Shell Cottage

Hadwrick Hall: Will this be Malfoy Manner in Deathly Hallows?

2009-06-12T11:46:00.007-04:00

It's the Elizabethan Hardwick Hall - here are two photos, one historic and one recent:

Tip of the Tinfoil to Leaky!

Interviews with the cast on Half Blood Prince

2009-06-12T11:43:00.000-04:00

Shell Cottage for Deathly Hallows film almost completed

2009-05-03T01:47:00.004-04:00

"Shell Cottage" under construction!

2009-04-24T14:54:00.003-04:00

Tip of the tinfoil to Leaky!

New Harry Potter & the Half Blood Prince Trailer - and this one is a doozy!

2009-04-16T18:37:00.002-04:00

Here's the link. We'll put up the video as soon as it's available.

Looks like Wizards Twitter!

2009-04-01T14:31:00.004-04:00

Check it out here. Tip of the Tinfoil to Leaky. Well done. And Happy April Fools Day!

Only in New York!

2009-03-10T09:27:00.006-04:00

The actor/writer Stephen Fry just posted on Twitter:

"Back in the groove now. Bracing 4 mile walk up Central Park catching up with old News Quiz podcasts. Bumped into Jim Dale, fine and dear man."

What do the two men have in common? Why Jim Dale is the reader of the audio editions for the Harry Potter series in the US, while Stephen Fry is the reader of the audio editions of the Harry Potter series for the UK. Only in New York!

An Incredible Acheivement: Deathly Hallows now a fan-made claymation film

2009-02-13T10:30:00.004-05:00

This is part one of a 26-part fan-made claymation adaption of the final book of the Harry Potter series, The Deathly Hallows. It's simply amazing - this is by one fan with an extraordinary dream - and does he pull it off. This is not computer generated - it's hand made. The characters are all fashioned out of clay, and there are voices for the characters with dialogue and scenes and atmospheric music is included as well. The entire book is adapted. The Leaky Cauldron reports that major scenes are depicted, including, "the adventures in Gringotts, the heartbreaking moments at Shell Cottage, the epic battle for Hogwarts, the pivotal events with Nagini, Snape and the Prince's Tale, and the emotional Forest scene are all vividly brought to life."

Twenty-two year old "Ryan" is a recent graduate of Columbia College Chicago with a bachelors degree in filmmaking. "I do claymation as a hobby while trying to find work in the film business," he writes at his You Tube Channel.

We have five months to go before WB releases Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince and filming for the two-part final film of Deathy Hallows has just begun. So this could keep anyone busy for quite a while. Enjoy!

The YouTube channel is here.

Steve Vander Ark's Lexicon is finally published!

2009-02-11T14:26:00.005-05:00

The Harry Potter Lexicon is finally published! From here.

I've had very positive response to the book," said Vander Ark, who lives in the Grand Rapids area. "The reviews have been good, but also the fans are excited about it. Harry Potter fans are incredibly creative people; they love to have a reference to the books so they can be accurate when they write, create costumes and other things."

"The Lexicon" initially drew the ire of Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling, who filed a lawsuit saying the book violated the copyright of Rowling and Warner Bros. Entertainment, which owns the movie rights to the series. A U.S. District judge ruled in Rowling's favor, which led Vander Ark to rewrite his lexicon. RDR Books printed 40,000 copies, with 35,000 already shipped.

"In many ways, it is a better book," Vander Ark said of the changes he made after the lawsuit. "The first book was intended to be exhaustive of every detail without much commentary and background. This book now includes lots more of both."

Well done, Steve! Read the rest of article here. Order the book here. The original landmark website that started it all is here.

New Half-Blood Prince Film Preview

2009-01-23T19:44:00.000-05:00

And it's from Japan!

Pottercast Live

2008-12-17T20:56:00.001-05:00

pottercast- Broadcast your self LIVE

The best of all worlds: The Harry Potter Lexicon will be published - finally - next month

2008-12-05T20:34:00.006-05:00

All four hundred and something pages.

We're thrilled for Steve, who has been caught in the crossfire between his publisher and Warner Brothers lawyers. Warner Brothers and J.K. Rowling's lawyers sued the publisher, RDR Books, over the publishing of the Harry Potter Lexicon, an encyclopedia - published for years online by Steve Vander Ark and even used by J.K. Rowling, as she has said publicly, while writing her own books (and, in happier and less litigious days, awarded Steve Vander Ark her one of her first fan site awards after the launch of JKRowling.com, her official website).

When it went to book form, the lawsuits started flying and war broke amongst HP fans to rival any sort of war we might see - or not see - in the wizarding world. It's not been pretty. While Warner Brothers was not successful in its pursuit of a more rigid restriction of commentary using an argument for the protection intellectual property (i.e., increasing the scope of trademark law to include not only particular images, but also particular words "invented" by J.K. Rowling), as well as challenging the publication of works that have been long online when they went into print, it was successful in putting a red light on the publication of the original text of the Lexicon for the print version (but not the online version). However, the judge gave a green light to RDR books that if revisions were made, the Lexicon could be published.

Those changes are now completed (and it looks like from initial reports for the better) and a green light from J.K. Rowling's lawyers has been granted, we can expect to see the newly revised Harry Potter Lexicon in January. We raise our glasses of Butterbeer in honor of Steve's work, a celebration of J.K. Rowling's amazing achievement, and look forward to getting our own copy next month.

The best of all worlds.

The Harry Potter Lexicon will be released on January 12th 2009.

Here's more on the story:

We think it's a better book in many ways because it has a lot more analysis," said Roger D. Rapaport of Muskegon, whose RDR Books is publishing The Lexicon. "He's done an amazing amount of new work."
Rapaport, Vander Ark and their team of lawyers -- including Craig Monette of Muskegon -- are confident this version of The Lexicon will pass legal muster. (The cover was negotiated by both sides to avoid a separate planned trademark lawsuit.) The book is set to be released on Jan. 12 in the United States and England.

For $24.95, readers can get a treasure trove of background information about the Harry Potter series that Vander Ark, who calls himself "just a librarian," culled through years of research. They'll get not only an index of characters, but background on them, the reasons behind their names, the folklore and mythology behind the creatures they encounter and much more.

"There's so much depth to her writing," Vander Ark said. "It makes a book like 'The Lexicon' enhance her work."

A fan of the Harry Potter series, which he has read dozens of times, Vander Ark said he doesn't give away any of the plots, but entices readers to re-read the books for more meaning and to make connections they may have missed.

He said it will be especially appealing to Harry Potter fans who have read the series and "who have a sense there's so much more there."

He culled information from interviews and articles Rowling has written as well as a great deal of "literary detective" work.

In suing RDR Books over "The Lexicon," Rowling claimed it took away from her own plans to write a reference guide to her series. But the judge, in the first-ever opinion on the legality of reference books based on other literary works, said there was nothing inherently wrong with writing "The Lexicon," Rapaport said.

But he ruled against RDR Books because Vander Ark had used descriptions and wording too close to Rowling's and inappropriately used material from two guide books she had written about the series.

Using the judge's very detailed, 68-page ruling, Vander Ark said he was able to rewrite his book to comply with the law. The ruling by the judge served not only as a "rule book" for Vander Ark, but any author looking to compile reference books on literary work, Rapaport said.

An October conference held by the University of San Francisco attended by about 100 attorneys featured a daylong presentation by Vander Ark and lawyers from both sides of the case.

"In legal circles ... it's being written about as one of the major intellectual property cases in the 21st century," Rapaport said.

On Thursday, RDR Books officially withdrew its appeal of U.S. District Judge Robert P. Patterson's decision, and Rowling's public relations agency issued a statement favorable to the release of the rewritten lexicon.

"We are delighted that this matter is finally and favorably resolved and that J.K. Rowling's rights -- and indeed the rights of all authors of creative works -- have been protected," the statement said. "We are also pleased to hear that rather than continue to litigate, RDR have themselves decided to publish a different book prepared with reference to Judge Patterson's decision."

Vander Ark said he never intended to offend Rowling, but rather wanted to give her books "deeper meaning."

"I don't want to do a book she's unhappy with," he said. "I'm a fan of hers."

Read the whole thing here.

The Tales of Beedle the Bard goes on sale today!

2008-12-04T15:44:00.003-05:00

J.K. Rowling writes of her favorite scene in the final book of the Harry Potter series in honor of the Prince of Wales 60th birthday

2008-11-14T22:32:00.006-05:00

BB NOTE: Author J.K. Rowling writes of her favorite scene in the final book of the Harry Potter series, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, commenting that it could be her favorite scene in the entire series. We know from earlier comments made by Jo Rowling that she wept as she wrote this particular chapter, called The Forest Again. From here.

I admit that, at first glance, the extract I've chosen for The Birthday Book might not seem particularly celebratory, given that it has for its subject my hero walking to what he believes will be certain death. But when Harry takes his last, long walk into the heart of the Dark Forest, he is choosing to accept a burden that fell on him when still a tiny child, in spite of the fact that he never sought the role for which he has been cast, never wanted the scar with which he has been marked. As his mentor, Albus Dumbledore, has tried to make clear to Harry, he could have refused to follow the path marked out for him. In spite of the weight of opinion and expectation that singles him out as the "Chosen One", it is Harry's own will that takes him into the Forest to meet Voldemort, prepared to suffer the fate that he escaped sixteen years before.
The destinies of wizards and princes might seem more certain than those carved out for the rest of us, yet we all have to choose the manner in which we meet life: whether to live up (or down) to the expectations placed upon us; whether to act selfishly, or for the common good; whether to steer the course of our lives ourselves, or to allow ourselves to be buffeted around by chance and circumstance. Birthdays are often moments for reflection, moments when we pause, look around, and take stock of where we are; children gleefully contemplate how far they have come, whereas adults look forwards into the trees, wondering how much further they have to go. This extract from Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is my favourite part of the seventh book; it might even be my favourite part of the entire series, and in it, Harry demonstrates his truly heroic nature, because he overcomes his own terror to protect the people he loves from death, and the whole of his society from tyranny.

Read more about The Birthday Book published in honor of Prince Charles' 60th birthday here.

New Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince Film Trailer Released

2008-11-14T19:57:00.000-05:00

Well, we've got yet another trailer for the next Harry Potter film - and yes, we have eight months to go until the film is released since WB decided to postpone the release (which originally was next week!) to July 2009. But it looks spectacular! We can hardly wait.

The Story of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows told through Fanart

2008-10-26T20:01:00.001-04:00

Brilliant.

The Story of Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince told through fanart

2008-10-26T19:58:00.001-04:00

This is quite extraordinary.

New Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince International Film Trailer

2008-10-26T18:56:00.001-04:00

Interview with Richard Griffiths and Daniel Radcliffe

2008-09-21T22:22:00.002-04:00

Very good interview with actors Richard Griffiths (Uncle Vernon) and Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter) on the eve of the week of their opening of Equus on Broadway. You can hear the entire NPR interview here.

Aslan

2008-09-15T21:58:00.001-04:00

J.K. Rowling's agents request advanced copy of Steve Vander Arks travel guide

2008-09-15T12:30:00.006-04:00

NOTE: While there are reports that RDR Books plans to file an appeal regarding the publishing of the Harry Potter Lexicon in book format, the Times Online writes that Steve Vander Ark has written a travel guide based on events in the Harry Potter series.

J.K. Rowling's agents have apparently requested to see an advanced copy before the book is published.

What we're curious about here at Shell Cottage is whether the use of trademarked words will be permitted by Warner Brothers. WB has trademarked as inventions many individual words used in the series and this is the type of action being taken to control not just graphics owned by the studio, but now the words themselves. We're keeping an eye on this.

Here's the London Times article from here:

An American author whose Harry Potter encyclopedia was banned after a legal battle with JK Rowling is to write a travel guide based on the boy wizard’s exploits.
Steve Vander Ark faces crossing swords with the millionaire author again by publishing a “travel memoir” detailing visits to British locations he claims inspired the Harry Potter series.
Rowling’s agents have asked to see a copy of In Search of Harry Potter before it is published next month to ensure it does not breach copyright. Last week a New York judge awarded Rowling almost £4,000 damages and banned Vander Ark’s Harry Potter Lexicon. Rowling had argued that the book was a “wholesale theft of 17 years of my hard work”.
Despite the ruling, Vander Ark, a former librarian from Michigan, said he intends to press ahead with his guide. It recounts his travels to King’s Cross station, where Potter and the other wizards board the Hogwarts Express, London’s Charing Cross Road, the site of the Leaky Cauldron pub, and Surrey, where Harry lived in the fictitious town of Little Whinging.
He also claims to have discovered the location of Hogwarts school on Rannoch Moor in the Highlands.
“This is my own writing about my own experiences and I can’t imagine there will be any problem with this book,” he said.
Peter Tummons, managing director of the publishers Methuen, said: “This is a travel book . . . written in full by himself after his travels . . . There is nothing in it that would cause any distress.

Warner Brothers: "Houston, we've got a problem"

2008-09-09T22:15:00.004-04:00

The front page of the Wall Street Journal has it. Greg and Penny of HP Progs have this video up on YouTube that's hit Prime Time:

The LeakyMug gang have this one up:

And there are many, many more. Many, many more (see below). Just sort have to wonder what's going on in TimeWarner land these late summer days. Yo, WB - hey, how's that stock price doing, guys?

Take Two

2008-09-09T21:48:00.000-04:00

Court issues very narrow ruling on the fair use in print (not the internet) of Harry Potter

2008-09-09T20:38:00.004-04:00

Internet fan sites remain untouched by ruling. You can lift it on the internet, but not for profit in print, especially when the author says she's going to do it herself. A win for all.

It looks like the court took a pass at establishing precedent through the lawsuit initiated by Warner Brothers (with Jo Rowling along for the ride) to force the print version of the HP Lexicon out of fans hands and back into Jo's head.

Now she's got to write it herself - hope that all wasn't just a publicity stunt and she's really working on it. The lack of any punitive damages also shows that the judge deemed it a bit over-kill (Warner Brothers does not get its precedent-setting ruling regarding trademarking the words) plus the fact that the book never got out of the printer's office. The judge ruled that Jo Rowling is still alive and able to produce an encyclopedia herself and had declared to the world that she's going to do it instead.

At first blush, it looks to be the best of all worlds. Jo gets to write her own book (which we will look forward to read - perhaps she can pop it out before the film next summer?), the Lexicon stays online, no punitive judgment is invoked, fan sites will not worry about threats made against them by WB if it went bad for them, and the ruling is so narrow it does not appear to set precedent.

If Steve Vander Ark were to write a commentary on the books - and I wish he would - that would be fair use. My favorite part of Pottercast (until it all got rather silly of late and insider-ish) was Canon Conundrums with Steve. He knew it all and he knew the mysteries and he knew how to take it to a deeper level, an adult level and out of the fan-squee. I for one would love to read his commentaries on the books. The judge encouraged that in his ruling. Frankly, I think it would be better book.

