Deathly Hallows / OOTP Movie Discussion 1147
At midnight on Friday Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows was released, ending the ten year run of J.K. Rowling's extremely popular book series. I imagine that there are a few folks here who have already read the book and want to talk about it. Likewise, the movie version of Order of the Phoenix was recently released (a film I was kind of underwhelmed by). So ... what did you think of them? Be forewarned: I imagine the comments will be filled with spoilers.
Should have renamed the film something else... (Score:5, Interesting)
The latest film has the same problem as all the other Harry Potter films:
They focus only on the epic tale of Harry versus Voldemort and not on the far more epic story of Harry's emotional journey to be ABLE to face (and presumably) defeat Voldemort.
If you see the film with someone who has never read the books, they tend not to care one iota bout any of it and the reason is all to clear: the characters never develop. They never change. They never become who they need to be in order to confront the horrible evil that is taking over their world.
The books are amazing because, while there is an epic story of good versus evil, the reader is brought along for the ride to grow alongside the main character. But the movies watch the action from a safe distance and only really focus on the parts that have action.
Re:Spoiler alert (Score:0, Interesting)
* Snape is Dumbledore's man (is there anyone that didn't believe this?).
* Harry is the seventh horcrux, unintentionally created by Voldemort when he tried to kill baby Harry.
* Voldemort tries to kill Harry, but instead, ends up killing the horcrux within Harry.
* Harry kills Voldemort since all 7 Horcruxes are destroyed and the Elder Wand's true master, is in fact, Harry (through Draco).
Question:
How does Neville get Gryffindor's sword to kill Nalini?
JRR Tolkien comparison (Score:4, Interesting)
In the way they are both multi-volume, long, rambling engaging fantasy stories which good stuff to read, but in a terrible writing style
Don't get me wrong, I *am* a fan and have all of them - but neither are great well written works of prose.
Whats the betting she'll revisit the muggle/wizarding world in a couple of years? There is waaay too much money available not to in my humble opinion, its just too tempting a cash cow now.
I'm pretty happy with it (Score:3, Interesting)
Rowling's style of writing is definitely not where her strenghts lie, and everybody I know who has refused to read Harry Potter has used this as a reason. However, I think people who say this are cutting off their nose to spite their face. What she lacks in writing skill, she more than makes up for in enjoyable, well crafted characters, and amazing plot. Deathly Hallows is by far my favourite of the series (7, 5, 4, 6, 2, 1 - fot those who are interested).
I was pretty sure that Snape was on the side of good before I started reading, but by the time he was made Headmaster, I had actually figured that I had been mistaken, and was wondering how she was going to have a decent ending with him as a bad guy. The last few chapters were magnificently brought together, with payoff after payoff after payoff.
The only disappointment in terms of plot, I felt, was that not a single Slytherin stayed behind after the evacuation of the school. I know, they are supposed to be cunning and self serving, but Harry was almost put into their house. Surely there must be a handful of Slytherins who, like him, are borderline and would have enough bravery to stand beside their schoolmates against the deatheaters.
However, that aside, I am very happy with the book, and am glad to see I didn't waste my time on a series just to have it thrown in my face at the end (*cough* Dark Tower *cough* Wheel of time).
My thoughts (no spoilers) (Score:3, Interesting)
I finished Deathly Hallows this morning after spending all of yesterday ploughing through it.
And I really, really loved it.
JK Rowling has been very clever with the books and I don't know if the entire series has been foreshadowed, but throughout the final book she drops little hints that I, if I had actually been paying very close attention to, would have figured out before the climax.
You can scoff all you want that it's a kids book and you'd rather die than read it and if this is the case, then I pity you. I felt exactly the same way until I tried them, and it's very rare that a book can make me laugh while I'm reading it.
Now that it's all over I feel very sad that there might never be another author in my lifetime who can create characters that fit together so well.
