The writer could explore the challenges and opportunities in adapting Harry Potter into a TV series. How might this format allow for deeper dives into beloved characters and overlooked subplots? What risks come with retelling a story already ingrained in global pop culture? The piece could also examine the impact of fandom expectations and the controversy surrounding J.K. Rowling’s public statements on the reception of this adaptation.
Good topic! For starters, you might examine the controversy surrounding the desire for a British-only cast, vs. the potential non-British actors could bring to the series. Along with that, you could examine some of the elements JKR has "retconned" or said she wishes she added, such as Hermione being a person of color or the fact that Hermione should have ended up with Harry, not Ron. – Stephanie M.2 weeks ago
There is a very interesting blog entry on the Harry Potter Amino Apps page that compares Lord Voldemort (nee Tom Riddle) from the Harry Potter series to Andrew Nehman, the protagonist of Whiplash. The main thrust of this argument is that both characters come from a long line of mediocrities, and develop an obsession with being the best in their chosen fields in order to counter this, even if it costs them their humanity and personality. They also share at least one other similarity that goes unremarked upon in the blog: namely, that both of their mothers died in childbirth.
The question is, does Voldemort have any other traits that make him similar to other obsessed creatives (real or fictional) besides just Nehman? What, if any, artistic talents does he possess, and what are some of the lengths he goes to master them? In terms of his characterization, just how essential a role does creativity play in making him who he is? Is there actually anything to the idea that Tom Riddle/Voldemort's backstory and arc are that of an obsessed artist or creative personality, or does he just happen to have some traits in common with one obsessively artistic character purely by chance?
Harry Potter is a beloved series all over the world, and whether you've seen it or not, everyone has heard of it. While the author J.K. Rowling has come into some heavy fire from the media for her transphobia and racial stereotyping over the past few years, the Harry Potter franchise still stands in our hearts. Can art be separated from the creator? Do benefits for transgender and racialized youth outweigh the original intentions of the author? What are the connotations of new creations set in the universe J.K. Rowling imagined? Should they be supported?
I believe that a really constructive way to bridge this topic is to provide different forms of media and or people that also face the difficulty of separation from creator and product. This could be things like the creator of Attack on Titan and the show itself, or Marilyn Manson and his music. While not relevant to the topic of Harry Potter or J.K. Rowling, this idea could be something worth noting in order to create critical thinking for readers. – bluestarshine2 years ago
One point I often see raised is that JK is quite literally still benefitting from people talking about, reading, and buying content in the Harry Potter franchise. So even if you can separate it in your mind, it's not really separated in the real world. Even if you acknowledge her wrongs and have your opinions, each time you buy a new copy of one of her books you do imply support for her, and directly fund her and her cause. You can even argue just talking about the franchise implies support and aids her, though this is a little tenuous. This is in contrast to older creators where it is possible to have more separation. If you read HP Lovecraft's work, for example, he isn't going to use that public support or the money you spend to further racist causes because he's dead. You of course don't have to agree with this take on the topic, it's just one I've seen around in discussions of it, and I think it makes an interesting point. – AnnieEM2 years ago
This purpose of this article is to determine whether or not the recently published rehearsal script for Harry Potter and the Cursed Child should be considered as a new addition to the Harry Potter canon. In other words, this article would focus on the mixed reception from fans, J.K Rowling's involvement in the project (or lack thereof) and argue for or against the play as part of the overall Harry Potter story timeline.
Does reception decide what "canon" is? Or is the fact that JK Rowling an author already confirm its legitimacy?