Next step: Reconciliation? If Draco and Harry can find a truce, well, perhaps the parties in this litigation can as well. In time.

The lack of punitive damages invoked by the judge shows that he seeks to aid in the restoration of relationships as well. And Warner Brothers is out a pretty penny in legal fees. Boo hoo hoo.

Here's what the Wall Street Journal, which has done a very good job following the litigation, writes:

The suit, filed late last year against RDR Books, an independent publishing house in Michigan, alleged that plans by Michigan-based publisher RDR to publish a print edition of the Harry Potter Lexicon, a Web site that serves as a rather daunting compendium of all things Harry, violated Warner and Rowling’s copyright and takes away the future market for a similar compendium that Rowling plans to write.
Here’s the opinion.

Judge Patterson ruled in Rowling’s favor because the “Lexicon appropriates too much of Rowling’s creative work for its purposes as a reference guide.” He also wrote that, “While the Lexicon, in its current state, is not a fair use of the Harry Potter works, reference works that share the Lexicon’s purpose of aiding readers of literature generally should be encouraged rather than stifled.”

Ethan Horwitz, an IP lawyer at King & Spalding, told the Law Blog: “What Judge Patterson is saying is that when you look at fair use, one of the dominant issues is, are you providing commentary or taking the value of the work and selling it as your own? He decided that the value of the work was being taken, that [Rowling] had the ability to put out the kind of encyclopedia that [Vander Ark] was putting out, and that she’d indicated an intent to do so.”

O’Melveny’s Dale Cendali repped Rowling and Warner Bros.

David Hammer, a solo practitioner in Manhattan, took the lead for RDR. He got help from Stanford Law School’s Anthony Falzone — a former Bingham McCutcheon litigator and the heir apparent to Lawrence Lessig’s Fair Use Project and Lizbeth Hasse, of San Francisco’s Creative Industry Law Group.

There is still something very sad about all this. Good night, Severus.

Half Blood Prince Test Previw in Chicago

2008-09-06T23:58:00.009-04:00

UPDATE: Here's another updated report here. And here's another one here. And a another one from the Mighty Mugglenet here.

Leaky has the scoop here. Warner Brothers continues on schedule - all the pre-film publicity continues and the test screenings remain on schedule. Read the report here. And pass the spearmint toothpaste.

UPDATE: Another report is now up at IMDb here.

Evanesco! Harry Potter Lexicon Disappears!

2008-09-01T21:15:00.003-04:00

Went to look up a fact at the HP Lexicon and what do I find?

IT'S GONE!

After I shook myself out of a moment of shock - who knew I cared so much? - I went looking for it. Finally, went over to Wiki to see if anything had developed of late and sure enough, Wiki explains, "The Lexicon was suddenly unavailable for a few days beginning August 30th, 2008, after a technical error with the domain. The site was still accessible via the IP address 69.61.53.28 however."

We did go to the IP address and found it (whew!), but today the actually url is still down and some of the Lexicon links don't work. Our first thought was that the domain expired - and someone snatched it up (happened to my home parish and then the domain is held for ransom).

Still, the HP Lexicon page is up but it doesn't work, it looks like it was wiped. It's all rather strange. Wonder what the "technical error with the domain" means? An unpaid bill - or a legal problem?

Steve, where are you?

The corporations that have been pursuing fair use on the internet have been threatening to go after the domain hosts. So it's hard not to wonder if the "technical error" is a mechancial, financial, or legal one? The fact that the page is sitting there with missing information is strange, but the IP address is up and running, so perhaps it is a programing SNAFU. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. It's a geek's primordial sin. It's how we learn.

Of course, we're still waiting for a court ruling on the book-version of the Lexicon and Warner Brothers appears to be a foul mood (there is still no credible explanation why they pulled the sixth film in November to wait basically another year before release - to make more money is a public relations disaster and we still guess that the lawyers had something to do with it).

The Lexicon site is not yet restored, but many/most of the pages are available for viewing at the IP address here.

And so we continue to wait - and see.

Public Relations Disaster for Warner Brothers: Harry Potter film postponed for a year

2008-08-14T19:20:00.008-04:00

Warner Brothers announced today that it is postponing the release Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince for another year. Here it is August 2008 and the film will not be released until July 2009. It was slated to open in three months. Just who exactly made this decision? Is it this kind of decision-making that is causing the stocks for TimeWarner to tank?

The film is all done and ready to go - but Warner Brothers thinks it can squeeze even more money out of the fans. Perhaps they should think again.

The news has hit the papers and it's not going well, not well at all. Fans are up in arms over the news - some thinking it's an early (or late) April Fools Joke. But no - while Time Warner stock continues to plummet, bad strategic thinking continues to abound - including that whole business about suing a fan for his book and threatening all the other fans that if that lawsuit doesn't go their way it will be No More Mr. Nice Guy. It does make one wonder what is going on inside corporate headquarters.

And it shows that Warner Brothers has no idea what can happen when fans turn on a studio. Just ask Desilu Studeio what happened when they initially cancelled Star Trek. Oh, that's right. There is no more Desilu.

The outrage that is pouring out over the internet against the studio is unprecedented. What is going wrong at the studio? Who made this decision and are they still employed? And is there no room for reprieve?

Or is it that the new film is really bad? If it's so good - why have it sit on a shelf for a year?

A Pilgrimage to Platform Nine and Three Quarters

2008-08-05T19:02:00.000-04:00

Is that J.K. Rowling?

2008-07-30T17:57:00.001-04:00

It sure looks - and sounds - like J.K. Rowling as the woman who runs the orphanage that houses the young Tom Riddle. What do you think?

2008-07-24T23:28:00.003-04:00

Harry Potter and the new Potions Prof

2008-07-20T14:57:00.004-04:00

From The Leaky Cauldron.

2008-07-04T10:35:00.001-04:00

J.K. Rowling's Prequel Released: Sirius Black and the Flying Motorbike

2008-06-11T07:10:00.002-04:00

Read it all here. Click on Read our author's stories. Let's say we now learn more about Sirius' motorcyle. The story was sold at auction yesterday for $48,855.

Wilberforce!

Question: Who were the ones on broomsticks?

Could the "prequal" be one of Filch's Detention Reports?

2008-06-08T11:50:00.012-04:00

e-
Time out for some Potter. As some of you may know (and for those who don't but wish you did - you know who you are), J.K. Rowling has penned an 800 word "prequel" for a charity book auction in the U.K. It is one of 13 story outlines written by famous writers for a charity auction to be held by Waterstones on June 10. She was given a note card to write her submission and we have learned that she took up both sides of the notecard to pen a short story about Harry's father, James Potter and Sirius Black, Harry's godfather, that takes place about three years before Harry is born.

So naturally, the Potter world is full of speculation. We haven't heard our theory yet - so we thought, for the fun of it, we'd offer our thoughts. So here comes another "Official ZoeRose Theory" brought to you by Madam Rosmerta's Butterbeer: The best butterbeer in Hogsmeade.

Here's what we know. We know it's a card. We know it's about James and Sirius. And we know it took place three years before Harry was born.

Harry was born in 1980. So that would put the year of this event as 1977. We believe that James and Sirus were born in 1960. That means that they "come of age" in the wizarding world at age 17, which would be 1977. That mean that they can do magic without penalty since they are no longer "under age." It also means that they are probably in their 7th year at Hogwarts.

So - here's the Official ZoeRose Theory: In the sixth book, Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, Harry is given detention by the potions professor Severus Snape after Harry uses a forbidden dark arts spell against his nemesis Draco Malfoy. Harry's detention is to take a particular cards from the file of the official Hogwarts caretaker, Argus Filch, and recopy them by hand. The card files kept by Filch are reports where he tracks all the infractions of Hogwarts students put in detention over the years. The particular card file that Prof. Snape orders Harry to recopy is the massive file of James Potter.

It is a great undertaking and Harry's detention is to last weeks, he is suspended from his Quidditch team, of which he is the captain, and instead must spend hours copying all the old detention files of his father during his years as a Hogwarts student.

We believe it is possible that this card - since it is similar to the cards that Harry had to use to copy the detention files, is one of Filch's official reports and perhaps one of the cards that Harry had to recopy and has now found itself in Muggle book for charity.

Off to Oz

2008-04-26T12:11:00.005-04:00

Here is an interesting editorial by American author, Orson Scott Card (who's own works pre-date Harry Potter but carry significant similarities). He is coming from a literary point of view, which has been the point of view until the lawyers at Warner Brothers came along and saw an opportunity.

Some thoughts from here first.

J.K. Rowling continues to use the phrase that she "invented" the Harry Potter novels, not that she "wrote" them. The word "invention" is key. If Suzie Smith create a new way of dealing with the annoying issue of blowing ones nose and it's quite successful and then Kleenex turns around and starts selling it as their own - well, that's stealing someone's invention. Warner Brothers has trademarked a vast - and I do mean vast - accumulation of words from the Harry Potter series and are now claiming intellectual property over the words themselves, seeking control over those words (and not just images) for profit from slices of the pie in the exclusive use of those words and claiming the same type of protection of "invention" as one would with a new Nose Blower. Copyright laws are not making corporations enough money or control.

The other major issue here is that this is an example of a work that has been published without penalty on the internet, in fact as been lauded by the author of the Harry Potter series for its ease of use - so easy in fact, she's used it herself! But there aren't the restrictions over the internet as there in copyright laws (and if there were they aren't enforced, which sets precedent, too late!)- and there certainly aren't the international restrictions since the internet is global. There is no centralization of the internet - no Internet Czar, at least not yet.

The lawyers at Time Warner see a major threat to their troubled empire if work created on the internet is then published in traditional style in book form - since they did not intervene in the creation of the websites (and for marketing purposes that brought them even more profits, encouraged them - like the Leaky Cauldron and Mugglenet) they are now faced with a disaster if all those fan sites start publishing outside the control of the Time Warner corporation. Having dried up the cash cow of the fansites leading up to the publication of the final book, it's time to close up that pipeline and the fans can go home.

The fans have little idea what is happening - many of them grew up with Harry Potter and some are only just now graduating from college. They have been wined and dined and shown favor by Warner Brothers and have become celebrities themselves (been to Borders lately?). They are not going to wake up for twenty years and realize how they were used.

That Jo Rowling would encourage all this at the expense of her fan base - and her greatest fan - just is so sad, it seems to be a warning. There are times when the fact that Jesus called us to live simply and follow a lifestyle where the greatest are last and the last are first. He demonstrated that by the choices he made over the disciples he called - not one of them was a king, though one or two many have been wealthy (tax collector Matthew comes to mind) - their wealth did not bring them fame or respect, in fact, quite the opposite. Materialism was not a highpoint on his list of to-do's.

What causes us to loose our heads, our hearts, and our courage? Why would we gain the whole world and lose our soul, or as J.K. Rowling writes - splits our soul and it in what basically are idols, as though that will give us immortality? Perhaps she understands this better than she's let on when she was on the stand, this author of the word "horcrux" but the concept of which is as old as Exodus 20. Thou shalt have no other gods but Me. Perhaps she's struggled with this more than she's let on. And frankly, who can blame her?

Here's the editorial by author, Orson Scott Card:

Can you believe that J.K. Rowling is suing a small publisher because she claims their 10,000-copy edition of The Harry Potter Lexicon, a book about Rowling's hugely successful novel series, is just a "rearrangement" of her own material.

Rowling "feels like her words were stolen," said lawyer Dan Shallman.

Well, heck, I feel like the plot of my novel Ender's Game was stolen by J.K. Rowling.

A young kid growing up in an oppressive family situation suddenly learns that he is one of a special class of children with special abilities, who are to be educated in a remote training facility where student life is dominated by an intense game played by teams flying in midair, at which this kid turns out to be exceptionally talented and a natural leader. He trains other kids in unauthorized extra sessions, which enrages his enemies, who attack him with the intention of killing him; but he is protected by his loyal, brilliant friends and gains strength from the love of some of his family members. He is given special guidance by an older man of legendary accomplishments who previously kept the enemy at bay. He goes on to become the crucial figure in a struggle against an unseen enemy who threatens the whole world.

This paragraph lists only the most prominent similarities between Ender's Game and the Harry Potter series. My book was published in England many years before Rowling began writing about Harry Potter. Rowling was known to be reading widely in speculative fiction during the era after the publication of my book.

I can get on the stand and cry, too, Ms. Rowling, and talk about feeling "personally violated."

The difference between us is that I actually make enough money from Ender's Game to be content, without having to try to punish other people whose creativity might have been inspired by something I wrote.

Mine is not the only work that one can charge Rowling "borrowed" from. Check out this piece from a fan site, pointing out links between Harry Potter and other previous works: http://www.geocities.com/versetrue/rowling.htm. And don't forget the lawsuit by Nancy K. Stouffer, the author of a book entitled The Legend of Rah and the Muggles, whose hero was named "Larry Potter."

At that time, Rowling's lawyers called Stouffer's claim "frivolous."

It's true that we writers borrow words from each other – but we're supposed to admit it and not pretend we're original when we're not. I took the word ansible from Ursula K. LeGuin, and have always said so. Rowling, however, denies everything.

If Steven Vander Ark, the author of Lexicon, had written fiction that he claimed was original, when it was actually a rearrangement of ideas taken from the Harry Potter books, then she'd have a case.

But Lexicon is intended only as a reference book for people who have already paid for their copies of Rowling's books. Even though the book is not scholarly, it certainly falls within the realm of scholarly comment.

Rowling's hypocrisy is so thick I can hardly breathe: Prior to the publication of each novel, there were books about them that were no more intrusive than Lexicon. I contributed to one of them, and there was no complaint about it from Rowling or her publishers because they knew perfectly well that these fan/scholar ancillary publications were great publicity and actually boosted sales.

But now the Harry Potter series is over, and Rowling claims that her "creative work" is being "decimated."

Of course, she doesn't claim that it's the Lexicon that is harming her "creative work" (who's she borrowing from this time?); it's the lawsuit itself! And since she chose to bring the suit, whose fault is it? If she had left Vander Ark alone to publish his little book and make his little bit of money, she wouldn't be distracted from her next novel.

But no, Rowling claims Vander Ark's book "constitutes wholesale theft of 17 years of my hard work."

Seventeen years? What a crock. Apparently she includes in that total the timeframe in which she was reading – and borrowing from – the work of other writers.

On the stand, though, Rowling's chief complaint seems to be that she would do a better job of annotating and encyclopedizing her own series.

So what?

Nothing prevents her from doing exactly that – annotating and explaining her own novels. Do you think that if there were a Harry Potter Annotated by the Author, Vander Ark's book would interfere with her sales in any way?

This frivolous lawsuit puts at serious risk the entire tradition of commentary on fiction. Any student writing a paper about the Harry Potter books, any scholarly treatise about it, will certainly do everything she's complaining about.

Once you publish fiction, Ms. Rowling, anybody is free to write about it, to comment on it, and to quote liberally from it, as long as the source is cited.