Plot mistakes? (spoilers) (Score:2, Interesting)
If Snape could enter Grimmauld Place, then why didn't he told the Death Eaters where it was? Voldemort should be aware that wherever the Headquarter of the Order was, Snape knew it, and with Dumbledore's death Snape would become a secret keeper.
Not really a mistake but... how did Griffyndorf's sword got away from the goblins?
How could Dumbledore best Grindenwald if the latter had the Elder Wand? also, how did he not defeat Voldemort completely with the Elder Wand when they dueled?
How did Dumbledore's painting know of the plan to take Harry off Private Drive, in order to counsel Snape?
I was mostly dissapointed in the book.. (Score:5, Interesting)
I also felt that she let Dumbledore off the hook, and his character would have been much more compelling if he had killed his sister (or something similar)... or maybe, just maybe, we didn't have to have Dumbledore re-appear and explain everything? I mean come on. Add to that most of the deaths just didn't make sense. Except for Mad-Eye (and possibly Dobby), basically all the other major deaths were random, they had no purpose in the story and didn't advance the plot in any major way. The only sacrificial death was Harry, and he didn't even die (and don't get me started on the overly sappy epilogue).
Generally, I think the book was missing most of JKR's trademark wit, that made the rest of the story so enjoyable... and had too much of her maddening 'hand of god' habit of introducing new magical concepts to get the characters out of sticky situations instead of them having to figure a way out themselves.
Re:Spoiler alert (Score:2, Interesting)
Just finished (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Plot mistakes? (spoilers) (Score:3, Interesting)
Because Snape was never a traitor.
Not really a mistake but... how did Griffyndorf's sword got away from the goblins?
The Goblins obviously made it for them, they didn't care that a fake sword got deposited in Gringots.
How could Dumbledore best Grindenwald if the latter had the Elder Wand? also, how did he not defeat Voldemort completely with the Elder Wand when they dueled?
Because Dumbledore was a better wizard than Grindenwald, having the Elder wand didn't automatically make you a good wizard.
How did Dumbledore's painting know of the plan to take Harry off Private Drive, in order to counsel Snape?
Dumbledore either discussed it before or after his death. The paintings have memories (see Chamber Of Secrets).
Re:Spoiler alert. (Score:4, Interesting)
Why? Are you saying that Slashdot is filled with people with Asperger's Syndrome? That's highly unlikely. There are plenty of people here who wish they had Asperger's, even going so far as to self-diagnose. The truth of the matter is that while Asperger's is real, it's nowhere near as common as internet message boards would have you believe. It is a good scapegoat for people who never learned how to interact socially with other people.
The three choices (Score:3, Interesting)
1. He had to decide to face Voldemort willingly, accept that he is going to die, and understand that he is doing this to save his friends. Courage and selflessness are the keys to defeating the emotions that power Riddle: greed, selfishness, and fear.
2. He had to decide, after being struck with the Killing Curse, to return. Death is easy. It is the easiest thing every living organism *will* do -- life (and staying alive) is a constant struggle not to die. When in King's Cross talking to Dumbledore, he had the opportunity not to go back; he had the chance to take the easy route. Again, he had to decide to return to save his friends.
3. When finally facing Riddle, now that both were free of any sort of magic to protect themselves, he had one final choice: To take life to protect his (Avada Kedavra) or to show mercy, compassion, love, even to his gravest enemy. By choosing Expelliramus, even after being explicitly told numerous times NOT to use this particular spell, he truly sets himself apart.
Answers, I think... (Score:5, Interesting)
Isn't it obvious? Snape wasn't working for the Death Eaters, he was working for the Order and Dumbledore. This was a major plot of the book. I really do not understand why you are confused about this.
Not really a mistake but... how did Griffyndorf's sword got away from the goblins?
This was hinted to in the book in that Gryffindor's sword can only remain in the possession of one who's valor and need of the sword are true. One cannot simply possess the sword out of greed, which is how the goblin Griphook acquired it.
How could Dumbledore best Grindenwald if the latter had the Elder Wand? also, how did he not defeat Voldemort completely with the Elder Wand when they dueled?
