Oh Harry . . . what are we going to do with you?
We've seen you successfully work through every difficult obstacle, most of which deal with Voldemort, with some help from your friends and grow so much that you can approach Voldemort with pity and try to save him by offering a chance for remorse.
Admirable on all accounts, BUT . . .
You can't get over your prejudice with Slytherin. You hear the Sorting Hat sing about unity nearly every year, but you refuse to believe that you could be friends with Draco or any other Slytherin student for that matter. It's been that way since you got at Hogwarts.
The Sorting Hat was placed on your head and you begged it not to put you in Slytherin because every wizard who ever went bad came from Slytherin and you didn't want to be one of those wizards/witches. To be fair, some of that was due to a bit of Voldemort's soul in your body, but you could have shared some Slytherin tendencies -- that doesn't necessarily make you a bad person (eg. Snape).
To be fair, this was your first year at Hogwarts, so we'll excuse you for that momentarily.
Over your school years, however, you never changed. Your hatred of any and every Slytherin burned deep within your heart.
Even when the Battle of Hogwarts is long over and you are bringing your family to Platform 9 and 3/4 so James and Albus can go to school. In the movie, you do spot Draco and share an acknowledging, noncommital head nod. This could be construed as progress . . .
And then you lose it . . .
You do okay at first. Albus is afraid that he will become a Slytherin student. You tell him that it will be okay because Snape was Slytherin and turned out to be braver than most Gryffindor students ever turn out to be. You also tell him that he would make a fantastic student in any House, even if he is in Slytherin.
But you couldn't leave it at that . . .
You had to tell Albus that he can choose not to be in Slytherin if he asked the Hat. And all that hard work learning not to be prejudiced is gone. Clearly in your mind, and in the mind of your children, Slytherin is still bad.
You were so close Harry . . . so close, but you can't balance your judgments and opinions out even as an adult. Gryffindor = good and Slytherin = bad.
You could have grown up completely, but you didn't.
I expected more of you . . .
we all did.
Tuesday, December 25, 2012
The Chosen One(s)
When referring to Rowling's Harry Potter series, the label "Chosen One" is instantly attributed to Harry Potter, the Boy Who Lived to be the Boy Who Died to be the Boy Who Become the "Chosen One" destined to defeat Voldemort.
No one is denying Harry this prestigious, predestined from birth title; however, can we open our minds wide enough to suppose that Harry is only one of three "Chosen One(s)"?
If not Harry, the next obvious character to be chosen is Neville Longbottom. The prophecy predicting the fall of the Voldemort said that a boy born in late summer by a couple who had escaped death from Voldemort three times. It could have referred to Harry or Neville, but Voldemort chose Harry.
Even still, Neville remains chosen. When Harry leaves to meet his death, he chooses Neville to take on the task of killing Nagini and Voldemort in his absence. Even without Harry's appointment, Neville takes it upon himself to be chosen (along with Ginny and Luna) to keep Dumbledore's Army going when Snape is headmaster and the Carrow siblings are ruining Hogwarts while Harry, Ron, and Hermione are out finding and destroying horcruxes.
Furthermore, Draco is chosen as well. Voldemort chooses Draco to be the one to kill Dumbledore whilst knowing that Draco will most likely fail or die in the process. Draco is also chosen (in this case, by the author) to be Harry's character foil and archenemy throughout the series; thus Draco is chosen as the "evil" student always out to get our favorite trio of characters.
So, basically, Neville and Draco are just as chosen as Harry is. I'm sure I could throw together a long post with examples from scholars and the books, but seeing as this is a blog, I'm not going to bother it. Maybe one day I'll go more in-depth with this topic at a later date.
No one is denying Harry this prestigious, predestined from birth title; however, can we open our minds wide enough to suppose that Harry is only one of three "Chosen One(s)"?
If not Harry, the next obvious character to be chosen is Neville Longbottom. The prophecy predicting the fall of the Voldemort said that a boy born in late summer by a couple who had escaped death from Voldemort three times. It could have referred to Harry or Neville, but Voldemort chose Harry.
Even still, Neville remains chosen. When Harry leaves to meet his death, he chooses Neville to take on the task of killing Nagini and Voldemort in his absence. Even without Harry's appointment, Neville takes it upon himself to be chosen (along with Ginny and Luna) to keep Dumbledore's Army going when Snape is headmaster and the Carrow siblings are ruining Hogwarts while Harry, Ron, and Hermione are out finding and destroying horcruxes.
Furthermore, Draco is chosen as well. Voldemort chooses Draco to be the one to kill Dumbledore whilst knowing that Draco will most likely fail or die in the process. Draco is also chosen (in this case, by the author) to be Harry's character foil and archenemy throughout the series; thus Draco is chosen as the "evil" student always out to get our favorite trio of characters.
So, basically, Neville and Draco are just as chosen as Harry is. I'm sure I could throw together a long post with examples from scholars and the books, but seeing as this is a blog, I'm not going to bother it. Maybe one day I'll go more in-depth with this topic at a later date.
Friday, December 21, 2012
Hairy Potter
Okay . . .
I realize that this post has nothing to do with anything, but I've been watching the movies and decided to do this anyway because it was all I could think about watching these movies was the character's hair.
I know.
I'm weird.
Get over it.
Moving right along . . .
Harry's hair definitely looks best in Prisoner of Azkaban -- it's a more grown-up version of his hair in Sorcerer's Stone and Chamber of Secrets, but it stays true to the book in that Harry's hair is messy and always sticking up, just as Rowling wrote it to be and not like his hair in Order of the Phoenix and Half-Blood Prince.
Ron's hair is best in Order of the Phoenix, Half-Blood Prince and Deathly Hallows (both parts). I typed three movie titles because his hair doesn't change over the course of them. It suits him. Also, I HATE his hair in Prisoner of Azkaban.
Hermione's hair is best in Deathly Hallows. I liked it in Sorcerer's Stone and Chamber of Secrets because it was true to the book, but every other book fails to match that. Keeping that in mind, I still like Deathly Hallows for her.
Fred and George's hair is best in Order of the Phoenix, Half-Blood Prince and Deathly Hallows. It was cute in the first two movies. Then it got long and I didn't like it by any means. But it's super cute in the last movies. I love it.
Draco's hair is best in Prisoner of Askaban, Goblet of Fire, and Order of the Phoenix. In the first two films, the color was unnatural and the straight slicked back look was awful. And I'm not a fan of the slicked over to the side like in the last movies.
Neville's hair is best in Deathly Hallows, hands down. He looks like an actual grown-up man, not a child. It was cute in Prisoner of Azkaban and Goblet of Fire -- it was messy and dorky, but I love it. In Order of the Phoenix, however, it was terrible. I hate it.