Here's the irony: Vander Ark had the material for this book on his website for years, and Rowling is quoted as saying that when she needed to look up some 'fact" from her earlier books, she would sometimes "sneak into an Internet cafe while out writing and check a fact rather than go into a bookshop and buy a copy of Harry Potter."

In other words, she already had made personal use of Vander Ark's work and found it valuable. Even if it has shortcomings, she found it useful.

That means that Vander Ark created something original and useful – he added value to the product. If Rowling wants to claim that it interferes with her creativity now, she should have made that complaint back when she was using it – and giving Vander Ark an award for his website back in 2004.

Now, of course, she regrets "bitterly" having given the award.

You know what I think is going on?

Rowling has nowhere to go and nothing to do now that the Harry Potter series is over. After all her literary borrowing, she shot her wad and she's flailing about trying to come up with something to do that means anything.

Moreover, she is desperate for literary respectability. Even though she made more money than the queen or Oprah Winfrey in some years, she had to see her books pushed off the bestseller lists and consigned to a special "children's book" list. Litterateurs sneer at her work as a kind of subliterature, not really worth discussing.

It makes her insane. The money wasn't enough. She wants to be treated with respect.

At the same time, she's also surrounded by people whose primary function is to suck up to her. No doubt some of them were saying to her, "It's wrong for these other people to be exploiting what you created to make money for themselves."

She let herself be talked into being outraged over a perfectly normal publishing activity, one that she had actually made use of herself during its web incarnation.

Now she is suing somebody who has devoted years to promoting her work and making no money from his efforts – which actually helped her make some of her bazillions of dollars.

Talent does not excuse Rowling's ingratitude, her vanity, her greed, her bullying of the little guy, and her pathetic claims of emotional distress.

I fully expect that the outcome of this lawsuit will be:

1. Publication of Lexicon will go on without any problem or prejudice, because it clearly falls within the copyright law's provision for scholarly work, commentary and review.

2. Rowling will be forced to pay Steven Vander Ark's legal fees, since her suit was utterly without merit from the start.

3. People who hear about this suit will have a sour taste in their mouth about Rowling from now on. Her Cinderella story once charmed us. Her greedy evil-witch behavior now disgusts us. And her next book will be perceived as the work of that evil witch.

It's like her stupid, self-serving claim that Dumbledore was gay. She wants credit for being very up-to-date and politically correct – but she didn't have the guts to put that supposed "fact" into the actual novels, knowing that it might hurt sales.

What a pretentious, puffed-up coward. When I have a gay character in my fiction, I say so right in the book. I don't wait until after it has had all its initial sales to mention it.

Rowling has now shown herself to lack a brain, a heart and courage. Clearly, she needs to visit Oz.

BBC4 Interviews Steve Vander Ark

2008-04-21T12:21:00.003-04:00

You can hear the entire interview here.

Opening up the Floodgates

2008-04-20T19:14:00.000-04:00

BB NOTE: Here's another editorial on the current litigation by Warner Brothers against the creator of the award-winning HP Lexicon.

We're reminded of another editorial by James E. Groves where he quotes a letter from George Grant Elmslie to Frank Lloyd Wright:

Why not, in the years of your great maturity, exhale a modicum of kindliness to others, endeavoring to do their bit? No one can afford it so well as yourself. But alas, you are not endowed with so human an element, only with a curious quality of vanity, and a rather vulgar and childish egotism. You seem to have it in your mind that you yourself do your work, whereas the impulses are much deeper and more universal than the mere ego which you adore.
Here is the editorial by Marina Hyde of The Guardian:

Quite unexpectedly, the true original in the JK Rowling copyright trial is turning out to be the judge. "It has been brought home to me in the last 20 years," mused Judge Robert Patterson this week, "that litigation is not always the best way to solve things." If this seems a faintly unusual utterance for a man in his line of work, it is all the more so for having been made in his courtroom in New York, a city not known for its aversion to dragging lawyers into every aspect of the human drama. It is a town in which people have sued themselves - usually successfully. A couple of weeks ago you could have read about a man suing a Manhattan strip club over claims that a lap dancer's shoe caught him in the eye.

Though they have been spared any collisions with perspex footwear, Ms Rowling and Warner Bros, who make the Harry Potter movies, are suing to block publication of the The Harry Potter Lexicon, an encyclopedia of her wizarding world based on a long-established fan website of the same name. Its creator, one Steve Vander Ark, wept in court after Rowling accused him of "constant pilfering" and "utter laziness". On the other hand, she did concede she had previously given an award to the site, and used it as a fact-checking resource. There were tears on her part too, and it all seemed completely unnecessary.

Of course, it wouldn't be the first time that Warner Bros has been involved in a pettily protectionist copyright case. Do let's recall that brilliant letter Groucho Marx penned to the studio - makers of Casablanca - after he received an "ominous legal document" warning the Marxes off calling their movie A Night in Casablanca. "I had no idea that the city of Casablanca belonged exclusively to Warner Brothers," he deadpanned. "I am sure that the average movie fan could learn in time to distinguish between Ingrid Bergman and Harpo ... What about Warner Brothers? Do you own that too? You probably have the right to use the name Warner, but what about the name Brothers? Professionally, we were brothers long before you ..."

The case was eventually dropped. And it came to pass that moviegoers were indeed perfectly able to distinguish between Ingrid and Harpo - just as one suspects Harry Potter fans will be able to distinguish between JK Rowling's work and that of Mr Vander Ark.

We could all use a guide as to how the digital revolution has changed the world, but one safe-ish bet is to trust that quality rises to the top, and no matter how many Harry Potter fan "tributes" are sloshing about, interest in them will be dwarfed by that in the genuine article. What on earth is the difference between this stuff being on the internet or available to purchase in a book? The author might aver that in the latter case, money is being made by someone other than her - but the website has long carried advertising, so that seems moot. Vander Ark's publisher wanted a print run of 10,000; were Rowling to publish a lexicon, the first print run has been estimated at 3m.

"I believe the floodgates will open," she said this week, as though this sort of fan fiction could possibly be a problem for anyone other than creators of vast global phenomena. "I see this as an incredibly important case."

Alas, the judge was less convinced. In fact, in the course of advising the parties to settle, he referenced Jarndyce and Jarndyce, the long-running case featured in Bleak House that has become a byword for pointless and interminable litigation. He appears to have done so without requesting official permission from the estate of Charles Dickens. Judge Patterson confessed that he had enountered so many neologisms when reading one Harry Potter volume that he found it "gibberish" - marking himself out as one of that rare breed of adults who do not read these children's books on public transport wearing a moony expression. They opt for the special adult covers, or what we might call "the enabler edition".

As for Ms Rowling's argument that her work is being "debased", that position may be very compromised by this time next year, because she has given her blessing to the construction of a Harry Potter theme park in bookish Orlando, Florida. Bertie Bott's Tenth Circle of Hell ... I'm so sorry, The Wizarding World of Harry Potter will open next year, and the trailer website promises the chance to visit "Hogsmeade TM" and Hogwarts TM Castle", among other zones "inspired by" the Harry Potter books.

This, says the official blurb, "will provide fans with another way to experience the world beyond the books and films". And so it will: as some injection-moulded theme park, punctuated by those endless Disney-esque stands selling supersized fast food, and attempts to chisel cash out of you - or "experiential shops", as they have it. So when JK Rowling takes her first spin on the Cruciatus-a-Coaster, or whatever the big thrill ride will be called, here's hoping she looks back on Mr Vander Ark, and realises his modest fan project was not quite as ghastly as she made out.

JK Rowling Appeals To Judge's Emotional Side, Rather Than A Real Legal Argument Over Potter Guidebook

2008-04-17T22:23:00.002-04:00

From here.

From the apparently,-her-fiction-extends-to-the-courtroom dept

Earlier this year, we wrote about how J.K. Rowling's lawsuit against the publishers of a guidebook about Harry Potter's universe was extremely misguided. That lawsuit got a lot more attention Tuesday, as Rowling herself showed up in court to play an emotional, rather than legal, strategy. The NY Times even reports that she was "stoically holding back tears." Cry me a river. Rowling is basically trying to get copyright law to do a lot more than it is intended to do -- and all of her emotional bunk doesn't change that. Claiming that the "stress and heartache" of such a publication had hurt her creativity for the last month seems excessively questionable. Furthermore, it doesn't change the fact that a derivative work, such as this guidebook, doesn't violate copyright. There are lot of things that cause me stress and heartache and which might make me lose my concentration. It doesn't make them illegal.

It appears that the publisher's lawyer had some fun, pointing out that Rowling didn't seem to have that same sort of stress and heartache when she gave an award to the website that "The Harry Potter Lexicon" came from. And, when presented with evidence of how the book took Harry Potter details and did more with them (making them more useful), Rowling tossed out the following: "This is theft. Wholesale theft." Well, no, it's not. If it were anything, it would be infringement (not theft), but more importantly, it wasn't about republishing the content, but making it more useful. It's the same argument we discussed recently with people overestimating the value of the content, and underestimating the value of the service of making it useful. The most damning point might be that Rowling herself in the past admitted to using the lexicon to check up on facts she didn't remember.

However, the real key point that Rowling went back to again and again in her complaint is that she just didn't think the quality of the Lexicon was very good. That seems like a bizarre complaint, as copyright has nothing to do with quality. In fact, as the publisher's lawyer asked, "You feel it's your responsibility to prevent people from paying their hard-earned cash for things you don't like?" At which point, she switched arguments again, reverting to the claim that it was "theft." Of course, if she really thinks that the book is awful, there's a really easy solution: to come out with her own version of a guidebook. Surely, people would be a lot more interested in buying the "official" version, written with Rowling's approval, than some fan-created one. In fact, Rowling admits that she's been thinking of doing exactly that (and throws in the totally separate from the legal issues, but good for an emotional tug, claim that she would donate all proceeds to charity). Of course, there's nothing actually stopping her from competing, other than what appears to be her own unwillingness to actually have to compete for readers.

Read it all here - make sure to read the comments as well.

Wall Street Journal Blog: Potter Trial: On Last Day, Defense Outshines Rowling

2008-04-16T22:41:00.003-04:00

From here.

Even by the judge’s own admission, the Potter case could go either way. But at the close of today’s session, which concluded a three-day trial, the defense appeared to score some serious points. Here’s what happened:

Is “Weak Waggishness” a Legal Conclusion? The plaintiffs (author J.K. Rowling and Warner Bros.) called their literature expert, Jeri Johnson, a “senior tutor” (that’s like an academic dean) from Oxford. Johnson, whose title was constantly confused by the lawyers — mis-addressing her alternatively as Don, Dean, and Doctor (she has no doctorate) — testified in broad generalities, concluding that entries in the Lexicon don’t add new “layers of meaning” to Rowling’s novels, and merely rearrange Rowling’s intellectual “furniture.”

Unimpressed, Judge Robert Patterson interrupted. “It’s not helpful testimony because it draws conclusions without specifics,” he said. “I can’t simply take the expert’s opinion as my own.”

Then, when David Hammer — lead attorney for defendant publisher RDR who handled every witness examination — crossed Johnson, her testimony simply unraveled.

Hammer pressed Johnson on her previous statements that the H.P. Lexicon is “weak waggishness,” that its jokes are “facetious,” “condescending in the extreme” and amount to “tedious jocularity.” Hammer got Johnson to agree that what’s obvious or facile to an academic dean at Oxford might not be so to children — presumably the Lexicon’s main audience. He asked: Could a work be useful to a 10 year-old even if it’s not something she would classify as a work of academic scholarship? “Yes,” she said. “No more questions,” he said.

Does the Lexicon Take the Best Crumbs of Rowling’s Cake? The problem of generalities continued to plague the plaintiffs when Rowling, the first witness in the case, took the stand in rebuttal as the trial’s final witness. Comparing her novels to a cake, Rowling claimed that the Lexicon takes all the best “crumbs,” repackages them and sells them for “entertainment value.”

Again, Judge Patterson interrupted, and addressed Rowling directly. “Can you imagine anyone reading [the Lexicon] for entertainment value?”

“No,” she replied. “But, without seeming arrogant or vain, there are entertaining things in it — and I wrote them.” Rowling went on to say that, just because she’s been successful, the law shouldn’t grant her less copyright protection. And, if the case is decided in RDR’s favor, she argued, borrowing law school cliches, that it will be a “slippery slope,” “floodgates will open,” “a precedent will be set,” and anyone will be able to “lift an author’s work” and present it as their own.

Law students, refresh our memory, but don’t the profs caution against the slippery slope argument, on the theory that it’s the job of judges and lawmakers to draw lines?

Maybe I Need a Reference Guide for This Case: That was Judge Patterson’s commentary at the close of testimony. Again, he urged the parties to consider settlement, reminding them that fair use is a “murky area” of law. Hammer then requested the opportunity to make a closing statement, which was a good call because his co-counsel, Anthony Falzone, delivered a strong one.

Rowling’s lawyer, O’Melveny’s Dale Cendali, emphasized their main theme, that the Lexicon “takes too much and does too little” but offered little in the way of specifics.

The defense’s Anthony Falzone, a lecturer at Stanford law a who hadn’t spoken since his opening statement, invoked a professorial tone and led the judge through a thorough analysis of RDR’s case. Synthesis and distillation is what makes the Lexicon “tranformative,” he argued. “Quality shouldn’t matter,” he emphasized. If the Lexicon is lousy, Falzone concluded, the answer is not to suppress it, but for Rowling to write her own.

LB’ers: Therein lies the trial’s narrative arc, short of the judge’s decision. Which way should he rule?

Prince Caspian

2008-04-11T14:20:00.001-04:00

2008-03-24T11:36:00.004-04:00

New interview with Steve Vander Ark:

“Do you think that, if Lexicon wins the case, the Harry Potter fansites are going to be affected in any way(Lexicon Online included)?

A victory for RDR Books will protect the rights of fans to create based on someone else’s work. If RDR Books loses, copyright holders will be given broad new control over fan activity, control which will allow them to shut down sites, stop authors from writing about their works, etc. So a win for RDR Books is definitely in the best interest of fans who create websites, write fanfiction, make wands, compose wizard rock, and so on. I am surprised how many fans have missed this point. Their freedom to create is on the line here.

How many pages does the Lexicon book have?

The Lexicon book will have around 400 pages. It’s 160,000 words. The book has four authors. I am the main author, but three of my Lexicon editors worked on the book as well.

If the Lexicon is published, once the Scottish Book gets out, will you still update Lexicon Online and Book?

I’m as excited to buy Rowling’s Scottish book as anyone! It will be very different from the Lexicon book, with a lot of new and exciting information which only Rowling can provide. I will continue to update the Lexicon website. I love working on the Lexicon and will do so even if I have no staff and even when people don’t read Harry Potter much anymore. Beyond that, I have written another book, called In Search of Harry Potter, which will be published in July. I’m starting on another one as well. I intend this series of books to comprise a complete independent reference library to Harry Potter. The second and third books will not generate the kind of legal concern that the Lexicon book has, thankfully.

Do you consider that your fanatism or admiration to J.K. Rowling is less now after all that have happened?