Again, the answer was hinted at in the book if not a running theme throughout the series. Dumbledore admits to Harry that they were both skilled wizards, but that Dumbledore was perhaps a bit more skillful. That fact, taken together with the theme that runs throughout the books that it is not what skills or magical items you possess so much as what you do with them that is the key. I think that is your answer.
How did Dumbledore's painting know of the plan to take Harry off Private Drive, in order to counsel Snape?
I suspect someone in the Order other than Snape is in communication with the painting.
Re:What did I think of them? (Score:3, Interesting)
The first movie was insipid and lifeless (outside the visualization of an entire world, which makes it interesting as an introduction). The movies progress with the age of the characters and become better, though I think the latest one fell a bit flat.
I wouldn't judge the series based on the first film, but keep in mind that they're designed to capture the imaginations of children and to resonate with them and I think it's very effective at that. The series really does progress in thematic depth with time, which is somewhat unusual (and redeeming) for contemporary wannabe epics. Harry Potter certainly will never be a literary classic because of its plain and uninteresting writing, but it probably will be an enduring and popular tale because of its imaginative universe and fairly strong internal coherence. It's no Lord of the Rings, but then again it's aimed a little younger, and it is enjoyable as a story and a universe, if not as a rich experience with literature.
It's sort of like Star Wars. It's a fascinating, vast universe and a compelling story by a brilliant *storyteller*; on the other hand, it doesn't have the textual beauty and pleasurable reading experience that truly great *authors* achieve.
Re:What did I think of them? (Score:3, Interesting)
Harry Potter is just as good as any of those. I would say it's actually better, but I can see where reasonable minds might disagree. But the point is you are trying to compare Beethoven to Bach. Is one better? Sure, the books you mentioned certainly use bigger words and require a more advanced vocabulary. Other than that?
One thing I need to make clear, however, is that I do not believe popularity (generally) equals quality or literary merit. With Harry Potter we have that rarest of all crossovers: a book that both plumbs the cathartic depths of great literature and sold 12 million copies.
Really, what is common to all these books? Global concepts of good and evil, life and death, and rebellion against an idiotic / repressive / evil establishment. Harry Potter takes on each of these topics and does it in style.
I don't mean to be objectionable to the OP's major point: which is how we can capialize on the cultural goodwill that HP has generated to encourage children to read. But where I do disagree is with the idea that HP is only a success if children read from the canon.
Children who enjoy reading will continue to read. But there's a sense of elitism I see from academia (in particular) that subtely disparages the accomplishment of a child who reads HP since it is too easy, or isn't serious literature, or whatever. No. This is wrong. Instead, we should be suggesting other books that children might enjoy (for instance, Garth Nix's Lirael series is excellent, IMO).
Sorry to pick on the OP, but this gets me.
== Former literature major, vorascious reader, lawyer, and purchaser of HP at 12:01 Friday night. (Please don't hold the third one against me.)
couldn't read Harry Potter myself (Score:5, Interesting)
I also picked up a copy of the second book before the movie was released. I was only able to get 50 or so pages into it before I was lost. Didn't bother to rent the movie.
Tried to read Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring before the movie came out. I was lost in the first chapter.
I do alright with non-fiction books that I've an interest in, and was reading John Taylor Gatto's [johntaylorgatto.com] A Different Kind of Teacher the summer after I finished teh college, and all my reading troubles suddenly made sense. Mr. Gatto realized over the course of his 30-year teaching career that most of his 7th-graders were incapable of reading beyond the level required for a standardized test. To prove this for his readers, he suggested going to the library and borrowing a copy of the classic, All Quiet on the Western Front, read the first 20 pages, and return for a question on the text.
I went to the library, checked out the book, and scanned the first 20 pages as best I could. I saw the answer to Mr. Gatto's question, but only because I'd read the question before going to the library. But he did have a follow up question too, and I had no idea whatsoever what was going on in this particular book.