Anyway , , ,
I'm done rambling about hair now. So I'm outta here.
I realize that this post has nothing to do with anything, but I've been watching the movies and decided to do this anyway because it was all I could think about watching these movies was the character's hair.
I know.
I'm weird.
Get over it.
Moving right along . . .
Harry's hair definitely looks best in Prisoner of Azkaban -- it's a more grown-up version of his hair in Sorcerer's Stone and Chamber of Secrets, but it stays true to the book in that Harry's hair is messy and always sticking up, just as Rowling wrote it to be and not like his hair in Order of the Phoenix and Half-Blood Prince.
Ron's hair is best in Order of the Phoenix, Half-Blood Prince and Deathly Hallows (both parts). I typed three movie titles because his hair doesn't change over the course of them. It suits him. Also, I HATE his hair in Prisoner of Azkaban.
Hermione's hair is best in Deathly Hallows. I liked it in Sorcerer's Stone and Chamber of Secrets because it was true to the book, but every other book fails to match that. Keeping that in mind, I still like Deathly Hallows for her.
Fred and George's hair is best in Order of the Phoenix, Half-Blood Prince and Deathly Hallows. It was cute in the first two movies. Then it got long and I didn't like it by any means. But it's super cute in the last movies. I love it.
Draco's hair is best in Prisoner of Askaban, Goblet of Fire, and Order of the Phoenix. In the first two films, the color was unnatural and the straight slicked back look was awful. And I'm not a fan of the slicked over to the side like in the last movies.
Neville's hair is best in Deathly Hallows, hands down. He looks like an actual grown-up man, not a child. It was cute in Prisoner of Azkaban and Goblet of Fire -- it was messy and dorky, but I love it. In Order of the Phoenix, however, it was terrible. I hate it.
Anyway , , ,
I'm done rambling about hair now. So I'm outta here.
Monday, December 17, 2012
DId Snape Ever Have A Chance?
During the Battle at Hogwarts, Snape is murdered by Voldemort and Nagini. Before he dies, however, he is able to pass on essential memories that will prepare Harry for his essential death by Lord Voldemort. Harry immerses himself into the memories and learns that he is a Horcrux and must die. More interesting, however, is what Harry sees about Snape's relationship with Lily.
From the very beginning, it is clear that, as a child, Snape was completely smitten by Lily because she was special and different, just like he was.
Lily appears to be interested in Snape as well because he was the first and only wizard she had ever met due to her status as a Muggle-Born. Snape had all the answers she needed and his presence was likely a comfort to her -- proof that she wasn't crazy and that she really was a witch.
From here, the movie shows their relationship severing when Lily is sorted into Gryffindor and Snape into Slytherin.
It is important to note, however, Lily is considered to be unfailingly kind to everyone -- no matter what house they were sorted into. So it is highly likely that she would still strive to be friends with Snape. For example, in their later years at Hogwarts, Lily defends Snape while James, her future husband, and his friends harass Snape in front of everyone in the courtyard.
The point being that Lily continued to maintain a friendship with Snape after their first year.
What happened then to end that relationship if it didn't have anything to do with them belonging to rival houses and Lily meeting James (like the movie leads you on to believe).
The answer is simple.
One word.
Even though Snape was being embarrassed and there were most likely his pure-blood friends were around, using that word on his oldest, best ((and only) friends was completely out of line.
There are just certain things you can say without losing the friendship. For Lily, that word was "Mudblood." She might have been able to ignore it from anyone else, but not from Snape her first magically-gifted friend who had been through so much together.
The question must be asked then -- What if Snape never called Lily a "mudblood"? Could they have gotten married and have children of their own? After all, he did love her and she could have had similar feelings until he opened his big mouth and ruined everything between them.
We'll never know for sure though, but I would like to think that maybe they could have had a lasting friendship at the very least.
From the very beginning, it is clear that, as a child, Snape was completely smitten by Lily because she was special and different, just like he was.
Lily appears to be interested in Snape as well because he was the first and only wizard she had ever met due to her status as a Muggle-Born. Snape had all the answers she needed and his presence was likely a comfort to her -- proof that she wasn't crazy and that she really was a witch.
From here, the movie shows their relationship severing when Lily is sorted into Gryffindor and Snape into Slytherin.
It is important to note, however, Lily is considered to be unfailingly kind to everyone -- no matter what house they were sorted into. So it is highly likely that she would still strive to be friends with Snape. For example, in their later years at Hogwarts, Lily defends Snape while James, her future husband, and his friends harass Snape in front of everyone in the courtyard.
The point being that Lily continued to maintain a friendship with Snape after their first year.
What happened then to end that relationship if it didn't have anything to do with them belonging to rival houses and Lily meeting James (like the movie leads you on to believe).
The answer is simple.
One word.
"MUDBLOOD"
Even though Snape was being embarrassed and there were most likely his pure-blood friends were around, using that word on his oldest, best ((and only) friends was completely out of line.
There are just certain things you can say without losing the friendship. For Lily, that word was "Mudblood." She might have been able to ignore it from anyone else, but not from Snape her first magically-gifted friend who had been through so much together.
The question must be asked then -- What if Snape never called Lily a "mudblood"? Could they have gotten married and have children of their own? After all, he did love her and she could have had similar feelings until he opened his big mouth and ruined everything between them.
We'll never know for sure though, but I would like to think that maybe they could have had a lasting friendship at the very least.
Monday, December 10, 2012
Neville Loves . . . Luna?
Despite knowing that Neville will later marry Hannah Abbot and Luna will later marry Rolf Scamander as well as the fact that Neville and Luna remain strictly friends in the series, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 still leaves the impression that Neville and Luna will be together because he has loved her for years. Then, at the end, there is an image of the two of them sitting next to one another reaffirming this impression as truth.
The question is, then, why did the film writers choose to make this pairing and why did Ms. Rowling choose to let this pairing happen despite the fact that she never envisioned them together?
One answer can be traced back to Shakespeare.
At the end of his comedies, there was generally a wedding to leave the play on a good note with a happy ending - a tradition that has been continued over the years that has evolved into what we now call Romantic Comedies.
I know that seems ridiculous because Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is a far cry from comedic; however, after finally defeating Voldemort, the book does take a drastic turn towards the positive, culminating at the Epilogue where all was well.
Why not have a few love connections?
Of course there's Ron and Hermione -- a match that had been building up since they first met on the Hogwarts Express their first year.
Then, there is also Harry and Ginny -- not much of a surprise there, but at least Ginny's dream came true. She got to marry the man she had been crushing on since she was 10 and Harry didn't have to be jealous of all the boys Ginny went out with during her time at Hogwarts.
That leaves Neville and Luna, the final two members who complete the second trio, It seems natural then to pair them together because everyone deserves love and, for the people who have only seen the movies, Neville and Luna must become a couple to round out the series.