My admiration for the Harry Potter books is as great as ever. I’m still a huge fan. I’m also still a fan of Rowling, although I think her current actions are unfortunate and badly advised. I still admire her as a writer and a person and I don’t expect that to change just because she and I have a disagreement over a legal issue. Friends can disagree and still be friends.”

Is J.K. Rowling serious? AP reports her threat to sue her own fans if her lawsuit is not successful

2008-03-01T16:52:00.010-05:00

I kid you not. It's all here.

AP (which looks like it's just taken a press release from Warner Brothers and oddly reworked into an puff piece) is reporting that J.K. Rowling, whom we have had the greatest respect for (and we continue to try to keep that respect) has issued what can only be a rather threatening warning that if Steve Vander Ark's attempt to publish the HP Lexicon as an Encyclopedia, it will - to quote Rowling - "undoubtedly have a significant, negative impact on the freedoms enjoyed by genuine fans on the Internet. Authors everywhere will be forced to protect their creations much more rigorously, which could mean denying well-meaning fans permission to pursue legitimate creative activities."

Good heavens! Either she does not completely grasp what Warner Brothers is doing (and she's darn smart, so that just hard to believe) or she thinks we're stupid. We're supposed to cheer her on or she'll sue us?

The whole point of going after the HP Lexicon - which as we are reminded was praised by Rowling until Warner Brothers stepped in) - is that there is a fierce battle on over intellectual property now that the 20th century modes of communications are quickly becoming passé.

What Rowling is failing to mention here - with her sadly unfortunate and not-so-veiled threat is that it's the other way around. Encyclopedias have been published on literary works for years (as I have mentioned before, I have many many such works including a hefty 800 page Encyclopedia that was published by a fan). There is nothing new with that. What is different here is that Warner Brothers is trademarking the WORDs - the WORDs - and not just the images from the Harry Potter series.

If this lawsuit against Steve Vander Ark - perhaps once her most industrious and respected fan - is will set a precedent that the trademark owner can control the actual words. This is international law and it can then be applied to the internet.

So in fact, the reality is that it's the other way around.

What just floors me is that J.K. Rowling is threatening to sue her fans if her lawsuit is not successful. She's casting herself as the victim - which is just so incredibly laughable. She's one of the richest women in the world and she and Warner Brothers are throwing an enormous public relations campaign along with a cost litigation effort to shut down the fan she gave an award to for having the best Harry Potter fan site. It's absolutely bizarre.

She says that is she is not successful in her lawsuit, it will mean "denying well-meaning fans permission to pursue legitimate creative activities." Where does she get the authority to issue "permission?" Because she "owns" the trademarked words!

So let's say you want to write an essay on your blog or website on how governmental offices during heated campaigns appear as though they have been drinking polyjuice potion because they aren't acting like themselves but a pandering to constituencies. If you use the trademarked word "polyjuice" she is threatening to send you a cease & desist letter since you are using one of her words in an essay she neither controls or profits from.

If the lawsuit is successful, it won't matter because the precedent will be set that words used on the internet cannot be translated to traditional forms of publication. In other words, the intellectual property - i.e., the words themselves - will be controlled by a corporation who owns the trademarked words.

We won't be able to plead our first amendment rights because the first amendment is guarding our rights to free speech from the interference of the government, not a corporation.

Unless, of course, it is appealed to the Supreme Court on the argument that the courts do not have jurisdiction to restrict freedom of speech by upholding laws created to protect trademark images from unauthorized use.

Remember, Rowling keeps referring her published words as her "invention." They are not her creation - she doesn't use the word creation. She uses the word "invention." That is setting the groundwork for this litigation. She is the inventor, as much as someone who invented the pooper scooper gets to control how it is used. She's not an artist - she's an inventor.

Corporations are attempting to use this to protect their investments. J.K. Rowling has become the corporate spokesperson to restrict freedoms of speech and the press by the use of trademarking the language. And that can be applied globally to the new forms of communication now employed by millions around the word.

Also remember, there was no way that Warner Brothers could ever shut down the HP Lexicon right now. It would be a public relations disaster. But Steve offered them a handy dandy way to do it and leave Rowling's own image in tact. They'll just go after this little book instead (never mind that I have several HP encyclopedias on my shelf right now!). But now that the corporations finally woke up in the new century where they are still using last-century's communication methods and are now seeking control over "intellectual property" through international trademarking rather than copyright law (which is national and expires) it's time to shut this stuff down.

The question is - why put this press release now? It coincides with more filings by Warner Brothers this past week in the case. Does Warner Brothers think the fans are too young and too naive to question the media strategy at play here? Notice also how we keep hearing about her charity work (more press releases) so that her happy image of the caring author remains intact as she sues one of her biggest supporters over the years. Does Warner Brothers think, as they successfully convey in this so-called AP "article" that J.K. Rowling is an Untouchable?

Or has she just sold out? Cornelius Fudge™, call your office.

2008-02-18T21:20:00.006-05:00

Madeleine L'Engle, the author of A Wrinkle in Time and many other works wrote:

“When I start working on a book, which is usually several years and several books before I start to write it, I am somewhat like a French peasant cook. There are several pots on the back of the stove, and as I go by during the day’s work, I drop a carrot in one, an onion in another, a chunk of meat in another. When it comes time to prepare the meal, I take the pot which is most nearly full and bring it to the front of the stove.

So it is with writing. There are several pots on those back burners. An idea for a scene goes into one, a character into another, a description of a tree in the fog into another. When it comes time to write, I bring forward the pot which has the most in it. The dropping in of ideas is sometimes quite conscious; sometimes it happens without my realizing it. I look, and something has been added which is just what I need, but I don’t remember when it was added.

When it is time to start work, I look at everything in the pot, sort, arrange, think about character and story line. Most of this part of work is done consciously, but then there comes a moment of unselfconsciousness, of letting go and serving the work.”

Here she describes the act of writing as something that is done both consciously, but also unconsciously or what she calls "a moment of unselfconsciousness" which means "letting go and serving the work."

Sister Wendy Beckett, the narrator of several BBC documentaries on the history of art, told Bill Moyers in an interview that "all great art is a visual form of prayer, although the artist may not know it." Often Sister Wendy would stand before a painting in the National Gallery in London or elsewhere and talk about how a painting went beyond the artist - if it was only just an extension of the artist's imagination, an artist's invention, it would be interesting, but it would not be art. Art transcends the artist, art is a collaboration with the Holy Spirit and great art is greater than the artist. The art is greater because it is true.

The artist serves the work, not the other way around. In fact, much of the artist's adventure is made up of letting go, of giving up control, of setting it free as much as a mother raises her child to be independent.

J.K. Rowling has been making statements of late describing her relationship with the work, her series of books on Harry Potter. But she doesn't use artistic words to describe her relationship with the work. For example, J.K. Rowling has consistently described the creation of her work as her invention. "I spent a lot of time inventing the rules for the magical world so that I knew the limits of magic. Then I had to invent the different ways wizards could accomplish certain things. Some of the magic in the books is based on what people used to believe really worked, but most of it is my invention." Over and over again we find Rowling describing her creative process as though she was an inventor.

We can't really imagine L'Engle or C.S. Lewis or even J.R.R. Tolkien describing themselves in a similar way. In fact, when you read their commentaries of their own works, they seem to relate to the work as though it all ready existed and they merely found it. They are adventurers who have been to those "undiscovered countries" and have returned to bear witness to what they saw.

This afternoon at home, I came across a book called "The Bob Dylan Encyclopedia," which was published in 2006. When it uses the word "Encyclopedia," it means it. It is a big, coffee table sized book, 735 pages long with a CD included that contains references, cross references, and cross-cross references of every song, musician, idea, footnote, more footnotes, and even more references to anything written or sung by Bob Dylan in forty years. And it was written before Bob's Radio Show went on the air - which will end up being a Volume Two all by itself. It is an interpretation of Dylan's works, a glossary and explanation of terms, references, titles, objects, writers, personalities, biographies, places, events - the list goes on and on about what could be said is an "invented" persona called "Bob Dylan." Put together by one Dylan expert, it is that one man's catalogue - his interpretation of what matters most in Bob Dylan's life and career.

An entire book - in fact, an entire library still cannot contain or explain the mystery that is this "invented" persona called "Bob Dylan." Is he real - or is he invented?

The mystery has fueled several generations of speculation about his music as many have tried to solve the riddles that abound in his works. His current radio series just adds to that mystery. Every so often he grants an interview or he writes a book and instead of having it all explained, he just produces even more mystery. When asked about that by 60 Minutes a few years ago, Dylan merely smiled and said, "It goes back to that destiny thing. I mean, I made a bargain with it, you know, long time ago. And I'm holding up my end … to get where I am now." Ed Bradley then asks him, who did he make the bargain with? "With the Chief Commander," Dylan replied. "In this earth and in the world we can't see."

Since the release of Deathly Hallows there has been a "powering down" in the HP reading community regarding discussions and musings concerning her work. Podcasts have announced that they are ending. Discussion Boards are dormant. It's as though the air has gone out of the tires. While people are still discussing the works of Lewis, Tolkien, and even Shakespeare himself, J.K. Rowling has made it quite clear that if there's going to be any official explanations about her work, they are going to come directly from her, the inventor.

She went on a U.S. Tour where she spent considerable time "explaining" the works to agreeable children and fans, staying away from more in-depth interviews with those who would seek to explore the deeper meanings of her work (like John Granger, for example) - and how much of it she knows herself and how much she actually doesn't know. It's as if she doesn't want to enter the realm of discussing the process of her "inventions" as it may reveal, as Dylan has, and that no one can completely invent "art" out of nothing, especially when it comes to literary works.

Why is this?

It appears that there is now a full fledge war breaking out over traditional publishing methods and the global forms of communication now available through the net. This is true not only with literary works, but music as well, as we learned recently from Paul McGuinness, manager of U2, who offered quite a tirade recently against iTunes and other electronic forms of music dissemination. He wants to slice up the pie and get a percentage out of every bit of the pie. If you buy a song on iTunes, he wants there to be charge for every single use of that song - be it burned to a CD for you own use, loaded on to your iPod for your own use, or saved on your computer for your own use. Anything less, Paul says, is "stealing."

Copyright laws are not necessarily international, but trademark laws can be - and so all of J.K. Rowling "inventions" are trademarked or branded, which - like Mickey Mouse - can be controlled by the corporation. The Golden Arches are the Golden Arches in Peoria as well as Peking. What has been true for corporate brands now seems to be pursued by corporate publishing entities seeking the same branding for literature, the written word.

The words themselves are brands.

Now it's not just music or images or brands that corporations are charging can be "stolen" - but now it could be actual words. The words themselves are branded. No wonder J.K. Rowling calls herself an inventor rather than a writer.

Several years ago, TimeWarner hit websites very hard about using images from the Harry Potter films, threatening webmasters with lawsuits if they used the images. Disney had all ready been quite successful in having its images removed from websites that were not controlled by them. Warner Brothers was following in their footsteps and then, suddenly, it all stopped. It was as though a new marketing scheme was now being employed where - instead of threatening lawsuits against enthusiastic fans - they would actually encourage the use as another way to market the films and products. They have now mastered that by cultivating the webmasters to be "insiders" in the Warner Brothers marketing scheme. Other corporations have followed suit.

Well, except for one webmaster: Steve Vander Ark, who did not apparently play along so well. He received enormous support for his Harry Potter Lexicon - so much so that J.K. Rowling bestowed on him one of her early Fan Site Awards and talked about how much that site helped her in the writing of the books.

But when he went to publish the Lexicon in traditional print, it turned out that Warner Brothers had laid out a minefield with its trademarking of the "words" from the books and not just the images from the films. If he used the words, "invented" by J.K.Rowling and published those "words" he was stealing. In copyright law you can use "quotes" in your works with attribution, but now with trademark law being applied to intellectual property - even individual words, to use that word alone would be stealing that word. To publish an encyclopedia using trademark words would be an infringement on the inventor's control. Steve Vander Ark is now sued for using the trademarked words in his published but not-yet released Encyclopedia. His case is now being defended by the law center at the University of California Law School at Stanford.

What Time Warner seems to be banking on is that if the trademarking of intellectual property is upheld in the U.S. Courts, that the same came applied to the internet worldwide. Then it will not just be images that will be controlled - but actual words - and words are what really matters on the internet.

In order to have free speech one needs free words. If the words are trademarked, what will be free? Stanford, just up the road from Berkeley, seems to be paying attention. Are we?

Let's use one of J.K.Rowling's trademarked words to make the point. That word is Horcrux™. According to the Harry Potter Lexicon, citing a "Diary" entry by J.K. Rowling on her website, a Horcrux™ "is the receptacle in which a wizard has hidden a fragment of his soul for the purposes of attaining immortality." It is considered evil and dark.

Is that not what the practice of trademarking words to control the intellectual property and its use is? Is it not a way to hide fragments of an artist's soul into those "words" for the purpose of attaining a different sort of immortality - a financial and controlling global immortality? A corporate immortality? Perhaps.

But at what cost to intellectual freedom of speech and expression? At what cost to the artistic creativity of generations to follow?

No longer could there be opinion pieces published in books on what constitutes a Horcrux™ or how Horcruxes™ are at work metaphorically in our culture or what a Horcrux™ might mean in the life of J.K. Rowling. Anything having to do with the writing about Horcruxes™, as in an encyclopedia or in a descriptive essay will be controlled by the "inventor" (formerly known as the author) in her vaguely-promised Scottish Book.

Let us recall again Madeleine L'Engle's description of the art of creating stories when she reminded us that "there comes a moment of unselfconsciousness, of letting go and serving the work." Serving the work and letting go spurs on more creativity and opens windows into the soul which inspires even more creativity.

It is anything but a Horcrux™.

2008-02-09T10:01:00.001-05:00

SAT. UPDATE: The Declaration of Steve Vander Ark, the author and webmaster of the Harry Potter Lexicon, is now available to read in its entirety online here. It makes for fascinating reading.

NYT opinion here.

A Tight Grip Can Choke Creativity
By Joe Nocera, New York Times

On Friday, a lawyer named Anthony Falzone filed his side’s first big brief in the case of Warner Bros. Entertainment and J. K. Rowling v. RDR Books. Mr. Falzone is employed by Stanford Law School, where he heads up the Fair Use Project, which was founded several years ago by Lawrence Lessig, perhaps the law school’s best-known professor. Mr. Falzone and the other lawyers at the Fair Use Project are siding with the defendant, RDR Books, a small book publisher based in Muskegon, Mich. As you can see from the titans who have brought the suit, RDR Books needs all the legal firepower it can muster.

As you can probably also see, the case revolves around Harry Potter. J. K. Rowling, of course, is the creator of the Harry Potter series — “one of the most successful writers the world has ever known,” crowed Neil Blair of the Christopher Little Literary Agency, which represents her. Warner Brothers holds the license to the Harry Potter movies. Of the two plaintiffs, though, Ms. Rowling appears to be the one driving the litigation.