Gatto says that he found that most his students didn't 'make pictures' to go along with the words comprising book's stories. Not because they can't, but because the way reading is taught in the Feral Government's schools trains children not to make pictures, but to read for the (multiple-choice) test.
Finally - why I couldn't (and still can't) read fiction. I've been spending these last few years trying to get my mental-picture-maker working, and when I succeed someday, then I'll pick up the Harry Potter books again. Until then, I'm not going to frustrate myself with fiction anymore.
Re:What did I think of them? (Score:2, Interesting)
1984 was crap. Pure, unadulterated, crap. It's one thing for science fiction to blur the laws of science for the sake of a good story; it's quite another for any work of fiction to ignore simple things like consistency and human nature.
The worst part of it is, 1984 entered our language and gets falsely applied to any single discussion about government power. There ought'a be a extension of Godwin's Law, adding the works of George Orwell in as well.
My reviews of the Book and Movie (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyways, the book was the perfect ending to a series many of us grew up with. I remember the first time my grandpa shows me the book and said "Hey, this is a story about a boy wizard, and they play games on broomsticks!" That was nearly 10 years ago and I remember it so fondly. Harry and me grew up together, and now his story is complete. I'm done with college now, am working in the real world. But how I still wish I was a wizard, going to school at Hogwarts, playing Quidditch, and hanging out with Harry, Ron, and Hermione.
The Movie: Order of the Phoenix is my second favorite novel in the series, after Deathly Hallows. However, the movie kind of stinks. It's more in line with the last two, thankfully, but I thought the book was so good that maybe I had such high expectations. Umbridge was the star of that book, such evil but clearly not with Voldemort. It was a great concept and I think it worked wonderfully, in the book. In the movie, however, she's just an obstacle in the hero's path and not that interesting of a character. The final scenes at the Ministry were also a let down, and differed a lot from the book. I understand that the movie series now is pretty much on it's own, but it's hard for me not to compare.
I'd rate the book a 10/10 and the movie a 6/10.
All in all, thank you J.K. Rowling for a magnificent set of novels, you are a master storyteller.
Re:I haven't read SINGLE Harry Potter book (Score:4, Interesting)
But I did read Vonnegut (Cats Cradle) in 5th Grade (Score:4, Interesting)
Epilogue a disappointment (Score:3, Interesting)
It might have been nice to see some vignettes--just a paragraph or two touching the courtship, wedding, newlywed argument, landing a job, etc.
As for the OotP movie adaptation, the only change that bothered me was that Harry handed over the prophecy to Lucius instead of stalling for time ("Yeah right, as if you're not going to kill us anyway"). I think the other changes streamlined the story for the movie screen without compromising its spirit.
Re:Not a Tolkien fanboy, but... (Score:2, Interesting)
Wow. I absolutely love reading Tolkien because of his use of language; it has a melodic quality that I've not found in any others' writing.
I particularly love to read Tolkien aloud, because this allows the richness to come to the surface. If I'm not reading aloud, I often go too quickly and miss the details and hidden corners of Tolkien's sentences that, while they don't necessarily advance the plot, are integral to his books as works of art. There is no such care or attention to detail in Rowling's words; hers make a workmanlike product that conveys a decent story but bears little resemblence to Tolkien's art.
I guess whether or not one finds Tolkien's language easy to read depends upon experience; I grew up reading and re-reading Tolkien, so his style of language is like an old friend, immediately recognized and warmly greeted.
Re:What did I think of them? (Score:1, Interesting)
Stuff like this annoys me to no end. The LOTR books and films are NOT brilliant, actually the movies are shit and the whole LOTR story is a drawn out piece of overdone rhetoric. It's more like Tolkien showing of his English prowess than writing an enjoyable story.
The Harry Potter films are much more enjoyable, fun and adventerous than the LOTR movies, the books on both sides are dull.
Re:couldn't read Harry Potter myself (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll probably get modded down but... (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Snape as a hero. I doubt it was that surprising for most people, but her explanations of his motives were very plausible.