Keep in mind that it is a theatrical play. – Christen Mandracchia8 years ago
Fan reception does not dictate what is and is not canon. Canon is decided by whoever owns the creative rights. – Steven Gonzales8 years ago
Alright, I see both of your points. In some ways I agree and disagree at the same time. While I think canon is determined by the author, I also believe that an individual's 'personal' canon (the fan perspective) is valid and worthy of study. However, that's just my opinion. – AlexanderLee8 years ago
This is interesting, because "canon" is typically whatever the original author claims it to be. However, Cursed Child uses any number of ideas embraced by the fandom community long before the Cursed Child was written (friendship between Albus and Scorpius, Albus being in Slytherin, etc). Does the relationship between author and fandom change what the "canon" is? Does it give the fandom more ownership of the material? – sophiacatherine8 years ago
To me, it's not like an author's word about canon it's always law. Not without previous preconditions. Such as (among some others) authorship (it seems banal, but maybe not that banal) and underlying consistency. In this case, CC is not written by JK Rowling, even if she approved it, and shows major incoherencies if juxtaposed with the HP books (and movies). So, it maybe be "canon" in the sense that it's officially part of the Wizarding World trademark, the way movie adaptations are, but it's not properly literary canon. The author's word for it just does not suffice. If JK went mad and proclaimed canonic some scribble on a handkerchief she just found, should we take it as a fact just because "ipse dixit"? Canon is not defined solely neither by the author nor by fans. It is defined by facts. Fact is, fanfiction cannot be canon even if the author vouches for it. – emeraldnose7 years ago
The problem with The Cursed Child is that it doesn't have that same aura that the first seven Harry Potter books had. The main reason is that it isn't exclusively written by JK Rowling. Whatever, what really causes a problem with this last book is that it feels like JK just ran out of money and attention and decided that school books from the Potter universe weren't enough, so she decided to write a sequel. The problem is that, when it's not written with the soul, it's not... The same. TCC felt like a bunch of poorly written fanfictions all thrown there and mixed together, with a bunch of fanservice and totally crazy and unrealistic - almost ridiculous - plot twists for the sole purpose to serve a story that nobody asked for. TCC doesn't feel like a Harry Potter book, something's missing, and that's what doesn't make it canon. – Nad7 years ago
Analyse the popular opinion that Harry Potter has increased youth literary interest. Has Rowling inspired young readers to go on to new and different content outside her stable, or has her pervasive Wizarding Universe sought to monopolise marketshare?
A good issue, I'm just not sure how to measure this. In addition, interest in Harry Potter books may not carry over to reading other literature or the New York Times. This might be approached as a pedagogy issue at the middle school level: Has Harry Potter been added to classrooms to help inspire other reading. – Joseph Cernik5 years ago
Analyse what caused Lord Voldemort's creation and the cause of his death. There are many key things that played a role in his life and death, not just Harry Potter, The Boy Who Lived.
I'm always happy to see an analysis of the development of villains. Voldemort is an interesting one to discuss nature versus nurture as both are so negative as to position him easily as the antagonist. – SaraiMW7 years ago
A similar article is currently in the pending posts.
https://the-artifice.com/?p=121477&preview=true – Sean Gadus6 years ago
This is a fairly personal topic I'd like to write myself, but will leave to more experienced Potterheads.
I was ten when the first Harry Potter book came out. I grew up in a moderate, but still observant Christian family who considered it too much of a risk to expose me and my then-six-year-old brother to a series that contained any form of witchcraft. I didn't read the books then and later, got too busy with other books. Besides, I didn't want to be labeled childish for carrying around HP paperbacks in, say, high school.
As an adult, I've finally gotten around to opening my Hogwarts letter and starting the series, and it's been a lot of fun. However, I can't escape this fact: I'm a thirty-something woman. I have a different HP experience than the average 11-year-old.
And so I'm curious to see an analysis of this phenomenon. Does age matter when you're discovering HP for the first or two hundredth time? How do children and adults view the series differently? Are there less or more "mature" ways to interact with it? Or, as I suspect, has Harry Potter bridged age gaps in a way other book series can only dream about doing? If yes, how did J.K. and Harry do it?