(Harry, Ron, and Hermione = golden trio; Neville, Ginny, and Luna = second trio)
I'm sure there are other reasons for why Neville and Luna ended up together in the film, but this is the one that makes the most sense to me, so I'm going to stick with that explanation.
So there.
The question is, then, why did the film writers choose to make this pairing and why did Ms. Rowling choose to let this pairing happen despite the fact that she never envisioned them together?
One answer can be traced back to Shakespeare.
At the end of his comedies, there was generally a wedding to leave the play on a good note with a happy ending - a tradition that has been continued over the years that has evolved into what we now call Romantic Comedies.
I know that seems ridiculous because Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is a far cry from comedic; however, after finally defeating Voldemort, the book does take a drastic turn towards the positive, culminating at the Epilogue where all was well.
Why not have a few love connections?
Of course there's Ron and Hermione -- a match that had been building up since they first met on the Hogwarts Express their first year.
Then, there is also Harry and Ginny -- not much of a surprise there, but at least Ginny's dream came true. She got to marry the man she had been crushing on since she was 10 and Harry didn't have to be jealous of all the boys Ginny went out with during her time at Hogwarts.
That leaves Neville and Luna, the final two members who complete the second trio, It seems natural then to pair them together because everyone deserves love and, for the people who have only seen the movies, Neville and Luna must become a couple to round out the series.
(Harry, Ron, and Hermione = golden trio; Neville, Ginny, and Luna = second trio)
I'm sure there are other reasons for why Neville and Luna ended up together in the film, but this is the one that makes the most sense to me, so I'm going to stick with that explanation.
So there.
Friday, December 7, 2012
Umbridge: The Almost Squib
Delores Umbridge . . . What can we say about her? . . . Rather what can we say about her that isn't negative or hateful?
. . .
Yeah. I couldn't come up with anything either.
I do, however, have a theory.
In my vast reading of all things Harry Potter, including a plethora of material not an explicitly stated or inferred in the books and films, I learned a lot about wands & fingers and how they can signal a person's magical prowess .
People with longer fingers are said to be more powerful than others. This could be true. After all, Ollivander measures all sorts of angles on the arms (including fingers) of wizards and witches to get a general idea of where to start finding the proper wand for everyone.
For example, Dumbledore's fingers are referred to as being long several times through out the series and he is the only wizard feared by Voldemort. He is also arguably the most powerful wizard in existence (before the end of Half-Blood Prince anyway). I'm sure a lot of this is due to his own skill, but the finger thing helps.
Umbridge, on the other hand, is short, toadlike, and has stubby fingers with ugly rings on her fingers. She also has the shortest wand on record in the series. That alone should sound suspicious.
She also refuses to let any students use magic in her classroom. It would be understandable if she were teaching Potions, Flying, Divination or Herbology, but Defense Against the Dark Arts requires a wand to cast the spells. Also suspicious.
We see her attack centaurs (Order of the Phoenix) and cast a Patronus charm (Deathly Hallows), but not when the person she is fighting against has a wand. She prefers her victims wandless. Again, suspicious.
By combining these together, one might question Umbridge's magical abilities -- and rightly so. Short fingers + short wand + only really using her wand when others are defenseless = low magic ability. In fact, it could be that Umbridge is hardly more than a Squib -- just enough magical power to be accepted into Hogwarts. This could also be why she wears Slytherin's Locket and lies about what it is -- to protect herself from prying eyes that might see how unpowerful she is. Furthermore, this could also be the reason she is attacking Muggle-Borns = she knows that they are more powerful than her.
I don't know how well this assessment is, but it is still an idea to consider.
I really hate her, so I'll end with this.
. . .
Yeah. I couldn't come up with anything either.
I do, however, have a theory.
In my vast reading of all things Harry Potter, including a plethora of material not an explicitly stated or inferred in the books and films, I learned a lot about wands & fingers and how they can signal a person's magical prowess .
People with longer fingers are said to be more powerful than others. This could be true. After all, Ollivander measures all sorts of angles on the arms (including fingers) of wizards and witches to get a general idea of where to start finding the proper wand for everyone.
For example, Dumbledore's fingers are referred to as being long several times through out the series and he is the only wizard feared by Voldemort. He is also arguably the most powerful wizard in existence (before the end of Half-Blood Prince anyway). I'm sure a lot of this is due to his own skill, but the finger thing helps.
Umbridge, on the other hand, is short, toadlike, and has stubby fingers with ugly rings on her fingers. She also has the shortest wand on record in the series. That alone should sound suspicious.
She also refuses to let any students use magic in her classroom. It would be understandable if she were teaching Potions, Flying, Divination or Herbology, but Defense Against the Dark Arts requires a wand to cast the spells. Also suspicious.
We see her attack centaurs (Order of the Phoenix) and cast a Patronus charm (Deathly Hallows), but not when the person she is fighting against has a wand. She prefers her victims wandless. Again, suspicious.
By combining these together, one might question Umbridge's magical abilities -- and rightly so. Short fingers + short wand + only really using her wand when others are defenseless = low magic ability. In fact, it could be that Umbridge is hardly more than a Squib -- just enough magical power to be accepted into Hogwarts. This could also be why she wears Slytherin's Locket and lies about what it is -- to protect herself from prying eyes that might see how unpowerful she is. Furthermore, this could also be the reason she is attacking Muggle-Borns = she knows that they are more powerful than her.
I don't know how well this assessment is, but it is still an idea to consider.
I really hate her, so I'll end with this.
Thursday, December 6, 2012
Book Review(s): Harry Potter and Philosophy
Harry Potter and Philosophy: If Aristotle Ran Hogwarts ed. David Baggett and Shawn E. Klein
Just like Harry Potter: Critical Essays, this book is another anthology. The difference is that this book is focused primarily on philosophical ideas and topics.
Baggett organizes his book by the school houses and each house gets four chapters of their own:
1. Gryffindor: Characters of Harry's World
2. Hufflepuff: Morality in Rowling's Universe
3. Slytherin: Knockturn Alley and the Dark Arts
4. Ravenclaw: Many-Flavored Topics in Metaphysics
If I had to choose my favorite essays, I would have to say that they are:
Diana Mertx Hsieh's "Dursley Duplicity: The Morality and Psychology of Self-Deception"
I liked it because it allows the reader to gain some sort of depth and understanding of the Dursley family and why they are the way they are.
I also think there are a lot of examples that could be applied to the real world. That's always nice. Subtly, I really think Hsieh is asking the readers to consider how they are like the Dursleys and if they need to make any changes.
Harald Thorsrud's "Voldemort's Agents, Malfoy's Cronies, and Hagrid's Chums: Friendship in Harry Potter"
I just enjoyed exploring the different kind of friendships Rowling introduces because not all friendships look and are the same.