“I feel as though my name and my works have been hijacked, against my wishes, for the personal gain and profit of others and diverted from the charities I intended to benefit,” she said in a declaration to the court.

And what perfidious act of “hijacking” has RDR Books committed? It planned to publish a book by Steven Vander Ark, who maintains a fansite called the Harry Potter Lexicon. The Lexicon publishes Harry Potter essays, finds Harry Potter mistakes, explains Harry Potter terminology, devises Harry Potter timelines and does a thousand other things aimed at people who can’t get enough Harry Potter. It’s a Harry Potter encyclopedia for obsessive fans.

So long as the Lexicon was a free Web site, Ms. Rowling looked kindly upon it. But when Mr. Vander Ark tried to publish part of the Lexicon in book form — and (shudder!) to make a profit — Ms. Rowling put her foot down. She claims that she wants to publish her own encyclopedia someday and donate the proceeds to charity — and a competing book by Mr. Vander Ark would hurt the prospects for her own work.

But more than that, she is essentially claiming that the decision to publish — or even to allow — a Harry Potter encyclopedia is hers alone, since after all, the characters in her books came out of her head. They are her intellectual property. And in her view, no one else can use them without her permission.

“There have been a huge number of companion books that have been published,” Mr. Blair said. “Ninety-nine percent have come to speak to us. In every case they have made changes to ensure compliance. They fall in line.” But, he added: “These guys refused to contact us. They refused to answer any questions. They refused to show us any details.”

They fall in line. There, in that one sentence, lies the reason Mr. Falzone and his colleagues have agreed to help represent RDR Books. And it’s why Mr. Lessig decided to start the Fair Use Project in the first place.

It’s an odd twist that this dispute centers around a book, because ever since the recording industry first sued Napster, most of the big legal battles over copyright have centered on the Internet. The lawsuit Viacom filed against YouTube last year to prevent people from posting snippets of Viacom’s copyrighted television shows is the most obvious recent example.

But if you look a little further back, you’ll see that for a long time now, copyright holders have made a series of concerted efforts to extend copyright protection and make it an ever-more powerful instrument of control.

More than a century ago, copyrights lasted for 14 years — and could be extended another 14 if the copyright holder petitioned for an extension. Today, corporate copyrights last for 95 years, while individuals retain copyrights for 70 years after their deaths. The most recent extension of copyright, passed by Congress in 1998, was nicknamed the Mickey Mouse Protection Act, because Disney’s lobbyists were intent on keeping Mickey Mouse from falling into the public domain — and on preserving billions in profits for Disney.

At the same time, though, copyright holders have tried to impose rules on the rest of us — through threats and litigation — that were never intended to be part of copyright law. They sue to prevent rappers from taking samples of copyrighted songs to create their own music. Authors’ estates try to deprive scholars of their ability to reprint parts of books or articles because they disapprove of the scholar’s point of view. Mr. Lessig likes to cite a recent, absurd case where a mother posted a video of her baby dancing to Prince’s song “Let’s Go Crazy” on YouTube — and Universal Music promptly demanded that YouTube remove the video because it violated the copyright. Have these efforts had — as we like to say in the news business — a chilling effect? You bet they have.

About a decade ago, Mr. Lessig decided to fight back. His core belief is that copyright protection, as he put it to me, “was meant to foster creativity, not to stifle it” — yet that is how it is now being used. He fought the Mickey Mouse Preservation Act all the way to the Supreme Court (he lost). He founded Creative Commons, which is, in a sense, an alternative form of copyright, allowing creators to grant far more rights to others than the traditional copyright system. And he started the Fair Use Project to push back against copyright hogs like J. K. Rowling.

No one is saying that anyone can simply steal the work of others. But the law absolutely allows anyone to create something new based on someone else’s art. This is something the Internet has made dramatically easier — which is part of the reason we’re all so much more aware of copyright than we used to be. But it has long been true for writers, filmmakers and other artists. That’s what “fair use” means.

And that is what is being forgotten as copyright holders try to tighten their grip. Documentary-film makers feel this particularly acutely. My friend Alex Gibney, who directed the recent film “Taxi to the Dark Side,” about torture, tried to get Fox to license him a short clip from the television series “24” to illustrate a point one of his talking heads was making about how the show glamorized torture. Fox denied his request. Mr. Gibney, a fair-use absolutist, used it anyway — but many filmmakers would have backed away.

Which is also why the Harry Potter Lexicon case is so important. For decades, fair use has been thought to extend to the publication of companion books that build on the oeuvre of someone else — so long as the new work isn’t simply a rehash of the original. There are dozens of companion books to the Narnia chronicles, for instance, and the works of J. R. R. Tolkien.

What Ms. Rowling is saying, however, is that her control of Harry Potter is so all-encompassing that only she gets to decide the terms under which a companion book is allowable. She can talk all she wants about charities that will be deprived if she loses this case, but this is really a power grab. RDR Books should not have to “fall into line” to publish the Lexicon. Ms. Rowling is claiming a right that, if granted, will hurt us all.

Read the rest here.

2008-01-31T21:11:00.000-05:00

2008-01-13T20:05:00.000-05:00

jurisprudence
J.K. Rowling's Dark Mark
Why she should lose her copyright lawsuit against the Harry Potter Lexicon.

By Tim Wu

Jan. 10, 2008, at 7:59 AM ET---As I wrote in October, over the last few years, the relationship between fan-written Web sites and the copyright owners of the content they draw on, if legally murky, has at least been peaceful. Once it dawned on media companies that fan sites are the kind of marketing that they usually pay hard cash for, they generally left the fans alone. But things turned sour in the fall, when the Harry Potter Lexicon Web site announced plans to publish a book version of its fan-written guide to the Potter world. Author J.K. Rowling and publisher Warner Brothers have sued the Lexicon for copyright infringement, exposing the big unanswered question: Are fan guides actually illegal?

As sympathetic as I am to Rowling and her rights as an author, the answer is no. There is a necessary and healthy line between what the initial author owns and what follow-on, or "secondary," authors get to do, and Rowling is running over that line like the Hogwarts Express. The creators of H.P. Lexicon may not be as creative as Rowling, but they are authors, too, and deserve a little respect from the law.

At issue are the giant fan-written guides like the H.P. Lexicon or the Lostpedia (for the show Lost) that try to collect all known information on topics like Harry's pet owl or the Dharma Initiative. Rowling takes the position that she, as the original author, has the right to block the publication of any such guide. In her words: "However much an individual claims to love somebody else's work, it does not become theirs to sell."

But Rowling is overstepping her bounds. She has confused the adaptations of a work, which she does own, with discussion of her work, which she doesn't. Rowling owns both the original works themselves and any effort to adapt her book or characters to other media—films, computer games, and so on. Textually, the law gives her sway over any form in which her work may be "recast, transformed, or adapted." But she does not own discussion of her work—book reviews, literary criticism, or the fan guides that she's suing. The law has never allowed authors to exercise that much control over public discussion of their creations.

Unlike a Potter film or computer game, the authors of the Lexicon encyclopedia are not simply moving Potter to another medium. Their purpose, rather, is providing a reference guide with description and discussion, rather like a very long and detailed book review. Such guides have been around forever—centuries if you count the Bible, and more recently for complex works like the writings of Jorge Borges or The Lord of the Rings. As long as a guide does not copy the original work verbatim, it falls outside the category of "adaptation." And that's why it is largely unnecessary to discuss the more complex copyright doctrine of "fair use." Rowling's rights over the guide don't exist to begin with, so we don't need to go there.

This can be made clear by looking at a typical Lexicon entry, like this one for the "house elf," the character who does the scut work in the Potter universe. "House-elves," says the encyclopedia, "are small humanoid creatures who inhabit large houses belonging to wealthy Wizarding families."

For a fan to write this kind of entry, Rowling says, is to "take the author's hard work, re-organize their characters and plots, and sell them for their own commercial gain." But that's ridiculous. This and other entries aren't, as Rowling seems to suggest, anything like an abridgment of the originals. No one would read the Lexicon as a substitute for the Potter books; it is useless unless you've read the original, and that makes all the difference.

The closest relevant legal precedent is the 2002 Beanie Baby decision by Judge Richard Posner (who has a taste for cases involving stuffed animals). Ty, the producer of Beanie Babies, doesn't like unauthorized guides to the Beanie Baby universe and their unflattering tendency to criticize the company, so it sued. Ruling against the company, Judge Posner used the same analogy that I have, comparing the guides to book reviews: "Both," he said, "are critical and evaluative as well as purely informational; and ownership of a copyright does not confer a legal right to control public evaluation of the copyrighted work." That's logic that should control the Potter case as well.

Even if the Beanie Baby case isn't directly controlling, the economics suggest the same result. How, exactly, are we hurt by the existence of competing guides to the Potter universe, one written by fans, the other by Rowling? It would be strange to say that since Fodor has written a perfectly good guide to London, we don't need the Lonely Planet or, for that matter, Wikitravel. Giving Rowling what she wants would be like giving Egypt the power to control guides to the pyramids.

Bizarrely, Rowling says that the fan guide would prevent her from writing her own guide to the Potter world. "I cannot," she said in a statement "approve of 'companion books' or 'encyclopedias' that seek to preempt my definitive Potter reference book. ..." To begin with, Rowling sounds entirely too much like a Death Eater in this quote. More generally, two products in the same market isn't called pre-emption—the word is competition. Why not let consumers decide which guide they like better? Rowling might object that the fan's guide will be strewn with errors or poorly written; but it is hardly the job of copyright to protect us from bad execution. And the fan's guide might actually be better, or at least different.

There are more ethereal reasons that Rowling ought not win. For reasons anthropologists will someday understand, volunteer encyclopedias have become the place to find what passes for our collective wisdom. Wikipedia is the clearest example: It may be wrong sometimes, but it is nonetheless a statement as to what we know. To her credit, Rowling accepts this and tolerates the online version of the H.P. Lexicon. But a general rule of the kind she is asking for isn't so generous: It would, by necessity, give copyright owners power over the content of Wikipedia and other online encyclopedias that discuss their works. Not the end of the world, but certainly a subtle form of thought control.

In the end, this dispute is about the current meaning of authorship. Rowling is the initial author and deserves the bulk of the credit, respect, and financial reward. But she has all of that. What she wants is a level of control over the Potter world that just isn't healthy. The authors of fan guides, like house elves, rarely get famous or rich. They deserve legal credit for their modest contributions, not the Wizengamot.

Tim Wu is a professor at Columbia Law School and co-author of Who Controls the Internet?

Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2181776/

2008-01-05T10:45:00.000-05:00

USA Today/AP reports today that the Stanford Law Group has joined the case regarding Steve Van der Ark's case on the publication of the HP Lexicon in print. They are siding with Steve:

A group of crusading intellectual property lawyers at Stanford Law School say they will help defend a small publishing house being sued by author J.K. Rowling over its plan to print an unauthorized companion guide to her Harry Potter series.
The Fair Use Project at Stanford's Center for Internet and Society announced Tuesday that it had signed on to aid the defense of Michigan-based RDR Books, which had planned to release The Harry Potter Lexicon this fall.

The book's publication has been blocked by the lawsuit. Rowling and Warner Bros., which produces the Harry Potter movies and holds the copyright on the seven novels, have argued that the lexicon borrows too heavily from the books and amounts to copyright and trademark infringement.

Fair Use Project Executive Director Anthony Falzone said the lexicon is protected by U.S. rules that have long given people "the right to create reference guides that discuss literary works, comment on them and make them more accessible."

You can read the rest here.

Some first thoughts.

If WB wins this case, websites are next. The Lexicon existed as long as it was “free publicity” for WB and would have been a public relations disaster if WB tried (as it did in the early years – remember all the threats about using images online – Disney did shut it all down, if you are old enough to remember?).

The whole realm of intellectual property law is exploding, especially with the new “markets” online. As we’ve seen in Jo’s interviews and with this lawsuit, controlling the intellectual property is very important for maintaining absolute control of the marketing (and exploiting for profit) of the property.

When it appeared that shutting down the websites or severely limiting what fans were permitted to do with the intellectual property (i.e., the Harry Potter books) was a public relations disaster, they backed off. Instead, rather brilliantly I might add as you can see here at Leaky, they completely changed their marketing strategy and decided to use the websites to broaden and deepen the market. So WB has been very “helpful” in not shutting down websites because they smartly realized that the fansites actually were excellent marketing tools.

But now that the books are completed and controlling the property’s management becomes a crucial component in long-term marketing strategies, a site like the Lexicon going into print becomes a huge threat to the franchise. If the book is published, it will set a precedent for other materials now on websites going into print. The internet is still in a “Wild Wild West” mode and nearly anything goes. As I said before, companies like WB have learned that investing (even if that means not suing) fansites has been a marketing bonanza for them. But precedent will be set if fansites start publishing their works in print.

I have several encyclopedias for Harry Potter on my bookshelf, published before WB turned their attention to controlling the property once the series were completed. What may have behooved Steve in publishing the Lexicon would be for WB to back it, but then he would have lost creative control of the work and would be merely the “frontman” and not the actually creative director. There’s just no way, with this present generation of executives, for fans to be given creative control over their works like encyclopedias or extensive commentaries (unless the parent company of WB publishes them) – those days have ended.

One could make the case that Jo was encouraged to go on Pottercast to make sure fans don’t realize the long-term effects that will happen to their own freedom of expression on the internet with creating artwork and stories based on the Harry Potter series. If it is shutdown in print, then it will be shut down online. International companies like the one WB belongs too understands that the relationship between print media and online media should be seamless. That is not the case right now – Congress has continued to refrain from placing the same limitations on the internet that now apply to print and broadcast media (though that is changing).

There is a connection I think between this case and the one now going on regarding loading your CDs into iTunes for your iPod. Music Companies are now in court making the case that loading your personally purchased CDs on to your own personal computer and then used in your own personal iPod is stealing.

This is what is happening now and though I know we are not lawyers or executives, we’re probably all still voters and consumers and so we need to be watching these things very carefully. Note how not one of the candidates running for president is talking about this stuff. But for the “internet generation” this is very important.

That day may come when the generation now reading MuggleNet or at Leaky grow up and become executives at WB. But that will be a long, long, time and by then Harry Potter will be on the shelf like Winne the Pooh.

Unless Steve wins this case. Then all bets are off. No wonder Stanford took the case. They get it.

2007-12-29T20:18:00.000-05:00

Posted at Sword of Gryffindor:

The question remains whether Jo Rowling answering all the questions and solving so many of the mysteries through Q&A rather than through storytelling has in affect stilled the wind from Harry Potter’s sails. If she is going to “explain” things - even when they appear to be outside the canon and merely in her head or in a file box somewhere, does that actually end up diminishing the books?

We see this happening all ready with the announcement that Sugar Quill is downsizing and Mugglenet’s podcast is ending in April.

I think that since so many appear to be accepting at face value all that she says about the books (after all - she is the author!) that there has been a serious lack of pushback from those who read the books not just from a fan-point of view but from a literary point of view.