Oh, this is a really good point. I grew up with HP and participated in fan culture while it was still going on, but recently met someone who never got involved until last year. We both love the series, but we have vastly different interpretations and relationships with the HP universe. Partly because of age, sure, but I think also because of our relationship to the fandom/culture surrounding it. – Emily Esten7 years ago
A nice idea for a topic, Stephanie. I have to confess to having a little bias in favour of the HP books as I was an extra on the last HP film, but having said that, I too discovered the books shortly afterwards. So, at the tender middle-age of 49 I started reading them. As an adult, what I discovered was a remarkably consistent form of storytelling that also matured and darkened in its subject matter as its young readers grew up. One thing I will credit Rowling with is encouraging a generation of children to do what successive UK governments had failed to do - namely to read for pleasure! I enjoyed discussing the stories with my nephew as he grew up and trying to solve the great puzzle, so in that respect alone it helped to connect the young and the not so young in a shared literary experience. It also opened up a few interesting discussions with other adults who saw me reading the books on the Tube; those who, perhaps under different circumstances, I might never have spoken to. – Amyus7 years ago
I grew up with the Harry Potter series so it's an important part of my childhood. I was actually too young when they first came out, so my mom would read them to me as bedtime stories instead. It turned into a bonding experience as my mom became almost equally immersed in the wizarding world as I was. I'm sure it was a different experience for her than it was for me. Since I was a child and the Harry Potter series involves a "coming of age" narrative, the human issues I was reading about were mostly on par with my own experiences growing up. The books and my life could co-exist side by side. For my mom, it perhaps provides a bit of nostalgia. It takes her back to when she was younger and makes her feel like a kid again. Feeling "like a kid" again while reading the books and actually being a kid while reading them is obviously a completely different perspective. Perhaps, for adults, it provides a mini-vacation from a world that seems to have lost a bit of its magic. It reminds you of an innate sense of curiosity and wonder we often lose as we get older. For kids reading them, there is perhaps less of a barrier between the wizarding world and our own. After all, Harry Potter incorporates our own (Muggle) world and the wizarding world within the same universe. The wizarding world seems like an undiscovered realm that we're too oblivious to realize is hidden right under our noses. The capacity for human ignorance can be astounding, so why can't there be a bit of magic we've failed to notice? Our entire existence is both a miracle and a mystery. Maybe J.K. Rowling is a witch herself! She certainly cast a spell on several generations worth of readers. As to how she did that so successfully, that's a more difficult question to answer. Audiences tend to like the ole' good versus evil storylines. Its voices aren't solely adolescent ones either, which separate it from YA that almost exclusively focus on kids' perspectives. I also greatly admire anything that's relegated to being mere "children's entertainment" which is instead handled with maturity and depth and acknowledges kids' capacities for awareness and intelligence that exist outside of adult comprehension. – aprosaicpintofpisces7 years ago
Speaking from personal experience, the way my twelve-year old brother and I experience the books completely differently. The Harry potter series is indisputably fascinating and entertaining to most readers, but age is usually required to see the broader themes of discrimination (blood purity) and class struggle (sacred 28) in the wizarding world, ideas not really important to younger readers. – JoanneK7 years ago
I didn't experience the Harry Potter book series until I was in high school, and only watched the movies as a kid growing up. When I finally did read the books I was pleasantly surprised by my ability to interpret and appreciate it, feeling as though I would have missed out on a lot of understanding had I absentmindedly consumed it as a child. I still grew up with Harry Potter, just in a different way.