Steven W. Patterson's "Is Ambition a Virtue? Why Slytherin Belongs at Hogwarts"
FINALLY!! SOMEONE DOESN'T THINK SLYTHERINS ARE PURE EVIL AND CAN'T BE SAVED!!!!!
Sorry. I hate that. Ambition can be a virtue. Sure, it can be twisted, but so can any other virtue. It's high time that someone tries to rescue Slytherin from the hatred and the dungeons where McGonagall sends them in Deathly Hallows Part 2.
Jason T. Eberl's "Why Voldemort Won't Just Die Already: What Wizards can Teach Us about Personal Identity"
I like this one because identity is such an interesting thing to explore. I'm constantly thinking about and trying to understand my own identity. Plus, one of my last classes at Grad School was all about identity: creating and defining it.
I love it.
The Ultimate Harry Potter and Philosophy: Hogwarts for Muggles ed. Gregory Bassham
This book is the same structure and topic as the book featured above. The main difference is that this one is longer and not organized around school houses, but it still has five categories.
These are the articles I loved most.
Scott Sehon's "The Soul in Harry Potter"
Any discussion of the soul is fascinating to me, especially when it is so hard to define, understand, and find. There are so many different opinions of what the soul looks like and where it is housed in the body. It was beyond interesting.
I loved it.
Andrew P. Mills's "Patriotism, House Loyalty, and the Obligations of Belonging"
This essay was interesting to read. I had a problem with him attacking Hermione's loyalty over everyone else's, but that's whatever. Hermione is one of my favorite characters and the one I see most of myself in, so yeah. Of course that annoyed me.
Aside from that, the article was engaging. I love that it explored every side of patriotism there is. It was wonderful.
Tamar Scabo Gendler's "Is Dumbledore Gay? Who's to Say?"
This is always a touchy subject with Potter-fans. Some believe or accept it as Rowling's vision. Others argue that because the announcement was made after Deathly Hallows was published, she can no longer say things about the story, such as Dumbledore being gay.
Personally, I don't care. It doesn't change his character or the plot of the story. So why should we care at all?
You know?
John Granger and Gregory Bassham's "Just in Your Head? J.K. Rowling on Separating Reality from Illusions"
I love it -- pure and simple. What's real? What isn't? Can anything become real if you believe it to be true?
Fascinating questions to ponder over. It's wonderful.
Jonathan L. Walls and Jerry L. Walls's "Beyond Godric's Hollow: Life after Death and the Search for Meaning"
Godric's Hollow is such a essential part of Deathly Hallows, not just plot wise, but idea wise also. In that scene, Harry gets to see his parents gravestone and the remains of his old house, but he also starts questioning death -- essential for the scene in the forest with Voldemort.
I love it.
I really enjoyed these books. They are interesting and promote all these ideas I hadn't thought of. It's amazing. It probably helps that I've studied all these philosophers before, but I believe anyone can love these books.
Just like Harry Potter: Critical Essays, this book is another anthology. The difference is that this book is focused primarily on philosophical ideas and topics.
Baggett organizes his book by the school houses and each house gets four chapters of their own:
1. Gryffindor: Characters of Harry's World
2. Hufflepuff: Morality in Rowling's Universe
3. Slytherin: Knockturn Alley and the Dark Arts
4. Ravenclaw: Many-Flavored Topics in Metaphysics
If I had to choose my favorite essays, I would have to say that they are:
Diana Mertx Hsieh's "Dursley Duplicity: The Morality and Psychology of Self-Deception"
I liked it because it allows the reader to gain some sort of depth and understanding of the Dursley family and why they are the way they are.
I also think there are a lot of examples that could be applied to the real world. That's always nice. Subtly, I really think Hsieh is asking the readers to consider how they are like the Dursleys and if they need to make any changes.
Harald Thorsrud's "Voldemort's Agents, Malfoy's Cronies, and Hagrid's Chums: Friendship in Harry Potter"
I just enjoyed exploring the different kind of friendships Rowling introduces because not all friendships look and are the same.
Steven W. Patterson's "Is Ambition a Virtue? Why Slytherin Belongs at Hogwarts"
FINALLY!! SOMEONE DOESN'T THINK SLYTHERINS ARE PURE EVIL AND CAN'T BE SAVED!!!!!
Sorry. I hate that. Ambition can be a virtue. Sure, it can be twisted, but so can any other virtue. It's high time that someone tries to rescue Slytherin from the hatred and the dungeons where McGonagall sends them in Deathly Hallows Part 2.
Jason T. Eberl's "Why Voldemort Won't Just Die Already: What Wizards can Teach Us about Personal Identity"
I like this one because identity is such an interesting thing to explore. I'm constantly thinking about and trying to understand my own identity. Plus, one of my last classes at Grad School was all about identity: creating and defining it.
I love it.
The Ultimate Harry Potter and Philosophy: Hogwarts for Muggles ed. Gregory Bassham
This book is the same structure and topic as the book featured above. The main difference is that this one is longer and not organized around school houses, but it still has five categories.
These are the articles I loved most.
Scott Sehon's "The Soul in Harry Potter"
Any discussion of the soul is fascinating to me, especially when it is so hard to define, understand, and find. There are so many different opinions of what the soul looks like and where it is housed in the body. It was beyond interesting.
I loved it.
Andrew P. Mills's "Patriotism, House Loyalty, and the Obligations of Belonging"
This essay was interesting to read. I had a problem with him attacking Hermione's loyalty over everyone else's, but that's whatever. Hermione is one of my favorite characters and the one I see most of myself in, so yeah. Of course that annoyed me.
Aside from that, the article was engaging. I love that it explored every side of patriotism there is. It was wonderful.
Tamar Scabo Gendler's "Is Dumbledore Gay? Who's to Say?"
This is always a touchy subject with Potter-fans. Some believe or accept it as Rowling's vision. Others argue that because the announcement was made after Deathly Hallows was published, she can no longer say things about the story, such as Dumbledore being gay.
Personally, I don't care. It doesn't change his character or the plot of the story. So why should we care at all?
You know?
John Granger and Gregory Bassham's "Just in Your Head? J.K. Rowling on Separating Reality from Illusions"
I love it -- pure and simple. What's real? What isn't? Can anything become real if you believe it to be true?
Fascinating questions to ponder over. It's wonderful.
Jonathan L. Walls and Jerry L. Walls's "Beyond Godric's Hollow: Life after Death and the Search for Meaning"
Godric's Hollow is such a essential part of Deathly Hallows, not just plot wise, but idea wise also. In that scene, Harry gets to see his parents gravestone and the remains of his old house, but he also starts questioning death -- essential for the scene in the forest with Voldemort.