We’re hearing a lot of a sort of “gossipy” stuff about the characters, but not the deeper view of the books that might even be outside the author’s control. Is she in fact helping her books by commenting on things so freely or in fact, as I said earlier, taking the wind out of the sails of her creation.

I have found it interesting to see the pull-back around the HP commentary world and have felt it myself. Why discuss the mysteries and musings of the series when we can just ring up Jo and have her explain things to us?

As I’ve written over at John Granger’s site, Bob Dylan has just refused for years and years and years to discuss the meaning of his songs. He’ll talk about his influences, but he won’t explain the songs to us. Even in his autobiography he spent far more time illustrating how he writes and virtually no time explaining the meaning of songs. But when he is asked what he believes in (as in his personal faith) he says it’s in the songs. But he won’t explain it - so guess what. If you care about it, you pour over the songs to try to understand. People write doctoral theses on Dylan’s work. But you are going to come up wanting if you think you are going to get him to explain the meaning of “Like a Rolling Stone.”

The fun remains then in trying to figure it out (and the songs have many layers and our responses to them have many layers) and Dylan fans get together (especially at his concerts) discussing these topics, using the “canon” of his works to back them up on what ever thesis they are working at. Books are even written and more conversation goes on - and still Dylan says very little. What he does say is still often open to interpretation. It is masterful.

I think that is the better way for authors and writers to go. Either the work stands on its own or it does not. If you have more to tell, than go write it but don’t tell us what you might write or not write. It isn’t true until it’s in prose. Until then the author might have his or her own opinions, but it might not means they are right.

All that being said, I do think the author has a role after the work is done - and that is to continue producing more work, not providing commentary to the work all ready completed. That is the work of the readers. The art of storytelling is that the reader also participates in the “truth” of what is happening. It’s not just “fiction” - if it’s good, it’s true.

Don’t get me wrong here - I am as interested in the things she’s been saying as anyone else. But now looking back has it really helped me want to dig deeper into the books? I have to say, no, it has not - and in fact, has done quite the opposite.

When I was working on my BFA in Creative Writing we used to have discussions about the role of the writer. We used to have teams of writers come and read their works. We were fascinated in the crafting of the work (as I was fascinated in reading Dylan’s insights on how he created some of his works), which is more of a mentoring role for writers. I can remember combing through F. Scott Fitzgerald’s masterpiece, The Great Gatsby, and examining it to see how he did it. It would have been highly inappropriate for Fitzgerald to suddenly, even magically appear in the classroom and start explaining what happened behind the scenes (yes, we know Gatsby’s a gangster, but perhaps not every reader would know that it would not have helped the book if Fitzgerald pointed that out to us) or whatever happened to Nick (”he bought a condo in Malibu and raised chickens”). What makes that book great is that it stands on its own - whatever we need is in the text and if it’s not there, then it doesn’t exist. There might have been more in Fitzgerald’s head, but it never came out on to the page and so it doesn’t exist. The genius of it was that we had to find the answers ourselves, not wait for the author to explain.

In fact, we were taught that it was a no-no to explain. In workshops the writer’s whose work was being reviewed had to maintain silence. It was an extraordinary experience, to listen as others around you reviewe your work within guidelines (you had to discuss it from the text, from what was or wasn’t there). But you could not explain anything. You to sit there and listen. Then you went home and did your rewrites. But the work finally had to stand on its own.

I can remember when my thesis (a novel) was being reviewed before I was awarded my degree. Two professors started arguing over the meaning of some of the characters or something and I sat there - of course, in silence - as they argued. It was exhilarating to hear the debate about the meaning (especially since one was a skeptic agnostic and the other a Buddhist).

From here.

2007-12-16T20:19:00.000-05:00

And at #14, Lucius Malfoy:

The Forbes Fictional 15
#14 Malfoy, Lucius

Net Worth: $1.6 billion
Source: Inheritance
Age: 51
Marital Status: Married
Hometown: Wiltshire, England
Education: Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry

Patriarch of ancient wizarding family still standing after the defeat of Dark Lord Voldemort and his Death Eaters at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. Malfoy, himself a convicted criminal and Azkaban prison escapee, miraculously managed to avoid being sent back to jail thanks to well-timed "donations" to charities supported by influential Ministry of Magic employees. Now reunited with family and unfettered by criminal charges, Malfoy is aggressively pursuing new business enterprises. In June, attempted to corner the global cauldron market. In August, sold short more than $1 billion worth of Galleons, forcing Gringotts Bank to devalue and withdraw the currency from the Wizardly Exchange Rate Mechanism. Member since 2005.

Is this who Jo had in mind for Dumbledore after all?

2007-12-03T21:14:00.002-05:00

2007-11-20T22:51:00.001-05:00

A few years ago I was in a discussion group and and the book we were discussing was Lord of the Rings. We were working our way through the entire book and we’d have these fascinating discussions about the philosophy of the stories. One of the members of the discussion group, however, was a big Tolkien fan and he’d bring in letters or other ways in which we’d learn Tolkien’s view on his own book to dispute whatever point we would be making. I found it immensely annoying - it just totally shut down the discussion. Now we have the Author Himself Telling Us All What He Really Meant. What then was the point of discussing it - the Oracle Has Spoken. What was the point of even reading the story - why shouldn’t he just tell us what he really meant and be done with it?

This is why I think J.K. Rowling made a terrible mistake during her American tour. While I think it would be helpful to hear about her views of the process of writing, or writing as an art form, or to discuss - at length even - what books have influenced her and why, she just gave us too much definitive information on this tour and effectively has nearly shut the discussion down.

As I wrote about in my essay “Iceberg Ahoy” in the book “The Plot Thickens,” the skill of a writer is to tell us just enough information (i.e., Hemmingway’s iceberg analogy) to keep the story going, but not to much - allude to more that is under the surface. This was Rowling’s brilliance in her writing - she gave us enough to sweep us into the story and carrying on discussion that should have lasted into the next century - but not too much to squash the reader’s own journey into the imagination. Her tour of America nearly undid all her skill. It was as though she’s had a “minder” who finally was given the “heave-ho” after the books were completed.

As some may know, I’ve become a Bob Dylan fan and have been spending the last few years trying to play catchup on his lifetime vocation of music. It’s take me three years to get to where I am now, which may mean I might understand the new arthouse film that is about to come out, “I’m Not Here.” But one of the frustrating (wonderful?) things about Dylan is that he very rarely talks about what his songs mean. Early on he might and sometimes something will slip out (but is he telling the truth or fooling around, one never knows). But he really doesn’t tell us what his songs mean. He wrote an entire “first volume” autobiography and still didn’t really tell us what his songs mean - he spent virtually the entire book explaining how he wrote them, not what they mean.

This of course is frustrating - but also an important key to his success and the explosion of his myth. He follows the iceberg theory as well - gives us just enough information but not enough to explain it all to us. We have to work on his songs, we can’t be passive. We can have “aha” moments but until one can sit down with another Dylan fan and argue over the points, one is never going to be sure if one is up the tree or out on a limb or swinging carefree on the mark. But the point always is to make the case from the song themselves and Dylan provides very little to explain it and if he does he isn’t always to be believed.

There are times when I re-read the Dumbledore interview and if Jo Rowling were Bob Dylan you could make the case she was pulling everyone’s leg bigtime, except no one has a sense of humor about such things they are so politicized (with reason) right now. But there is a sense that you could almost imagine the Weasley Twin side of her chuckling.

But if not and she’s serious about all the “revelations” and “opinions” she’s given (and there’s no reason really to seriously doubt her) then she’s spoiled the fun, she’s told us the answer (yes, even after we begged her to) when the better way is to turn the question back to the audience and ask, “What do you think?” and turn the questions back to the audience and have a conversation about it, rather than embarking in that almost celebrity mindedness that everything she says is holy writ. If that is true, then the story is truly “her” story and she owns it like a piece of property to control as she wishes and her audience either gets it or we don’t. But she knows all. Well, that’s a lot of things, but it doesn’t further her story to live beyond herself, to live larger than herself. It might be wise for her to go back to the way it was, when she said little, and if there is something she must say to put it in a book and be done with it. Make the case and tell the story and we’ll judge if she pulls it off. It’s like cheating to tell us all about Luna and her adventures (what was all that stuff about her and Dean and nothing coming from it - what a fascinating and unlikely match that might have been, you could almost see that Dean was entertained by Luna and he offered her stability and sense, but no Jo says she went off to the woods and met someone we’ve never heard of, poor Dean - all that time and it was all for nothing).

And Neville and Hannah - where’s the support for that? Was there any hint in the text about them at all? No, so it becomes almost like gossip, not storytelling. J.K. Rowling toured America gossiping about her characters. I bet a few of them, not the least being Dumbledore, would have liked for her to put a sock in it.

Now we see she is narrow-minded toward something she calls “American fundamentalists.” But she does not define her terms - is she talking about Calvinist Baptists or Evangelical Armenian or what? Isn’t it a stereotype of religious Americans and somehow the British are so much more enlightened? If I were to walk into a Baptist meeting I’d be anything but a fundie - I’m sure they’d find me a progressively liberal. But if I were to attend one my own home denomination, Episcopalian, meeting I’m sure they’d be quick to call me a fundie because I’m not unitarian and I call Jesus by His first name. Jo Rowlings sweeping generalities tells us she doesn’t know America very well and her bias toward her own nation shows. She’s the enlightened one and we’re a bunch of right wing nuts. Maybe she’s trying to be funny.

It was way more fun to discuss her books before she started to explain them to us. I know the temptation must have been great - who knows, perhaps the temptation is great for Dylan sometimes. But his music is strengthened by his silence and perhaps this would be a good time for Jo to get thoughtful and reflect that maybe Harry doesn’t belong to her anymore, that he let her into his life for a spell and now he’s moved on and she’s now like the rest of us, trying to figure out what it all means.

ZR (my HP post name)

WEDNESDAY:

Thanks for the comments, friends - I appreciate it more than I can say that I could post that reflection and get such great comments! And I admit I’d love to read Tolkien’s letters - but again, I might maintain that a work must be able to stand on its own and the author also stands in the shadows and in no longer the oracle - but that may be the fruits over my own rebellion regarding the creative writing workshops that go gaga over authors. A book is a book except when it’s a ego-driven self indulgence. Authors are terrible about figuring out when that happens until it’s almost too late or - like Dylan - they crash.

But I seriously doubt that happened to Tolkien, it was indeed how the letters were used to interpret the text and I still find that troubling. If an author has more to say, write more story. A story takes on a life of its own and can suddenly surprise the author. Jo Rowling is into her “plan” and no one can say it doesn’t work. But at some point, if her work is great (and I think it is) she has to step aside and give it away. Perhaps what we saw was a public process of her doing that.

You all have given me more stuff to think about! Thank you! I do quarrel however on calling Rossetti’s masterpiece and “infernal parody.” I saw the original at the Tate in London (I didn’t realize it’s in Chicago now - are you sure that’s the original?) and it was extraordinary. Here it is: http://www.rossettiarchive.org/img/s168.jpg

Rossetti was a troubled man, one of the great PreRaphaelites. Again, there is much in the Potter series that lends itself to PreRaphaelite paintings. But the one of “Beatrice” based on the likeness of Rossetti’s late wife (who died I believe from an opium - a toxic potion if there ever was one - overdose) is very Lily-like. And notice the two figures in the background - one is Dante and one is Rossetti himself. We know of another Rossetti/Dante-like character who also lurked in the background and probably knew much of the turmoil those men knew in their art.

From the PreRaphelites to the Beats we see similar themes of the suffering hero who meets a tragic end, a gothic view of sin - certainly not themes of sweetness and light but the peril of the mortal soul. I must read John’s post on Dante before the weekend.

From here.

2007-11-04T12:07:00.000-05:00

TUESDAY, NOV 4 UPDATE: Read interesting commentary here and here and trademarks and copyrights. This just gets more and more interesting!

More on the Warner Brothers lawsuit against the HP Lexicon here. I am really wondering if the issue isn't so much "copyright" as it is the "trademark" issue and that concerns me very very much on issues of free speech. Isn't the phrase "Harry Potter™" trademarked?

Do you see why we should be concerned?

And I'm sorry, but the "charity" stuff is marketing, it promotes the trademark. If J.K. Rowling was really interested in "charity" she'd follow Rick Warren's example live off 10% and give the rest of the money to charity. The rest is just marketing and it frankly makes me ill. To use "charity" to protect Warner Brothers control over the "trademark" and justify suing the HP Lexicon creator is just unbelievable. I know I'm supposed to be a Republican, but centralized power (be it government or corporations or 815) really ticks me off.

It didn't make sense to initiate lawsuits, except to either frighten fans or establish a precedent this isn't about making the world safe for Jo Rowling's acts of charity - this about controlling the use of a trademark and that is a freedom of speech issue.

Since we know Hermione Granger™ is a lawyer now, perhaps she would like to take on the case of defending the real people against the All Powerful Ministry of Warner Brothers (and the apparently polyjuiced™ author)? Oops, wonder if the word "Hermione Granger™" is trademarked too? Certainly "polyjuice™" must be. Or will be.

Remember back (was it 2002?) when Warner Brothers™ was zapping anyone that used "Harry Potter™" online (okay, I'm old enough to remember), especially the images (but it wasn't just the images, but the way) but also the words invented by J. K. Rowling? It was a public relationships disaster and there was a shift in marketing strategy to use the HP (is that going to be tradmarked as well?) fan websites to market the books and films.

Something has changed.

Remember how Rowling has used the word "invention" when she talks about the HP universe? She's an inventor (not a writer?) and that is a legal term,. She "invented" Harry Potter™. She invented all those other characters and the entire HP universe. Pity the fool to take on the Ministry of Warner Brothers.

Got to thinking this morning if the world of Harry Potter as we know it today is not so much a view of British bureaucracy but rather a quiet scream from Jo Rowling that The Corporation has taken over her life. It might be worth a re-read of the books to see if in fact, the books themselves are a satire and critical review of the very corporation that seeks to impose its will on the last person you'd expect to be AK'd off the planet - the reader.

We are declaring today Steve Vander Ark Day, November 1 - All Saints Day.

bb

LATER (Nov. 5) - Statement from Steve Vander Ark from here.

Dear Friends,

I would like to thank each and every one of you for your support in recent days. Everyone here at the Lexicon, all volunteers, regrets the unpleasantness. We have always been interested in working with the publishers of the novels to satisfy their concerns, interests and needs and we certainly do not plan nor have we ever planned to publish anything which competes with Ms. Rowling’s fine literary capabilities. Our work has nothing to do with fiction writing and is only concerned with legitimate critical analysis and academic considerations. It has been widely approved and employed by Ms. Rowling herself.

My book was started in response to many, many people who talked to me and asked if there could be a print version of the Lexicon, not in some sort of attempt to profit off of fans. Because the material for the book was not only accepted but praised and used frequently by every entity concerned with creating the Harry Potter books, games, and films, I would never have thought that a print version could be judged differently.