2. Dumbledore's history was intriguing.
What she did poorly:
1. Character consistency. Neville goes from almost a squib to holding his own against death eaters, where does this come from? Hermione becomes stupid. Hermione knows that there is a spell that can destroy horcruxes and _Crabbe_ of all people is capable of casting it, yet Hermione doesn't consider it worth learning as it is too "dangerous". Clearly running around without a plan and hoping a special sword drops into her lap is a much more intelligent choice.
2. Magic System still isn't explained. We have muggles, purebloods, mudbloods, halfbloods, and squibs and yet why certain people can do magic and others can't isn't even hinted at. Honestly the rules of her magic system are so poorly explained and adhocced that it can almost be considered it's own deus ex machina. Anytime someone is in a sticky situation that couldn't previously be solved, just change the rules of magic! See house-elves, wand pseudo sentience, and transfiguration limitations. I don't know about you, but I would like a magic system that is deeper than speak latin + wave wand + made_up_rule_that_conveniently_solves_plot_proble
3. The use of house elves as deus ex machina- Oh no Harry Potter is trapped in a dungeon where apparition is impossible. Hah house-elves can teleport where wizards can't, problem solved!
4. Magical battles are _boring_. Yes boring, if you are good you spam stupefy/expelliarmus, if you are evil you spam Unforgivable Curses although mainly Avada Kedavra. Occasionally someone does something mildly clever but this is the exception even for supposedly intelligent characters! No one does anything clever like "accio testicles", or transmogrifying the ground under them to something dangerous, or even something as simple as using a high-powered lumens to blind. Instead it's cast their faction's spell over and over and over. On top of this there are niggling things such as Avada Kedavra being known as the "Unblockable Curse" yet hitting it in midair with stupefy causes it to "explode into red and green fireworks".
5. Voldemort's incompetence isn't believable. Okay so she wanted Voldemort's flaw to be his arrogance, but he isn't a moron. He knows Harry will come back to Godric's Hollow and yet lays a pathetic trap. He should have at least made it unapparatable. He doesn't exploit the mind link like he previously did to kill Sirius. He also continues to be outsmarted by a 17 year old with no plan. It is like watching a movie where the superweapon has a giant self-destruct button that the hero pushes and the villian doesn't see it coming!
6. Cliched- Harry martyrs himself and is brought back to life.
7. Predictable- Who didn't know that Harry was the last Horcrux or that Snape was a good guy, or that Harry wasn't actually dead?
8. It had the plot of a bad rpg- Find the magical item that will help you complete your quest. Now destroy the villain's enchantments. Congratulations, kill the final boss. Scroll credits.
9. Unsatisfying epilogue. Now this could potentially be cleared up in a different book but it would be nice to know what actually happened to everyone. We aren't even told what Harry did afterwards. Did he become an auror, a quidditch player, or did he do something else? All this emphasis on non-human's rights by Hermione and no mention of if wizarding politics changed. Nothing is told about the main characters other than who they reproduced with and how they named their children (also not a surprise). Honestly she may as well have said "And they lived happily ever after.", and it would have conveyed essentially the same information.
Re:What did I think of them? (Score:3, Interesting)
Really? Will it not?
I imagine that it won't be regarded as one of the finest pieces of prose ever written, but I do think that it will go down as being one of the greatest stories told in print.
Rowling's simplistic writing style is a huge component of what makes it so incredibly compelling.
Kurt Vonnegut is widely regarded as being one of the greatest authors of the 20th century, and I was flabbergasted when I first started reading his works to see just how plain and straightforward they were.
Books don't need to be difficult to read to be good, and I would go as far as to say that accessibility is a concept that the literary world needs to pick up on. People don't talk like 18th-century academics these days, and it makes no sense for them to write like them.
Re:I was mostly dissapointed in the book.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Spoiler alert (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I'm pretty happy with it (Score:3, Interesting)
It wasn't like The Return of the King (movie), where plot ends were quickly, but sequentially tied up one by one, and it wasn't like many other books that drag out the ending far far too long, as to ruin the effect of the climax.