That being said, I think Harry Potter does transcend certain tropes that people can appreciate in all woks of life-- whether they are currently experiencing the struggles of growing up or relating to them in our past. It truly is a phenomenon. However I think a large part of it might have been the widely accepted exposure of such a developed fantasy world is mainstream media. Harry Potter was something we could share with others and through social interaction our connection to the franchise grew even deeper. Sharing is caring. – Slaidey7 years ago
Harry Potter has the ability to inspire and excite both adults and children reading it for the first time - however, in vastly different ways. Being someone who first read the books at age 8, I have an entirely different relationship with the story and the characters than my mum did when she read them mid-40s, and even my best friend who has just read them age 20. I think that a child's mind is so much more open to wonder and magic, so can really imagine that Hogwarts and the wizarding world could be real. I felt excited when learning about magic, and I felt scared when Harry faced Voldemort. I felt happy when Gryffindor won the House Cup, and I COULD NOT WAIT to find out what would happen in the next instalment. The events in the story and the emotions that they produce have more of an impact on a child, who view the story as a thrilling adventure that they may never have experienced before. Along with this, being a similar age to the characters, children will automatically have much more of a connection, and an ability to understand and relate to what the characters are going through themselves. An adult, however much they enjoy the story, accept it as being just a story. I think age does matter when it comes to Harry Potter; not that it cannot be enjoyed at any age, but I do feel glad that I had the experience I did with Harry Potter, because I don't think I would have the same love and appreciation for it if I hadn't read it until now. – nicnac7 years ago
@nicnac: I've noticed the same phenomenon you mention. It really makes me regret that I didn't read the series as a kid, or at least ask my parents for permission. It can feel a little awkward, being a brand new Potterhead in your thirties. But then, I do like how all the thoughts and feelings I have about it are new. As in, I haven't grown up with HP and known everything there is to know about it for as long as I can remember. So each discovery is like a new surprise. :) – Stephanie M.7 years ago
The titular main character is often overshadowed by his luck and the accomplishments of his friends. Though Harry is the Chosen One, he rarely shows his so called "incredible" wizarding prowess as is stated that he possesses outside of his ability to catch a small golden ball. Does Harry Potter, the incredibly well known franchise that took the world by storm, truly deserve its fame when its main character is overall just an average wizard?
I partially agree with this, only because there are so many talented wizards without whom Harry Potter would not be Harry Potter. But who is a man (or a woman) without the people who helped him/her? HP was kind of pushed and dragged into being the Chosen One; he never really wanted it. His parents' legacies were what created this image of HP being the one to save all the wizarding world. He never really got a chance to choose his place in the battle. I think he doesn't deserve all the fame, but he should get some credit. It takes a lot to be what everyone wants you to be, and then to execute the prophecy that was placed on him at age 15/16. – madigoldman8 years ago
I think that is precisely one of the reasons Harry Potter IS so successful. Harry Potter, this so-called Chosen One, the one whose name everyone knows, is an average boy. He's an average boy that has to prove to the world and himself that he doesn't belong in a closet under the stairwell, that he is important. This message is possibly the most important message to send to young adults, that you are special and if you are determined you can be great. If Harry were some amazing wizard and flaunted his powers every chance he had, average readers wouldn't be able to connect as well with him. It's this idea that even the life of an average person is great one that is the ultimate appeal of the Harry Potter series, other than the magic of course.
– sastephens8 years ago
I agree with sastephens and would like to add that one of the bigger reveals in the books is that Harry only ended up the Chosen One by chance. Neville also had the potential to become the Chosen One and the only reason it was Harry was because Voldemort chose him. Harry could have been just another ordinary wizard who excels at certain subjects and is rubbish at others and that is one of the things that makes him a wonderful and relatable protagonist. – Rxage8 years ago