I sincerely hope that this matter can be resolved amicably and ask for you patience and understanding during that process.

Steve

Steve Vander Ark
The Harry Potter Lexicon

EVEN LATER - Tuesday, Nov. 5

Interesting post over at Leaky, actually a post of a post of a post from the Wall Street Journal blog:

“Ah, the deja vu! Looking over Rowling’s complain to the court, I had a delightful flashback to days not so long ago when, defending myself in Seattle federal court, I took on what must be the second wealthiest literary property in the English-speaking world, that of J. R. R. Tolkien. Now there’s a remarkably similar case coming from what must be the wealthiest literary property on the planet.

There are the same nasty attacks, alleging illicit motivations on the part of defendants that the Rowling’s lawyers have no way of knowing. Consider them lies, because that’s what they were in my case. You should also consider flipping the allegations of greed around. Never, when lawyers are involved, neglect their enormous desire to bill as many hours as possible to a deep-pocketed client. There’s undoubtedly more greed per square inch in the Times Square offices of O’Melveny & Myers than there is at all of Michigan-based RDR Books (a company whose list of titles demonstrates a love of good literature)–much less the original source of the book at the fan website of hp-lexicon.org.

You can also see hints of that billable-hours greed in the rather pitiful attempt one of the Rowling’s lawyer makes to describe her books. A lover of great literature he is not: “Over the course of these seven books, Harry learns many new things, makes new friends, travels, and has many adventures.” That’s how a fifth-grader writes a book report. In this case that fifth-grader, now grown old and cranky, was billing Rowling perhaps $500/hour. That sort of pay will make almost anyone think they’re a literary genius.

Fortunately, in law, money doesn’t always win. The Tolkien estate must have spent close to a quarter of a million dollars trying to stop my book-length Lord of the Rings chronology, Untangling Tolkien. I spent some $4,000 to utterly vanquish them. Just before a judge would have responded to concurrent motions for summary judgment, they bailed out, offering in a letter to settle for a “few changes.” Three months later the judge changed their “little hope” to “no hope” by dismissing their lawsuit “with prejudice.” You can find my book on Amazon and traces of my fair use arguments to the court in the last chapter.

Lawyers can be strange. In the Rowlings complaint, there’s an attempt to put the billionaire Rowlings into the role of a struggling writer for whom every penny counts. Only a lawyer with a large, six-figure income would try to portray her as a victim, particularly since her stated rationale is nothing more than a monopolistic desire prevent any competition to an encyclopedia she wants to write. A good defense lawyer could make mincemeat of her claims there. Numerous copyright disputes have made it clear that no author, fictional or non-fictional, can silence critics. The public interest in that is so great, that in the Beannie Babies case a few years back, it cast aside a visual copyright to any commercial use of pictures of the collectable doll.

The biggest weakness in the RDR Book lawsuit may be that their book is too nice with her corpus. It should take a critical look at where her plot is weak and her characters unconvincing. My Tolkien chronology did that. His time line was remarkably accurate, but I do point out the few places he got it wrong. In the eyes of a court, an author (or in my case, Tolkien’s son Christopher), can’t be trusted to do that. And what matters with something as trite as collectable dolls, certainly matters for one of the bestselling books on the planet.

RDR Books also has one marvelous advantage that I didn’t have, the fact that much of their book has apparently been posted for years on a fan website with Rowlings and her lawyers doing nothing about it. Given the modest profit margins of most small publishers and the little or nothing that the contributors to this book will be getting, the “commercial” portion of copyright fair use will carry little weight before a fair court. By not enforcing her claims with websites, she’s virtually conceded them for a book. The downside of that is when lawyers see that, they’ll get nasty with fan websites. But then intellectual property lawyers are always getting into nasty little snits, all the more so when their cases are weak.

And that brings up Rowling’s primary advantage. The case has been filed in SDNY-the Southern District of New York, because there the court, operating cheek-and-jowl with powerful NYC publishers, is notoriously tilted in favor of rich copyright holders. It’s the intellectual property equivalent of lawsuits filed against giant corporations in obscure Marshall, Texas.

You see that bias in how Manhattan IP lawyers often act before judges. My opponent was so used to differential-to-plaintiffs SDNY judges, he blundered badly before the Ninth Circuit judge in my case. I still smile when I recall his attempt to tell the judge how she ought to rule in one of our disputes. He was on the phone from Manhattan. I was a few feet away from the judge and could sense her growing impatience. Needless to say, I won.

In my case, virtually all the decisions my opponents were citing came from a few 1998 rulings in the SDNY, decisions that have been soundly criticized in law journals and that, fortunately for me, do not bind a Ninth Circuit court. In the almost a decade since those decisions, no other circuit has bought the Second Circuit’s rather extreme claims about the reach of a fictional copyright (i.e. banning unauthorized reader’s guides). One Midwest court even dismissed the Second Court’s argument as “frivolous,” which indeed it was.

The one good thing about this dispute is that it may force the Second Circuit to recant its 1998 blunder. I had the counsel for a university press tell me that, since those rulings, his press has avoid publishing anything about popular, contemporary fiction. That’s precisely the “chilling effect” the fair use provisions of copyright law are intended to prevent.

–Michael W. Perry, author of Untangling Tolkien

P.S. I assert no copyright to these remarks, so Harry Potter websites are free to post what I’ve written here online. And if Steve Vander Ark would contact me through my website, InklingBooks.com, I’d be happy to offer him advice as someone who’s been through what he’s been through.”

Comment by Michael W. Perry – November 3, 2007 at 3:10 pm

Hmmm ... what do you think?

2007-10-20T11:26:00.001-04:00

AP reports from New York: Harry Potter fans, the rumors are true: Albus Dumbledore, master wizard and Headmaster of Hogwarts, is gay. J.K. Rowling, author of the mega-selling fantasy series that ended last summer, outed the beloved character Friday night while appearing before a full house at at Carnegie Hall.

Fascinating revelation, though I'm not so sure this is good news to the activist gay community. Before there is celebration in the streets, they may want to actually read the final book in the Harry Potter series. We learn in Deathly Hallows that Dumbledore is not the kind and wise old man he has appeared to be throughout the series but is in fact a manipulator and schemer - and a very conflicted one at that. Is this an accurate representation of an archetypal gay person? Or is it a stereotype? As we've written here earlier, it turns out that Dumbledore was - as Jo Rowling has also stated - Machiavellian in his plans for Harry Potter. Even Snape is shocked by the revelation of Dumbledore's motives.

Deathly Hallows does allude that Dumbledore and Grindelwald engage in a deep friendship that is enmeshed and unhealthly. Everyone else is excluded. Their "breakup" leads to the tragic death of Dumbeldore's little sister. Grindelwald becomes one of the most evil characters ever - on par with Voldemort (who later kills him) and again, I wonder how the gay community will feel about that. It is not an idealized relationship by any means, not like the idealized relationships I would hear about during hearing testimonies at General Convention, for example, where everything is blessed and certainly not obsessive and idolatrous.

The article says this:
She then explained that Dumbledore was smitten with rival Gellert Grindelwald, whom he defeated long ago in a battle between good and bad wizards. "Falling in love can blind us to an extent," Rowling said of Dumbledore's feelings, adding that Dumbledore was "horribly, terribly let down."

Dumbledore's love, she observed, was his "great tragedy."
Before Christians jump at this news and take to the streets for different reasons, we should read the book as well. The "love" depicted in this relationship between Grindelwald and Dumbledore is destructive - it costs a girl her life and more. The 1940s wizard battle with Grindelwald parallels World War II and the atrocities committed by the Nazis. The name "Grindelwald" alludes to Grendel, Beowulf's dragon representing evil ("wald" or "vald" is German for ruler - i.e. a ruler of evil). The context of the story in Deathly Hallows is that this relationship was destructive. The character of Grindelwald is unsavory from the very beginning, as though a tempter of evil - and Dumbledore is indeed tempted - a temptation that he lives with for the rest of his life. Is this the sort of literary portrayal the gay community would like to see attached to their image? I'm not so sure. Is it compelling storytelling? Yes, it is.

Dumbledore went on to lead a chaste life, totally devoted to his role as headmaster (another typical caricature, by the way?) and to seeking the ultimate defeat of Voldermort. That was his whole life. In fact, Dumbledore reminds me very much of this guy. Just put a beard on him and you've got our guy. It isn't what we are that matters, it's what we do with who we are that makes the difference. That's what Dumbledore also said - it is our choices that matter and show us who we truly are.

That being said, I am very surprised that Jo Rowling would add the homosexual dynamic to the youthful relationship between the two titanic characters of Dumbledore and Grindelwald, for it reveals the inherent destructive nature of obsession and idolatry, which - if you read Leanne Payne would tell us is at the center of homosexual behavior. It is quite a revelation indeed. Both of these characteristics - obsession and idolatry - were terrible character flaws in Albus Dumbledore (character flaws he readily acknowledged, I might add). Harry Potter's heart was pure and his love for Ginny (who later becomes his wife) was exemplary - it encourages him and made him whole, quite a contrast to what Dumbledore knew in his relationship with Grindelwald. I am just surprised Jo Rowling would want to open up that can of worms.

Here are some more "revelations" that came from Jo Rowling's event at Carnegie Hall last night:

Jo also revealed that Neville Longbottom married Hufflepuff Hannah Abbott and she was to become the landlady at the iconic Leaky Cauldron Pub. She thought that people would find the fact of Neville's living over a pub particularly cool.

Equally large revelations were made concerning Petunia Dursley when Jo answered the question of what Petunia could not bring herself to say when Harry and the Dursleys parted ways before his seventeenth birthday. She would have wished him luck, saying: "I know what you're up against and I hope it turns out okay."

Information on the original Order members was also revealed during tonight's event. Jo related the fact that Remus Lupin, prior to the third book, was unemployable because he was a werewolf and upon his graduation from Hogwarts along with James and Lily, was supported by James using their own money. In addition to this she shed more light on the early days of the Order, saying James, Sirius, Remus and Lily were full time Order members. "Full Time Fighters," as Jo put it.

Jo also went into further detail about the many portraits in the wizarding world and their occupants. An occupant can only move freely to other portraits in their dwelling or to another portrait in which they are depicted. She also revealed that Harry himself made sure that the portrait of Snape made it into the Headmasters Office

Here's more from the transcript:

Q: How did you decide that Molly Weasley would be the one to finish off Bellatrix?

I always knew Molly was going to finish her off. I think there was some speculation that Neville would do it, because Neville obviously has a particular reason to hate Bellatrix. ..So there were lots of options for Blelatrix, but I never deviated. I wanted it to be Molly, and I wanted it to be Molly for two reasons.

The first reason was I always saw Molly as a very good witch but someone whose light is necessarily hidden under a bushel, because she is in the kitchen a lot and she has had to raise, among others, and George which is like, enough... I wanted Molly to have her moment and to show that because a woman had dedicated herself to her family does not mean that she doesn't have a lot of other talents.

(BB NOTE: Again, this flies in the face of modern cultural teaching when the "traditional homemaker" is the one that destroys the most evil character (second only to Voldemort) in Harry Potter's life.)

Second reason: It was the meeting of two kinds of - if you call what Bellatrix feels for Voldemort love, I guess we'll call it love, she has a kind of obsession with him, it's a very sick obsession ... and I wanted to match that kind of obsession with maternal love... the power that you give someone by loving them. So Molly was really an amazing exemplar of maternal love. ... There was something very satisfying about putting those two women together.

How different would the last two books be if Arthur had been killed in the middle of book five?

I think they would have been very different and it's part of the reason why I changed my mind. ... By turning Ron into half of Harry, in other words by turning Ron into someone who had suffered the loss of a parent, I was going to remove the Weasleys as a refuge for Harry and I was going to necessarily remove a lot of Ron's humor. That's part of the reason why I didn't kill Arthur. I wanted to keep Ron in tact ... a lot of Ron's humor comes from his insensitivity and his immaturity, to be honest about Ron. And Ron finally, I think, you see, grows up in this book. He's the last of the three to reach what I consider adulthood, and he does it then [ when he destroys the horcrux] and faces those things. So that's part of the reason. The only other reason I didn't kill Arthur was that I wanted to come full circle. We started with an orphan, someone who lost their parents because of the war. And so I wanted to show it again. ... Even though you don't see Teddy, I wanted to express in the epilogue, that he gets an even better godfather than Harry had, because Sirius had his faults, I think we must admit. He was a risky guy to have a s a godfather. Because Teddy gets someone who really has been there, and Harry becomes a really great father figure for Teddy as well as his own children. I hasten to add that I didn't kill Lupin or Tonks lightly. I loved them as characters...so that hurt, killing them.

2007-10-17T20:12:00.000-04:00

Yes! J.K. Rowling tells MTV (of all places!) that the scriptures Harry Potter reads in Godric's Hollow "almost epitomize the whole series"

And what are those scriptures?

"The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death."
-I Cor. 15:26

"Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."
-Matthew 6:19

BB NOTE: When I read those verses for the first time in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows I was sitting outside on the deck of a friend's house. I sat back in my chair - the verses in the book do not refer to the scripture - but I recognized them right away, including the verse from Matthew as being the words of Jesus. I remember trying to hold back the joy. Others were around me still reading and hadn't yet come to the chapter. I had to hold back the delight - what a surprise, what a delight, what a gift. J.K. Rowling is now speaking openly about how her Christian faith influenced the writing of the Harry Potter series. To her "the parallels have always been obvious." But it took a while before Christian believers began to read the stories for themselves, scared off as many were in the beginning by the so-called witchcraft. But once Christians began to read the stories for themselves, well, it sure did look obvious. What a surprise! Her imagery is Christian, blatantly so and it may have escaped so many because so many don't know that imagery - Harry Potter fell upon an unchurched world. Here in this article, Jo Rowling shares that Harry's journey matches her own - which is probably why the books are so real. Read on:

'Harry Potter' Author J.K. Rowling Opens Up About Books' Christian Imagery

'They almost epitomize the whole series,' she says of the scripture Harry reads in Godric's Hollow.

HOLLYWOOD — It deals extensively with souls — about keeping them whole and the evil required to split them in two. After one hero falls beyond the veil of life, his whispers are still heard. It starts with the premise that love can save you from death and ends with a proclamation that a sacrifice in the name of love can bring you back from it.

Harry Potter is followed by house-elves and goblins — not disciples — but for the sharp-eyed reader, the biblical parallels are striking. Author J.K. Rowling's "Harry Potter" books have always, in fact, dealt explicitly with religious themes and questions, but until "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," they had never quoted any specific religion.

(SPOILER ALERT! The rest of this story discusses the conclusion of "Deathly Hallows.")

That was the plan from the start, Rowling told reporters during a press conference at the beginning of her Open Book Tour on Monday. It wasn't because she was afraid of inserting religion into a children's story. Rather, she was afraid that introducing religion (specifically Christianity) would give too much away to fans who might then see the parallels.