I love it.
I really enjoyed these books. They are interesting and promote all these ideas I hadn't thought of. It's amazing. It probably helps that I've studied all these philosophers before, but I believe anyone can love these books.
Book Review: Conversations with J.K. Rowling
Conversations with J.K. Rowling Lindsey Fraser
This book is a small, easily overlooked book featuring an interview between Fraser and Rowling. It's an okay read: some of the questions and answers could be found in other places as well.
It is accompanied by some discussion of the first four books in the series.
I know it doesn't sound like much, but for $4.99, it's a pretty good deal.
This book is a small, easily overlooked book featuring an interview between Fraser and Rowling. It's an okay read: some of the questions and answers could be found in other places as well.
It is accompanied by some discussion of the first four books in the series.
I know it doesn't sound like much, but for $4.99, it's a pretty good deal.
Book Review: Harry: A History
Harry: A History Melissa Anelli
This book is a must-read for every huge "Pott-Head."
Essentially, Anelli begins by talking about her own experience with the series: her first read of it and establishing "Leaky Cauldron" (one of the most popular HP sites).
Then, she follows the story of Harry's birth from inception through the release of Deathly Hallows. She is meticulous and clearly dedicated to telling the story of Rowling and her books assent to popularity.
I know there are a lot of books out there about Ms. Rowling, her life, and the story of Harry Potter, but I would trust Anelli's the most.
She has actually met and talked with Ms. Rowling on more than one occasion, she is arguably the best source for Rowling and her life story as well as that of Harry.
This book is a must-read for every huge "Pott-Head."
Essentially, Anelli begins by talking about her own experience with the series: her first read of it and establishing "Leaky Cauldron" (one of the most popular HP sites).
Then, she follows the story of Harry's birth from inception through the release of Deathly Hallows. She is meticulous and clearly dedicated to telling the story of Rowling and her books assent to popularity.
I know there are a lot of books out there about Ms. Rowling, her life, and the story of Harry Potter, but I would trust Anelli's the most.
She has actually met and talked with Ms. Rowling on more than one occasion, she is arguably the best source for Rowling and her life story as well as that of Harry.
Book Review: Reading Harry Potter:
Reading Harry Potter: Critical Essays ed. Giselle Liza Anatol
As the title implies, this book is a small, 217 page, anthological collection of essays written about Rowling's Harry Potter.
The 3 overall topics in this book are:
1. Reading Harry Potter through Theories of Child Development
2. Literary Influences and Historical Contexts
3. Morality and Social Values: Issues of Power
All are interesting in their own ways, but I do have favorites:
Lisa Damour's "Harry Potter and the Magical Looking Glass: Reading the Secret Life of the Preadolescent"
Essentially, Damour is agreeing that the Potter series are for the younger generation. At the same time, however, the series can also belong to adults who can be nostalgic and reflective of their childhoods through reading the series.
I love that, especially since my Masters thesis was dealing with the same topic.
Elaine Ostry's "Accepting Mudbloods: The Ambivalent Social Vision of J.K. Rowling's Fairy Tales"
Rowling is definitely playing with some of the familiar themes and motifs of fairy tales through her story, but she is also pulling the reason these tales existed in the first place -- to teach and promote an idea/moral/message. Rowling's overall message of the battle between good and bad as well as the problems with materialism and racism. Very interesting, especially when paired with Karen Brown's book about prejudice in Harry Potter, but more on that later.
I think the appeal of this article for me is that it deals with racism -- it fascinates me.
Ximena Gallardo-C.'s and C. Jason Smith's "Cinderfella: J.K. Rowling's Wily Web of Gender"
This essay is just about the stereotypical gender roles Rowling enforces and fights again them.
Gender roles are always fun to talk about, especially when they are inverted.
This book is definitely worth a read. It's an interesting mix of different ideas about the series.
As the title implies, this book is a small, 217 page, anthological collection of essays written about Rowling's Harry Potter.
The 3 overall topics in this book are:
1. Reading Harry Potter through Theories of Child Development
2. Literary Influences and Historical Contexts
3. Morality and Social Values: Issues of Power
All are interesting in their own ways, but I do have favorites:
Lisa Damour's "Harry Potter and the Magical Looking Glass: Reading the Secret Life of the Preadolescent"
Essentially, Damour is agreeing that the Potter series are for the younger generation. At the same time, however, the series can also belong to adults who can be nostalgic and reflective of their childhoods through reading the series.
I love that, especially since my Masters thesis was dealing with the same topic.
Elaine Ostry's "Accepting Mudbloods: The Ambivalent Social Vision of J.K. Rowling's Fairy Tales"
Rowling is definitely playing with some of the familiar themes and motifs of fairy tales through her story, but she is also pulling the reason these tales existed in the first place -- to teach and promote an idea/moral/message. Rowling's overall message of the battle between good and bad as well as the problems with materialism and racism. Very interesting, especially when paired with Karen Brown's book about prejudice in Harry Potter, but more on that later.
I think the appeal of this article for me is that it deals with racism -- it fascinates me.
Ximena Gallardo-C.'s and C. Jason Smith's "Cinderfella: J.K. Rowling's Wily Web of Gender"
This essay is just about the stereotypical gender roles Rowling enforces and fights again them.
Gender roles are always fun to talk about, especially when they are inverted.
This book is definitely worth a read. It's an interesting mix of different ideas about the series.
Book Review: Harry Potter and the Bible
Harry Potter and the Bible: The Menace Behind the Magick by Richard Abanes
And we're back with Mr. Abanes, the Potter-Hater.
Oddly enough, these words are at the bottom of the book's front cover: "Not Approved by J.K. Rowling" and I have a feeling that Ms. Rowling would not agree with anything Mr. Abanes says in this book. I know I don't.
Quotes Abanes pulled to prove his point:
"Any time the dark side of the supernatural world is presented as harmless or even imaginary, there is the danger that children will become curious and find too late that witchcraft is neither harmless nor imaginary." - Lindy Beam (1)
"It would be easy to attribute Harry Poterr's success to some form of magical intervention." - Jean Feiwel (2)
"There are numerous books written on witchcraft and the occult, but none is more ingeniously packaged to attract the kids like this one." - letusreason.org (3)
"general nastiness underneath the mantle of cuteness." - Baptist Press (4)
Some Christians enjoy the series and claim that it promotes good morals. (5-6)
"Rowling's characters, especially Harry Potter, demonstrated "courage, loyalty, and a willingness to sacrifice for one another -- even at the risk of their lives. Not bad lessons in a self-centered world."
"Rowling's sereis is a Book of Virtues with a preadolescent funny bone. Amid the laugh-out-loud scenes are wonderful examples of compassion, loyalty, courage, friendship and even self-sacrifice. No wonder young readers want to be like these believable characters. That is a Christmas present we cna be grateful for."
