the other ones). That sound not much, also it is mentioned that it is an honour to be admitted, which means that probably there are a lot of wizards and witches with lesser skills running around in Muggle schools, causing trouble! Half the English population should know by now!
SPOILER FOR BOOKS 3 AND 4
I did not find that one myself, but I like it: Hagrid says to Harry that there never was a wizard that turned bad and was not in Slytherin. Even if you are generous about Karakoff and the other Durmstrang wizards (assuming that Hagrid just meant Hogwarts graduates), what about Sirius Black? At that point, everyone thinks of him as Voldemort’s right hand, and yet he was in Gryffindor!
Most interestingly, in Snape’s challenge, all the potion bottles stand in their original places, and none has been drunken yet!netrat
The only anti-nit I can think of for this is that the bottles were charmed to automatically line up after someone goes through. Although I'm pretty sure that the correct potion had already drank, as there was only enough for one more person to make it through the flames.
How could the wizards and witches possibly keep their existence a secret?netrat
Sure, the Muggles could tell everyone they knew, but would they be believed? They could try and make their kids preform magic tricks for other Muggles, but knowing of the censure they'd face, it's unlikely they'd comply. And if they did succeed in getting people to believe them, then those people would face the same obstacles in telling other people.
SPARROW47: I think the idea was that in the bottle was only enough to drink for one person from the beginning. After all, the bottles were all different sizes. If the bottle had not been full, Hermione would have just looked at it and declared it the right one, since there wasn't a poisoned Quirrell lying anywhere around.
The book is a bit vague on how much potion there is to begin with. The one that Harry uses to get through the fire is in the "smallest" vial and has "barely a swallow" in it, but it doesn't say if that's because some of it was previously swallowed. There's obviously got to be some way around the flames, as Dumbledore was able to do so when he rescued Harry.
Since it was Dumbeldore who asked the teachers to contribute to the protection spell, he would probably have asked the for shortcuts. In Snape's case, he would probably have asked for a personal supply of the potion used.
Way, way back in the year 2000, Shira Karp asked something...is she still around?
Anyway, I'd like to reply...
Gryffindor is universally the "cool people" dorm; Ravenclaw is the "we're not cool but at least we're smart" dorm; Hufflepuff is the "we're not cool or smart-- face it, we're complete losers but at least we're virtuous losers" dorm; and Slytherin is the "evil people destined to be scruffy and depraved and eventually beaten up by the Gyffindors" dorm. I mean, if you're not put in Gryffindor, why bother to keep on living?
She's implying that people who are uncool but smart have no reason for living? And if they're losers it doesn't matter if they're virtuous, they have no reason to live?
I have a question about that--how many students are in each dorm? How many students do we know the names of, and of those, how many do we actually know which dorms they're in? Maybe the students in each dorm don't all have the same characteristics, Rowling only chose to show certain ones.
In the feasting hall scenes in the movies it looked like maybe one hundred persons at each table?
On another issue, how do these kids compare to the kids you knew in junior high, or the real-life junior high kids of your acquaintance?
I'm not currently acquainted with any, I'm just asking.
According to interviews with Rowling, she has all the students of harrys complete year written down, which house they belong to, if they have muggle or wizard parents, and so on, even if it isn't mentioned in the book.
Also, I think that the sorting isn't done according to abilities, but to choices (like dumbledore says later to harry when he is worried about his parseltongue ability being a sign of dark wizards: its our choices, not our abilities, which show who we are). Thus, Hermione is in gryffindor and not ravenclaw, not because she isn't smart enough to be a ravenclaw, but because the gryffindor qualities are more important for here - and she shows it by helping her friends despite school rules. Neville is in gryffindor because he has courage, although he has less courage than the others, he still wants to be a good, courageous kid.
Let's just say the Sorting Hat works in mysteriours ways, and leave it at that.
I don't wanna leave it at that. I liked constanze's answer. Do we find out more about the Sorting Hat?
harry,
...how many students are in each dorm? ...
This is a hotly debated issue on some fansites. Some numbers indicate around 200 students for the whole school, but rowling herself said in an online-chat about 1000 in all, and the movies seem to strengthen that idea. However, other instances described in the books seem to contradict this. Some people try to work with a middle number of around 500.
So, you can just assume, if rowling has everything as carefully worked out as she claims (she once said that only about 1/10th of her background material makes it into the books, because otherwise they would be too thick ), then there are no slip-ups, its just that those things that aren't relevant to the current story aren't shown.
E.g., in an online chat, rowling mentioned rons and hermiones birthday, and that harry of course gives them presents - yet it has never been described so far, only the presents harry gets for his birthday.
Or you say, of course rowling goofed - there are mistakes about the dates in some of the books, and she mistook the train platforms, too.
Going waaay back to the discussion about changing the title of the book: Rowling herself said in an interview or chat that american publishers routinley want to change the titles of books (maybe that's part of this strange american complex of not accepting anything from europe and doing everything in its own way?) and because it was her first book, so she was inexperienced and shy, she agreed to it. The other books came out when she already had a name and success, so she felt secure enough to insist on no change of title.
And the philospher's stone is mythical, so it does both - as described in the book: change everything it touches to gold, and produce a solution that gives eternal life. Like dumbledore said: Riches and eternal life - what most people would wish for most, but unfortunately, what would be the worst for them. (paraphrased - I don't have my book at hand right now).
The sorting/ counting nit has been changed in later editions - its not in mine. Minor things have been changed, too - the mention of scabbers missing a toe, which is a vital detail in prisoner of azkaban, is missing from my US edition, although I read it in the german translation.