As for Rowling's writing style, I will continue to compare it to Kurt Vonnegut, whose books were some of the more straightforward and easily-digestible pieces of literature churned out of the 20th century, and greatly benefitted from it. Flowery and incomprehensible language isn't necessary to tell a great story!
And to address your last comment, I don't believe The Wheel of Time ever was finished conclusively. Last I heard, in a sadly ironic twist of fate, the author is now terminally ill, and the last book of the series has so many plotlines to tie up that he's having difficulty finishing it.
Re:I'm pretty happy with it (Score:4, Interesting)
In the Potterverse, on the other hand, you not only have an acceptance of dark magic in the world, there is even a house of evil inside the school. Now the way things are portrayed, there isn't a case of good sylthers and bad ones, you don't really see that for the other houses, either. Pretty much every slther is a baddie and you don't hear of anyone from the other houses going bad. So the question is, why the hell are these people tolerated? There are even black magic shops in the shopping district. Not illicit underground dens that are in constant threat from the law but places of business that are allowed if looked down upon, like a regular porn shop. Huh? Black magic isn't the sort of thing that prudes look down upon that can be used for good or evil like alcohol, firearms, or porn. In fact, let's stick with the firearms angle. Bad guys carry guns but so do cops. They're dangerous, dangerous technology but the gun itself is not good or evil, only the person using it. But black magic is inherently evil and corrupting and the tools used in working it tend to involve dastardly sacrifices. In this universe, there is no demonstrated use for black magic that is benign or useful. It isn't like white magic is used for healing and construction and black magic is used by good AND evil people for defense, a tool that can be used or abused.
So, given that premise, why is black magic so tolerated?
Re:I'm pretty happy with it (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:What did I think of them? (Score:3, Interesting)
Literature is merely the written work... particularly written work that has an impact on the reader. A work needs not be dreadfully complex to be masterfully crafted. I adore Dostoevsky and cannot stand Tolstoy... yet clearly the latter is a far more accomplished writer.
In the end, the quality of the writing is merely the illumination of the book, and it's the quality of the world that the author has woven together than determines the greatness of the work.
Re:Not a Tolkien fanboy, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
The female is all but non-existent in Tolkien's world.
There is a kind of abhorrence that a woman might be compelled to directly engage the evil which surrounds her.
Tolkien ideal is the structured pre-industrial - pre-war - society of rural England.
Rowling's world is as ramshackle, crowded and intensely vital as Dicken's London - or more properly the England that would emerge from the Blitz.
Re:Spoiler alert. (Score:3, Interesting)
(For the record, I was diagnosed in the US, by two independent doctors.)
These days, diagnosis by a doctor based on external symptoms is wholly unnecessary - in theory. fMRI scans will reveal Asperger's and all other autistic spectrum disorders very nicely with a very high level of accuracy. The problem with such tests is not accuracy but expense and difficulty in finding a place equipped to carry them out. Neurologists who are sufficiently far up on such diagnostic methods, given that they've only circulated from conferences in the past couple of years, are extremely rare. So whilst a symptom-based diagnosis is not required, a mechanistic diagnosis is unlikely to be in anyone's near-term future.
(However, if Slashdotters do encounter a research group wanting to verify the published results, I'd say go for it. This would give you as close to definitive proof as you can ever hope for in medical science.)
Asperger's is problematic in that there is no cure and no therapy for most of it. It is also genetically as harmful as the gene that produces Manx cats. The gene for Manx cats is additive, so eventually not only does the tail go, but so does a large chunk of the spinal cord. The gene for the Autistic Spectrum seems to be similar - if your parents both are on the Autistic Spectrum, you will be further down the spectrum. Eventually, you have nothing but mentally deformed cabbages. Asperger's can be beneficial and should be utilized as such. Play to your strengths, not your weaknesses. However, it is also a very dangerous genetic trait and should not be trusted too much. Like a Ring of Power, over-use will lead to betrayal.