Once again, Abanes is attacking Rowling because she researched magic practices while writing Harry Potter; she laid an arguably morally grey foundation for her characters; and she shouldn't be writing for little kids and parents should recognize and monitor that.
(For the record, the publishers said the series was for children, NOT her -- Just saying)
Really, the only difference between this book and his other text is that he has organized his argument around the books in the series. That and he threw in some heavy-handed Biblical references (specific verses and general ideas). But it's really the same message; it's just long, drawn out, and repetitive because he's not talking about Lord of the Rings and Narnia in this book to fill up the space.
It is important to note that this book was published in 2001, before Order of the Phoenix came out. So perhaps Mr. Abanes deserves some grace in that regard. I don't necessarily think he does because I'm a bit bitter about his hatred of one of my favorite series of all time. It would still be interesting, however, to see his response to the rest of the series, especially Deathly Hallows.
. . . if you couldn't tell . . . I'm not a big fan of Mr. Abanes at all . . . I might like him more if he was working and twisting words to fit his obvious argument and agenda. It's all about balance and not taking words and situations out of context.
And we're back with Mr. Abanes, the Potter-Hater.
Oddly enough, these words are at the bottom of the book's front cover: "Not Approved by J.K. Rowling" and I have a feeling that Ms. Rowling would not agree with anything Mr. Abanes says in this book. I know I don't.
Quotes Abanes pulled to prove his point:
"Any time the dark side of the supernatural world is presented as harmless or even imaginary, there is the danger that children will become curious and find too late that witchcraft is neither harmless nor imaginary." - Lindy Beam (1)
"It would be easy to attribute Harry Poterr's success to some form of magical intervention." - Jean Feiwel (2)
"There are numerous books written on witchcraft and the occult, but none is more ingeniously packaged to attract the kids like this one." - letusreason.org (3)
"general nastiness underneath the mantle of cuteness." - Baptist Press (4)
Some Christians enjoy the series and claim that it promotes good morals. (5-6)
"Rowling's characters, especially Harry Potter, demonstrated "courage, loyalty, and a willingness to sacrifice for one another -- even at the risk of their lives. Not bad lessons in a self-centered world."
"Rowling's sereis is a Book of Virtues with a preadolescent funny bone. Amid the laugh-out-loud scenes are wonderful examples of compassion, loyalty, courage, friendship and even self-sacrifice. No wonder young readers want to be like these believable characters. That is a Christmas present we cna be grateful for."
Once again, Abanes is attacking Rowling because she researched magic practices while writing Harry Potter; she laid an arguably morally grey foundation for her characters; and she shouldn't be writing for little kids and parents should recognize and monitor that.
(For the record, the publishers said the series was for children, NOT her -- Just saying)
Really, the only difference between this book and his other text is that he has organized his argument around the books in the series. That and he threw in some heavy-handed Biblical references (specific verses and general ideas). But it's really the same message; it's just long, drawn out, and repetitive because he's not talking about Lord of the Rings and Narnia in this book to fill up the space.
It is important to note that this book was published in 2001, before Order of the Phoenix came out. So perhaps Mr. Abanes deserves some grace in that regard. I don't necessarily think he does because I'm a bit bitter about his hatred of one of my favorite series of all time. It would still be interesting, however, to see his response to the rest of the series, especially Deathly Hallows.
. . . if you couldn't tell . . . I'm not a big fan of Mr. Abanes at all . . . I might like him more if he was working and twisting words to fit his obvious argument and agenda. It's all about balance and not taking words and situations out of context.
Book Review: Harry Potter, Narnia, and the Lord of the Rings
Harry Potter, Narnia and the Lord of the Rings: What You Need to Know About Fantasy Books and Movies by Richard Abanes
In this book, Abanes is making a case for adults to monitor what their children read, especially because they could be dragged into fantasy realms, damage their belief systems, and confuse their sense of real and unreal. He does, however, come down harder one of the series he is writing about.
Any guesses to which series?
. . . Harry Potter . . .
For one thing, he believes that Rowling is promoting real practices of the people who believe in and use magic today. Out of concern for the children becoming Wiccan, he appeals to parents to rethink and to take a larger part in their children's reading habits. Furthermore, he accuses Rowling of encouraging children to become involved with witch craft because she researched magic to find inspiration as well as accurate information to integrate in the Potter series. And, as much as I hate to admit it, he does have a point -- many witches promote Harry Potter because Rowling's research made the series a little too realistic and accurate magic-wise.
"Harry Potter happens to be on of the best thigns for witchcraft, and the understanding of it." (132)
"Will it draw peopel to the craft[?] It will probably make some people very curious and therefore more open." (132)
"I think that more peopel will start expoloring witchcraft because of the movie [Harry Potter]." (132)
"As to whether Harry Potter generates interst in Paganism, of course it does! Many people will explore Paganism because of Harry Potter." (133)
"[Harry Potter] will bring more attention to Paganism and the study of Magick. . . . The open-minded peopel will go out and buy a few "Wicca 101" books to learn more about witchcraft in the rea world." (133)
He is, of course, ignoring the fact that all good writers do research before creating characters, setting, and different worlds for their novel(s), but whatever.
But he doesn't stop there . . .
He continues to rebuke Rowling's books as morally grey at best, especially when the story isn't good and evil but is rather evil and more evil. Also, he feels that there are not any adult role models because they all have flaws (this is detrimental to children's views of their parents), even Mr. and Mrs. Weasley. He also brings religion into the discussion, but we'll save that for the review of his other book. I'll just say that he prefers Lord of the Rings and Narnia over Harry Potter.
He also has a problem with Harry Potter's popular. He says that Harry is popular only because :
"First, Harry Potter is filled with the kid of gross imagery and crass humor that juveniles find entertaining: vomit candy, pus and booger references, assorted profanities, "Uranu" juokes, and a deash of bloody violence." (219)
"Second, "Harry Potter is a classic ugly duckling story, one of the great archetypes in literature. Misfit, rejected, even abused, Harry one day finds all that changed." Both kids and adults can identify with this." (219)
"Third, accordign to one reviewer, Harry Potter is popular "because this character has teh ability to uncover the eternal child we all have buried inside. A teenager's identity crisis set amidst an epic adventure, the stoires appeal to everyone who's ever wanted to beat the odds and become a hero." (219)
It should be clear that Abanes is clearly not a fan of Harry Potter because the series could influence children in the wrong way. He is glossing over all the virtues that stand out in the series. Then again, this book was published before Half-Blood Prince, so perhaps his views would change if he finished the series before writing this book.