I think sastephens says it well. That ordinariness is a big part of his destiny. His archetype wouldn't work any other way. But, I do think that he doesn't exhibit any extraordinary magical skill or even a dynamic personality. However, I think an argument can be made for the overarching theme of the franchise, which I believe is choice. The one thing I can commend him for is his choices. While he isn't particularly charismatic, he does seem to make even-handed and noble choices despite his cursed inclination toward the Slytherin yoke. And, without having much guidance in how to act nobly, he seems to have an extraordinary sense of right and wrong. I think it can be summed up in the most pivotal decision-making scene that basically drives the rest of the story, when Harry declares "I think I can tell the wrong sort for myself." That choice, alone, sets Harry apart as remarkable. – wtardieu8 years ago
To add on to some of these well-written thoughts, that ordinariness to Harry Potter is a large reminder to young teenagers and even older adults why we are capable of great things. We want to cheer on that character who isn't perfect but who are doing the "right" thing. If we look at the main characters of other great films such as Frodo from "Lord of the Rings," Luke Skywalker from "Star Wars," and Katniss of "The Hunger Games," they are all relative average individuals who get pulled into this unexpected adventure--whether that is fighting evil, overcoming odds, or leading a revolution. Why are are they so revered? They were quite ordinary in their own way, and in many ways, weren't perfect, talented individuals. None of these characters were the best fighters, warriors, or incredible geniuses (like Dr. Strange or Tony Stark). But we could root for them because of what they stood for. That these imperfect human beings can potentially help save the world... even when they don't seem like the perfect candidate to do that task. – kittycataddy8 years ago
In most of the popular works that follows the heroes journey plot, the ordinariness of the protagonist is a leading factor. Much more than anything, their strength to prevail even when faced with situations that are far beyond their control and capabilities is what makes these characters popular. It gives hope to the average reader that he/she is capable of doing and being more than what they are told they can be. At every turn of the book, the hero is seen taking decisions, being annoyingly persevere and having hope in even in the worst of scenarios (Battle of Hogwarts) and these traits itself ensured the success and acceptance of the series. – fathima948 years ago
Harry Potter continues to be an endearing franchise. What thematic elements make it so loved years after the books and films have been completed?
I think it has to do a lot with the fact that the books were famous before it became a movie and the kids who grew up reading those books are now adults and thus, they encouraged their younger siblings to take interest in the movies and read the book. Not to mention that some of us read the books as adults, (like me) and encouraged our children to take an interest in the franchise (both in books and movies). (at least that is what I did).
– Nilab Ferozan9 years ago
I have see how popular the topic is on the Artifice itself. – Munjeera9 years ago
This would be a super read! I think it's important to consider the books and the films as separate entities , but also compare their success at some point in the article – LilyaRider9 years ago
Harry Potter has this certain nostalgic appeal that leads to people feeling a connection with the series, and the desire to pass it on to younger traditions. Aside from fantasy, the series deals with issues of friendship, loss, families, hope, struggles, etc., which allows for a multitude of viewership. Due to these numerous facets, this series has the ability to reach readers/viewers in at least one area of human emotion. – danielle5779 years ago
It's the characters. There are so many characters or parts of characters that each of us can identify with or want to be. I started to read these books as a teenager, and yet older than the targeted audience. I wanted to get my letter telling me I was a wizard (or witch) and would be swept away into this magical world that exists alongside of our muggle world. Even as an adult it is wonderful to believe that somewhere there is magic or this alternate world that could exist. The core story of love and friendship endures past the books and films. And even as I re-read the series I laugh and cry at the same moments that I read in the first reading. And am sad when it's all over that I need to re-read and re-watch. It's one that shall continue to endure. – therachelralph9 years ago
I agree that it's the characters because the characters are thought out to such an extent and written in such detail that they can easily be imagined as real people instead of just imaginary people from a book. They also cover a wide range of types of people and do not stick to hard stereotypes. The good characters have flaws. The bad characters have good somewhere inside them or backstories explaining why they are how they are. The booksmart Hermione doesn't always have the answer and brought new depth to the 'nerd' and 'bookworm' characters. All the characters have an amazing depth to them that is actually surprising considering just how many characters there are. Even small characters that you hardly see or ones that didn't even make it into the movies have complete characters. None are hollow characters just there for the furthering of the plot, instead being fully-formed people. I would say that the characters are the main reason the series remains relevant. The magic doesn't hurt though.