Re:Spoiler alert (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, the goblin did assume that Harry would act in bad faith, and so made the deal planning to steal the sword and strand them in Gringotts. That sounds exactly like "false pretenses" to me.
Re:I haven't read SINGLE Harry Potter book (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, there's something really odd going on there, but I'm not entirely sure it's what people might think, that Grindelwald was involved with the Nazis in some way.
Why? Because there was the explicit point made that most British wizards didn't know about his 'take over the world attempt'. Now, there's a rather large disconnect between the wizarding and muggle world, but to have British wizards unaware of WWII is rather absurd, especially if WWII was secretly being run by a wizard! I mean, if a wizard was doing the invading, wizards would have had to fight it off, or he could have walked into England and owned it two weeks later with a few well placed unforgivable curses.
I suspect that, instead, Grindelwald took advantage of the chaos of WWII to attempt a takeover of the wizarding parts of places that Germany conquered. I mean, think about...in Vichy France, who was in charge of magic? I bet Grindelwald was. Germany wasn't working for him, and he wasn't really involved in the war per se, he was just walking into the wizarding areas that the war effort was effecting and saying 'I'm in charge now' and there was no effective force to stop him.
Even in places that hadn't lost to the Germans might have been in enough disorder to take over, which raises the interesting question: Did Dumbledore attack Grindelwald to stop him in general, or did Grindelwald finally attack England and Dumbledore only acted to defend it. (Implying he was okay with the rest of Europe being conquered, but had a change of heart when England was attacked.)
OTOH, Krum's reaction to the Deathly Hallow's symbol was certainly intended to parallel a Nazi symbol. Although note that what Krum described happened at Durmstang, not Germany in general, so it's possibly it's only the school where that is incorrectly interpreted as his symbol. (Technically, do we even know that Durmstang is in Germany?)
Harry Potter: the final word (Score:3, Interesting)
But she shares one part of her formula with Dahl: the exercise of adult authority is depicted as bad, and she gives us (supernaturally) strong children who defy authority -- even well meaning authority.
The other thing she does is she marries cynicism towards authority with sentimentality about human nature. It's the same formula that makes Casablanca a classic movie. Generations have learned to square the circle of "cool" from Rick: it's cool to be cynical and alienated, but go to far and you're not on the inside, you're on the outside. It helps a lot that Casablanca is not an "art" movie, it's well crafted and aimed at the masses, which is probably appropriate.
The next element in the Rowling formula is taken from the classic English detective story. The first four books are relatively self contained and scrupulously "fair" mystery stories. Armed with the information available to the hero, you could beat him to the conclusion. The fourth book is a novel in itself, and a bridge to the second half the the epic, in which the books are longer, and rather than self-contained, are installments in a longer story arc. So I think of HP as consisting of five books: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 4+5+6+7. Each one of these works follows the rules and many of the conventions.
The final element of the Rowling formula is its borrowings from speculative fiction. Rowling does not tip her fantasy hand until volume 7. The first six books have an appeal that is taken straight from hard science fiction.
Consider: the magic in Harry Potter works consistently. It operates according to certain laws, some well known, others at the current state of knowledge suspected. People who have at least some talent can, by studying the well known laws and by practical application, extend their capabilities. The laws and their practical application are organized into discrete areas of study, which are taught in a way much like engineering. In fact it is important to remember: Newton was an alchemist. Many of the branches of study in Harry Potter are in fact historical, but obsolete sciences.
The magic in Harry Potter is depicted in a much more scientific way that FTL travel is in most science fiction. The appeal of heightened human control of nature is much the same in Harry Potter as it is in the hardest of science fiction. The only thing missing is any hint of social scientific consistency with the "technology" of magic. For example, if wizards can do magic, why are some richer than others?
There's a lot of things in Harry Potter we've seen before. But it doesn't make the works unoriginal or derivative. It's a brilliantly syncretic work, the product of a magpie like mind that collects the oddball name here, the bit of occult trivia there. They have their stylistic, and occasionally narrative faults, but they aren't something cobbled together from an easy formula any hack could reproduce.