In this book, Abanes is making a case for adults to monitor what their children read, especially because they could be dragged into fantasy realms, damage their belief systems, and confuse their sense of real and unreal. He does, however, come down harder one of the series he is writing about.
Any guesses to which series?
. . . Harry Potter . . .
For one thing, he believes that Rowling is promoting real practices of the people who believe in and use magic today. Out of concern for the children becoming Wiccan, he appeals to parents to rethink and to take a larger part in their children's reading habits. Furthermore, he accuses Rowling of encouraging children to become involved with witch craft because she researched magic to find inspiration as well as accurate information to integrate in the Potter series. And, as much as I hate to admit it, he does have a point -- many witches promote Harry Potter because Rowling's research made the series a little too realistic and accurate magic-wise.
"Harry Potter happens to be on of the best thigns for witchcraft, and the understanding of it." (132)
"Will it draw peopel to the craft[?] It will probably make some people very curious and therefore more open." (132)
"I think that more peopel will start expoloring witchcraft because of the movie [Harry Potter]." (132)
"As to whether Harry Potter generates interst in Paganism, of course it does! Many people will explore Paganism because of Harry Potter." (133)
"[Harry Potter] will bring more attention to Paganism and the study of Magick. . . . The open-minded peopel will go out and buy a few "Wicca 101" books to learn more about witchcraft in the rea world." (133)
He is, of course, ignoring the fact that all good writers do research before creating characters, setting, and different worlds for their novel(s), but whatever.
But he doesn't stop there . . .
He continues to rebuke Rowling's books as morally grey at best, especially when the story isn't good and evil but is rather evil and more evil. Also, he feels that there are not any adult role models because they all have flaws (this is detrimental to children's views of their parents), even Mr. and Mrs. Weasley. He also brings religion into the discussion, but we'll save that for the review of his other book. I'll just say that he prefers Lord of the Rings and Narnia over Harry Potter.
He also has a problem with Harry Potter's popular. He says that Harry is popular only because :
"First, Harry Potter is filled with the kid of gross imagery and crass humor that juveniles find entertaining: vomit candy, pus and booger references, assorted profanities, "Uranu" juokes, and a deash of bloody violence." (219)
"Second, "Harry Potter is a classic ugly duckling story, one of the great archetypes in literature. Misfit, rejected, even abused, Harry one day finds all that changed." Both kids and adults can identify with this." (219)
"Third, accordign to one reviewer, Harry Potter is popular "because this character has teh ability to uncover the eternal child we all have buried inside. A teenager's identity crisis set amidst an epic adventure, the stoires appeal to everyone who's ever wanted to beat the odds and become a hero." (219)
It should be clear that Abanes is clearly not a fan of Harry Potter because the series could influence children in the wrong way. He is glossing over all the virtues that stand out in the series. Then again, this book was published before Half-Blood Prince, so perhaps his views would change if he finished the series before writing this book.
Monday, December 3, 2012
"Mummy" Hagrid
One of the scenes that sticks out most in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is the one where Norbert is born.
Visually, it's wonderful, especially for kids. They get to see a dragon hatch from an egg. While this is obviously done through computer animation, for the children it is real kids are so completely entranced with Harry's Wizarding World that they are waiting and praying for their acceptance letter to Hogwarts when they turn 11 and be able to purchase a dragon of their very own.
Yes, they'll be disappointed when they learn that their letter and/or dragon will never come, but for that brief moment, they believed in something incredible and magical.
As nice as that is, however, there is something else that caught my interest last week when I watched the movie. I guess I didn't catch it before because I was actually watching the movie. This time, I was multitasking and only listened to the dialogue. And sure enough, I heard it. . .
Hagrid referred to himself as Norbert's "mummy."
Why would Hagrid, who is clearly a man, claim the title of "mummy," a term usually used exclusively to refer to women?
After all, it's not like he had a mother to love and care for because she ran off. He was much closer to his father, who stayed to raise him. So, wouldn't he naturally be inclined to identify himself as daddy seeing as his own dad was the only parental figure in his life?
No. No he wouldn't.
1. He could refer to himself as "mummy" because he never had one and he didn't want Norbert to live life that way.
2. He saw his dad take over both maternal and paternal roles, so it wouldn't have seemed odd for him to assume both roles.
That doesn't really explain why he didn't call himself "daddy" though.
3. He has natural maternal instincts.
4. He sees himself as the person who gave birth to Norbert by caring for the egg until it hatched; something a mother could do.
Any of these answers (or even more than one of these answers) could be correct, but it does open up a few strong issues revolving around gender roles and gender stereotyping.
I don't have the time to evaluate this gender reversal from a thorough, scholarly sort of view, but I might later because this is an interesting topic.
Visually, it's wonderful, especially for kids. They get to see a dragon hatch from an egg. While this is obviously done through computer animation, for the children it is real kids are so completely entranced with Harry's Wizarding World that they are waiting and praying for their acceptance letter to Hogwarts when they turn 11 and be able to purchase a dragon of their very own.
Yes, they'll be disappointed when they learn that their letter and/or dragon will never come, but for that brief moment, they believed in something incredible and magical.
As nice as that is, however, there is something else that caught my interest last week when I watched the movie. I guess I didn't catch it before because I was actually watching the movie. This time, I was multitasking and only listened to the dialogue. And sure enough, I heard it. . .
Hagrid referred to himself as Norbert's "mummy."
Why would Hagrid, who is clearly a man, claim the title of "mummy," a term usually used exclusively to refer to women?
After all, it's not like he had a mother to love and care for because she ran off. He was much closer to his father, who stayed to raise him. So, wouldn't he naturally be inclined to identify himself as daddy seeing as his own dad was the only parental figure in his life?
No. No he wouldn't.
1. He could refer to himself as "mummy" because he never had one and he didn't want Norbert to live life that way.
2. He saw his dad take over both maternal and paternal roles, so it wouldn't have seemed odd for him to assume both roles.
That doesn't really explain why he didn't call himself "daddy" though.
3. He has natural maternal instincts.
4. He sees himself as the person who gave birth to Norbert by caring for the egg until it hatched; something a mother could do.
Any of these answers (or even more than one of these answers) could be correct, but it does open up a few strong issues revolving around gender roles and gender stereotyping.
I don't have the time to evaluate this gender reversal from a thorough, scholarly sort of view, but I might later because this is an interesting topic.
Sunday, November 25, 2012
Neville Longbottom: Why Can't He Kill Bellatrix in the End
So there.
In Order of the Phoenix, The golden trio (Harry, Ron, and Hermione) and the outer trio (Neville, Ginny, and Luna) find themselves in the Ministry of Magic's Department of Mystery. Neville and Bellatrix recognize each other and immediately cross hairs.
Bellatrix: "Neville Longbottom is it? How's mom and dad?"
Neville: "Better now that they're about to be avenged."