Essentially, the series creates a world perfect for the imagination of all ages to explore and young fans just get to know the world and the characters in new and deeper ways as they get older. It doesn't just fade away and get forgotten because there's always more to experience and enjoy. – AnisaCowan9 years ago
It's the appeal of the alternative reality: this rich and amazing world that is just around the corner, if only we know how to look for it. I'd also say it was how well Rowling constructed her universe and how rich and detailed it is. Just the care she put into naming her characters, it reminds me of Tolkien. I think another part of the appeal is that we can all imagine ourselves in that world. If not as students, then as teachers or at least as a denizen. In that respect, it reminds me of Star Trek. – LisaDee9 years ago
Someone please formulate what Rowling did. I need the money. – Tigey8 years ago
Many people have mentioned the characters and I agree that is a huge part of it. JKR has called them "character-driven" books and after reading that quote I was immediately like, oh, yeah. It got me thinking. Technically all books are driven by the actions of characters, but some plots don't require you to know the characters on a personal level to be entertaining. JKR takes character to a whole new level; as people have said, it's like you know them (not just the main characters--almost all of them) and could predict what they would do in any situation. And her dialogue is fun, witty, and personal to each of her characters. It makes her writing more fun and truly exceptional, and the story so much more dimensional than the plot of defeating Voldemort.
That goes along with the idea of world creation. I hate comparing HP to things like Twilight and The Hunger Games because it blows them out of the water from a writing, literary, and overall goodness standpoint. But a comparison serves to make my point--Stephanie Meyer and Suzanne Collins created worlds within or in the future of our world. They added new rules and created some creatures, devices, and spaces that are purely the products of imagination. But J.K. Rowling created a Wizarding world that, while occasionally intersecting with the muggle world, is a space all it's own. She doesn't even rely on the existence of technology. She invented hundreds of spells, animals, laws, backstories, places, histories. It's mind-blowing. – katybherman8 years ago
J.K. Rowlings Harry Potter series helped change my life as a child. Being of the Harry Potter generation I grew up reading the books, waiting in lines at midnight to get the books and skipping school the next day to barricade myself in my room to read it in its entirety as soon as possible. J.K. Rowlings taught me lessons about hardship, friendship, bullying and life with her stories, for that, I will be forever grateful. Literature to me is going on an adventure. No matter the genre, fiction or non–though I am partial to fiction. By opening the pages of a book we can be transported into a new world, learning and living through characters in the world created. We study and write about it for many different reasons, some to learn, others to simply enjoy. Literature has no bounds, it is not limited by the past, present or the future. It's the relatability of the characters and their progression through growing up learning about, life, love/lust, friendship, bully, and loss that allow us to connect with them, breath with them and even grieve with them. The world of Harry Potter is so much more than one boy with a scar on his forehead or simply words on a page. – RoyalBibliophile8 years ago
Check out Sarah's recent post, pending approval, as it addresses Harry and enduring popularity. – Paul A. Crutcher8 years ago
Analyze why Harry would've been romantically better for Hermione. If not, why is Ron best for her? Compare them in both the books and the movies.
I think you made a typo here. It should be "Hermione." – aprosaicpintofpisces8 years ago
There are a bunch of articles on this topic. The writer may want to look at these articles, some including actual quotes from J.K. Rowling, to enhance their own thesis. – Jaye Freeland8 years ago
Perhaps they should have. But their relationship was primed from the beginning to represent a sibling like arrangement, while conversely Hermione and Ron always bickered like a married couple. – mynameisreza8 years ago
Despite receiving mixed reviews from fans, Harry Potter and the Cursed Child can be referenced for this topic since it gives some insight into the married life of Ron and Hermione and their parenting. In the play, Ron serves as a character mostly for comedic relief, but perhaps this compliments nicely with the immense pressure of Hermione's career. – AlexanderLee8 years ago
Ron is in more need of Hermione than Harry. When you watch all the movies, with this question in mind, you notice immediately that Harry and Hermione don't go well together at all. Hermione is a strong-willed and able leader in her own right, and being matched with Harry, who is also the leader type, is awkward. Can you imagine Hermione taking a backseat to anyone, even Harry? Ron on the other hand compliments her much better because he is not a leader, and is in the backseat throughout the movies. – MikeySheff8 years ago