In that moment, it is clear that Neville feels blood-lust filled sense of duty to make Bellatrix suffer as much as his parents have since she attacked them. And, if only Neville and Bellatrix were there, I believe he would have confronted her and engaged in a duel that more than likely would have killed him. As it is, however, there are far more Death Eaters that he must help his friends defeat / escape from. And thus, Frank and Alice Longbottom's revenge is put on-hold.
During Deathly Hallows, Neville and Bellatrix could have easily crossed paths and dueled to the death. Neville, however, does not seek Bellatrix out.
Why?
He wanted to avenge his parents 2 years ago, so why not do what he had originally planned in the Hall of Prophecies?
The answer? Because he's grown up a lot in that time, especially when Harry doesn't show up to finish his 7th year at Hogwarts. Neville remembers what it was like when Harry was brave and stood up to people -- he inspired others to find their courage and fight back. Neville, then, becomes the new Harry out of necessity because the Hogwarts students, especially those who trained with him as a part of Dumbledore's Army, needed a leader.
That forced Neville to grow up and see the big picture, pasded the fact that his parents were tortured into insanity by Bellartrix. On the one hand, he knows that he is leading the students and that he can't leave them on their own to take care of a private battle. On the other hand, Harry gives Neville an important job to do as he is heading to meet his death in the Forbidden Forest.
In the movie, Harry tells Neville to "hold down the fort."
In the book, Harry tells Neville to kill the snake, no matter what.
That job becomes Neville's priority.
I'm certain that Neville would have sought out Bellatrix if Harry stayed at Hogwarts, but with Harry missing, Neville knew he needed to step-up. Even though his parents were permanently hospitalized at St. Mungo's and were in need of vengeance, Neville has grown up enough to see that avenging his parents was not as important as helping his friends and classmates fight back against Voldemort, the true enemy.
And when everyone thinks Harry is dead, Neville still fights back, standing up as a leader inspiring everyone to keep fighting.
"Doesn't matter that Harry's gone. People die everyday. Friends, family. Yeah, we lost Harry tonight, but he's still with us. In here. [points to chest] Sort of spread. Remus, Tonks, all of them. They didn't die in vain. . . . But you will 'cause you're wrong.Harry's heart did beat for us. For all of us." (movie)
Neville is able to see that Harry and everyone else died for a cause that still needed to be fought for.But he could also see that his parents, insane or not, avenged or not, still lived in his heart and that is why he (and everyone else) were fighting.
Furthermore, Neville was chosen to do this task.
Sure, Voldemort chose to attack Harry when he knew that he could have also chosen Neville. Also, Harry chose Neville to take over his position as leader.
It's almost like Harry spent 6 years subtly, unknowlingly training Neville for this job. Harry may not have known it, but Neville was observing Harry from the moment they started at Hogwarts as first years. Neville saw Harry move on even though his parents were dead and not seek out Voldemort to avenge his parents, but instead to save the world. Thus, Harry showed Neville that there are more important things than revenge, allowing him to attack the snake and leave Bellatrix as someone else's problem.
Neville's fight, then, was no longer about avenging his parents, but about saving the world instead. Sometime between his 5th and 7th year, Neville realized that killing Bellatrix would not bring his parents back to full heath and also that while he couldn't change the fate of his parents, he could change the fate of the world by shifting his focus towards Voldemort instead.
It is only through becoming Harry's chosen one that Neville was able to become the strong-willed, inspiring, leader he was during the Battle at Hogwarts -- a feat no one would have thought possible in their 1st or even 5th year at Hogwarts.
All this to say that Neville achieves self-actualization through watching Harry and becoming Harry's chosen leader (should he die) to continue fighting Voldemort, not seeking revenge for his parent's insanity.
Friday, November 23, 2012
A Few Words Before Our Lesson Begins . . .
Welcome to another Harry Potter blog. May this blog offer a scholarly exploration for all of us to enjoy as we immerse ourselves into Ms. Rowling's exceptionally written series about a boy wizard who enchanted us with his story.
I am Britt, a Hufflepuff who has just completed her seventh of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, and your guide through the deep and often subtle insights within the series. I know. This sounds like the job of a Ravenclaw student, but they are not the only students smart -- otherwise I would not have been given this task by Headmistress McGonagall. It doesn't hurt, however, that the Sorting Hat spent a long time deciding where to place me and I was almost a Ravenclaw. My determination and perseverance ended up winning over my brain power; a decision I am completely okay with.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that you shouldn't judge my blog by my House.
After all, McGonagall trusts me, so you should as well.
Before we begin, however, there are a few matters that must be addressed.
First and foremost, this blog will be especially dangerous for those young wizards and witches who have just received their Hogwarts letters as well as those who have yet to finish their seventh year and pass their N.E.W.T.s because of the spoilers.
Readers beware.
Second, there will be some topics that might be . . . misunderstood by most professors seeing as they address themes and questions that can only be answered by venturing into the Restricted section of the library or perhaps even the Forbidden Forest.
Again, readers beware because once you begin one of these "restricted" posts, you stand alone in your attempt to find your way out of the words.
Third, this blog is intended to bring up ideas that will inspire some of your own as well as open up a floor for discussion that everyone can take part of.
Harry means so much to all of us and always will, so why not talk about him?
Fourth, and most important, have fun with this . . . whether through reading or commenting.
All that's left to do is tuck-in and begin.
I am Britt, a Hufflepuff who has just completed her seventh of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, and your guide through the deep and often subtle insights within the series. I know. This sounds like the job of a Ravenclaw student, but they are not the only students smart -- otherwise I would not have been given this task by Headmistress McGonagall. It doesn't hurt, however, that the Sorting Hat spent a long time deciding where to place me and I was almost a Ravenclaw. My determination and perseverance ended up winning over my brain power; a decision I am completely okay with.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is that you shouldn't judge my blog by my House.
After all, McGonagall trusts me, so you should as well.
Before we begin, however, there are a few matters that must be addressed.
First and foremost, this blog will be especially dangerous for those young wizards and witches who have just received their Hogwarts letters as well as those who have yet to finish their seventh year and pass their N.E.W.T.s because of the spoilers.
Readers beware.
Second, there will be some topics that might be . . . misunderstood by most professors seeing as they address themes and questions that can only be answered by venturing into the Restricted section of the library or perhaps even the Forbidden Forest.
Again, readers beware because once you begin one of these "restricted" posts, you stand alone in your attempt to find your way out of the words.
Third, this blog is intended to bring up ideas that will inspire some of your own as well as open up a floor for discussion that everyone can take part of.
Harry means so much to all of us and always will, so why not talk about him?
Fourth, and most important, have fun with this . . . whether through reading or commenting.
All that's left to do is tuck-in and begin.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)