"To me [the religious parallels have] always been obvious," she said. "But I never wanted to talk too openly about it because I thought it might show people who just wanted the story where we were going."

Indeed, at its most simplistic, Harry's final tale can in some respects be boiled down to a resurrection story, with Harry venturing to a heavenly way station of sorts after getting hit with a killing curse in Chapter 35, only to shortly return. (Read how Rowling revealed the characters' fates to the "Harry Potter" movies' stars here.)

But if she was worried about tipping her hand narratively in the earlier books, she clearly wasn't by the time Harry visits his parents' graves in Chapter 16 of "Deathly Hallows," titled "Godric's Hollow." On his parents' tombstone he reads the quote "The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death," while on another tombstone (that of Dumbledore's mother and sister) he reads, "Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."

While Rowling said that "Hogwarts is a multifaith school," these quotes, of course, are distinctly Christian. The second is a direct quote of Jesus from Matthew 6:19, the first from 1 Corinthians 15:26. As Hermione tells Harry shortly after he sees the graves, his parents' message means "living beyond death. Living after death." It is one of the central foundations of resurrection theology.

Which makes it a perfect fit for Harry, said Rowling, who was talking about those quotes for the very first time.

"They're very British books, so on a very practical note Harry was going to find biblical quotations on tombstones," Rowling explained. "[But] I think those two particular quotations he finds on the tombstones at Godric's Hollow, they sum up — they almost epitomize the whole series."

As the one to bring together all three magical Deathly Hallows, Harry, in fact, becomes the "Master of Death" by novel's end, able to bring back the spirits of his parents, his godfather, Sirius Black and his old teacher Remus Lupin. It's a conclusion that ends Harry's three-book-long struggle over questions about the afterlife, which begins when Sirius falls through a veil connecting this world and the next at the end of "Order of the Phoenix."

"Deathly Hallows" itself begins with two religiously themed epigraphs, one from "The Libation Bearers" by Aeschylus, which calls on the gods to "bless the children"; and one from William Penn's "More Fruits of Solitude," which speaks of death as but "crossing the world, as friends do the seas." No other book in the series begins with epigraphs — a curious fact, perhaps, but one that Rowling insists served as a guiding light.

"I really enjoyed choosing those two quotations because one is pagan, of course, and one is from a Christian tradition," Rowling said of their inclusion. "I'd known it was going to be those two passages since 'Chamber' was published. I always knew [that] if I could use them at the beginning of book seven then I'd cued up the ending perfectly. If they were relevant, then I went where I needed to go.

"They just say it all to me, they really do," she added.

But while the book begins with a quote on the immortal soul — and though Harry finds peace with his own death at the end of his journey — it is the struggle itself which mirrors Rowling's own, the author said.

"The truth is that, like Graham Greene, my faith is sometimes that my faith will return. It's something I struggle with a lot," she revealed. "On any given moment if you asked me [if] I believe in life after death, I think if you polled me regularly through the week, I think I would come down on the side of yes — that I do believe in life after death. [But] it's something that I wrestle with a lot. It preoccupies me a lot, and I think that's very obvious within the books."

Read the whole thing here.

2007-10-07T22:41:00.000-04:00

Okay, I'll try again, because I really do want to know why she would take on such Christian theological doctrines - like the atonement, which has just completely lost its meaning in the post-Christian West. How do you explain to children what the atonement is? She does a tremendous job explaining the affects of the atonement on believers, I could certainly make the case for it. Perhaps these questions will be asked when when we are sitting in a pub swashing the butterbeer, but here it is - for the record. ;-)

Perhaps it would be wise to quote Dorothy Sayers:

Official Christianity, of late years, has been having what is known as a bad press. We are constantly assured that the churches are empty because preachers insist too much upon doctrine—dull dogma as people call it. The fact is the precise opposite. It is the neglect of dogma that makes for dullness. The Christian faith is the most exciting drama that ever staggered the imagination of man—and the dogma is the drama.

Question: Do you agree with what Dorothy Sayers is saying here, that that the Christian faith is the most exciting drama that ever staggered the imagination? How were you inspired by that drama in the writing of the Harry Potter series?

2007-10-06T12:36:00.000-04:00

A Question

So many of the questions I have need introductions. They are not just simple questions - which would do better in an interview context, with cups of coffee at Starbucks. But perhaps something could be gleaned from this:

Background: The Christian doctrine of the atonement seems to be infused through out your entire series - that is, that sacrifice is more than just dying for love but that there is real power in the sacrifice in that it protects others from the same fate (including judgment and annihilation). In the Christian doctrine of the atonement, Christ took the place of the guilty and suffered the punishment in our place, He sacrifice Himself for us. In his death and resurrection, through his “blood” Christians find redemption and life. They are “covered by the blood.” From gospel hymns to the Eucharist we see this powerful doctrine and what a surprise to see it reflected in Harry Potter.

Are we wrong to see this over and over again in the Harry Potter series? Do we not see it from the very beginning? Lily sacrifices herself to save her son and her “blood” protects him, he is “covered” by her blood - to the closing pages when Harry sacrifices himself and his sacrifice “covers” all those in Hogwarts when Voldemort’s curses no longer have lasting power on Harry’s friends.

Is this true? And if so …

Question: How did you come to write on Christian doctrines in your books - especially after the initial outcry from the very folks who would later come to love your books? Can you tell us more about your own Christian faith journey?

2007-09-16T18:17:00.000-04:00

Who will answer?

FROM BabyBlueOnline.org:

I've been reticent about posting a review of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, knowing that many here in the cafe have not yet read the book and did not want to spoil it for them.

If you have not read the book - and plan to - please close your eyes and scroll down. I want to raise an issue or two with those of you who have read the book.

I have been a fan of the series by J.K. Rowling from the moment I read my first book, which was actually the third one in the series, the Prisoner of Azkaban. I had put off reading the books for quite a long time, even know different members of many family gave me copies and told me over and over again how much I would love the books. I finally saw the first two movies and then picked up the third book and that was that.

I am the author of the opening essay of a book called The Plot Thickens, which is still available through Borders, Amazon, and Barnes & Noble. It is a series of essays on the Harry Potter series through the fifth book. My essay is called "Iceberg Ahoy: Why the New York Times Should Restore Harry Potter to the Best Seller List." In fact, the Harry Potter series had dominated the New York Times Best Seller List for so long that other authors and publishers were complaining (everyone wants to have #1 New York Times Best Seller on their dust jacket) and so the New York Times created a "Children's List" and stuck Harry Potter over there. But many of us who are adults and had read the series realized that this was far more than children's books. They are accessible to children in some ways, but now that we have come to the end of the series it is clear that there is an entirely new world underneath the one known to children. Like an iceberg, Jo Rowling reveals the top portion to her readers, but it what is underneath the water that really matters.

Over the years I have joined reading groups and study groups and even taken courses online on the series. I've met many other fans of the books who have enjoyed unlocking the mysteries in the series. But, until very recently, I was often alone in discussions when delving into what looked more and more like Christian mysteries in the book - by the time we had all finished the sixth book, The Half Blood Prince, it seemed to me that we had another modern-day Inkling on our hands. That view was rarely shared and if it was discussed, it was often in hushed tones. The "religion" factor of the series was either neglected or overlooked.

There are some major exceptions to this and chief among them is the author John Granger, who wrote among other books on the series, "Finding God in Harry Potter." He is the moderator of HogwartsProfessor.com and he is chiefly responsible for unearthing all the Christian-style alchemical symbols throughout the book. There are others who follow in similar ways and many of them can be found at HogwartsProfessor.

In the past few months I've read lots of commentary on the books, listened to many podcasts on the books, and have listened to others talk about the books. Well, sort of. What is striking me now is how quiet things have gotten - and how quiet they got soon after the books came out.

Jo Rowling had warned us that many may not like how the book concludes (and I'm not talking about the Epilogue, but the final battle at Hogwarts). Christian imagery is all over those closing chapters, especially in terms of such weighty topics as substitution, sacrifice, redemption, repentance, and judgment. Strong orthodox understanding of classical Christianity have their marks not only all over the series, but all over the closing chapters of the final book.

I have listened and read many commentaries that are filled with the struggles readers are having over understanding what happens to Harry during the Battle of Hogwarts. There is a certain discomfort that in order to really discuss those closing pages, one is going to have to discuss classical Christian theology. The book is immensely theological and now millions and millions of people have read the book.

One of the big questions - and one of those questions that many seem hesitant to ask is - what is the theological significance to being "cover by the blood?" Christians sing about it, they participate in Eucharists, and they certainly read about the power of the blood, being covered by the blood. But what does it mean and what affect does it have on us?

What I am finding now, as the weeks go by, is silence. When the sixth book came out the response was deafening. We could point to the fact that we were left with some significant mysteries and those mysteries demanded to be solved. The series has now concluded and all is wrapped up - or is it?

There are some significant mysteries in the final book, but to begin to explore those mysteries will mean diving into significant Christian theology - not liberal progressive theology, but the orthodox kind, the traditional kind, the kind that includes sin, rebellion, sacrifice, and redemption. They aren't just nebulous themes, but are key to understanding the series. We see in these books that Jo Rowling did more than just skim through the books of CS Lewis. In fact, it seems she has read more than just The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. It appears she may have also at least read The Problem of Pain, The Screwtape Letters, Mere Christianity, and A Grief Observed. If she hasn't, I'd still recommend readers of the series know those books. And Jane Austin as well, another Christian believer, who used satire to comment on - often humorously - on society. Jo Rowling does the same thing.

One person I know has just finished reading the book. She had read all the others and we had many fun conversations about the books and the characters. But she is not a believer, in fact, she is rather hostile to Christianity and she will not talk about this book. To secular eyes, how shocking is the book? Should secularists be worried? The greatest irony of the books is that for a long time the wrong people were upset.

There does seem to be a strange silence over the series - that may be challenged soon as Jo Rowling arrives in America for a book tour. She was asked once - and by a child, not the secular media, about her faith. By the time she gets here, though, more people will have actually read the book, had time to think about it, talk with others about it, and question the mysteries in it that are quite profound in ways that all the other mysteries of plot and character pale in comparison. Perhaps that is why Jo Rowling has made no secret of her admiration for Dorothy Sayers, another honorary Inkling, who saw mystery writing as a particularly "Christian" genre. Jo Rowling seems to have followed - more significantly and more profoundly - in her footsteps. In this mystery genre (which is far more what the series is then a simple series of children's stories) we learn about great Christian theological concepts such as generational sin, blood sacrifice, redemption, suffering, death, atonement, the human soul, immortality, heaven, hell, and the particular power of agape love. There are many many more. Having read the final book, what does it mean then to sing this Gospel song:

Would you be free from the burden of sin?
There's power in the blood, power in the blood;
Would you over evil a victory win?
There's wonderful power in the blood.

There is power, power, wonder working power
In the blood of the Lamb;
There is power, power, wonder working power
In the precious blood of the Lamb.

Would you be free from your passion and pride?
There's power in the blood, power in the blood;
Come for a cleansing to Calvary's tide;
There's wonderful power in the blood.

There is power, power, wonder working power
In the blood of the Lamb;
There is power, power, wonder working power
In the precious blood of the Lamb.

The final sentence of the book is "All was well." It caused me, as I've written all ready over at Shell Cottage about this particular hymn. I write there:

What's come to my mind has been the hymn, It is Well, since it is about all being well in the midst of great suffering. Written by a man who lost his children at sea, he returns to the place where they were lost and writes:

When peace like a river, attendeth my way,
When sorrows like sea billows roll;
Whatever my lot, Thou hast taught me to say,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.

It is well, with my soul,
It is well, with my soul,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.

Though Satan should buffet, though trials should come,
Let this blest assurance control,
That Christ has regarded my helpless estate,
And hath shed His own blood for my soul.

My sin, oh, the bliss of this glorious thought!
My sin, not in part but the whole,
Is nailed to the cross, and I bear it no more,
Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul!

It is well, with my soul,
It is well, with my soul,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.

And Lord, haste the day when my faith shall be sight,
The clouds be rolled back as a scroll;
The trump shall resound, and the Lord shall descend,
Even so, it is well with my soul.

It is well, with my soul,
It is well, with my soul,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.

-Horatio Spafford 1873

Since so much of Deathly Hallows, and the Harry Potter series is about the state of Harry's soul. When we finally get to the closing, we learn that - through the immense amount of suffering and pain that Harry Potter has endured - now all was well. His soul was restored to wholeness - he was healed.

These are topics, issues, subjects, themes of great spiritual and theological depth. It seems to me that a great opportunity is before all of us who have read the Harry Potter series - now is a season to ask questions. Millions have read the books and have questions - who will answer them?

NOTE: I continue to post over at Shell Cottage. Please feel free to drop by for a cup of tea. In my opinion, Harry's visit to Shell Cottage is the turning point of his entire life. We'll write on that topic soon, perhaps while we're waiting for word from the Bishops of the Episcopal Church.

2007-09-16T11:51:00.000-04:00

Chapter Seven: The Will of Albus Dumbledore

4. In one of the few moments in the entire book, there is some focus on Harry and Ginny’s relationship in this chapter. After interrupting a kiss between the two, Ron berates Harry for “messing her around”. Was Ron justified in this argument, knowing what Harry had to do to defeat Voldemort, or was this a just a case of an overprotective older brother? Do you think Ginny’s other brothers would have had the same reactions?

It is interesting to compare Ron's reaction to Harry kissing Ginny to his earlier reaction to Ginny kissing Dean. I think Ron, while he may be clueless about women, gets it. In the earlier incident, Ron explodes at Ginny because I think he knew exactly what she was doing. Ron is right in that scene about what Ginny is doing (but oversteps his role as her older brother). He targets Ginny not Dean. He knows who has the real power in that relationship, and it's Ginny. He may also know that Ginny does not love Dean and he's basically recognizing the same behavior in his sister that he will later display himself with Lavender. How much Ron is aware that Harry is taking interesting in his sister is not really known, but it is possible that he is picking up on it. The irony is that Ron goes off and does the same thing Ginny is doing in his own attempt to make Hermione jealous.

In this scene, Ron switches sides. He doesn't go after Ginny as he did before, blaming her for leading Harry on. He assumes that Harry has the power in the scene, though we know that it was Ginny who took the initiative. Why did Ron switch sides and blame Harry for messing with Ginny? Again, it could be that we are able to get a deeper insight into what is going on with Ron. Ron is in love with Hermione, but has not been able to express his love to her. Now he finds Harry, who has made it quite clear he is not going to be pursuing Ginny, doing that very thing. Of course he's going to explode at Harry - some of it may be an expression at his own frustration in not being able to follow through with his own desires for Hermione. The other thing is that Ron may believe in his heart that Harry is not going to survive and that this is a cruel thing to do to Ginny to get her hopes up that they will have a future, when Ron (and not without merit) may believe it is unlikely Harry will survive their ordeal. We get a twist on that later when Ron and Hermione finally do follow through with the desire of their own hearts and Ron makes the humorous comment of basically it's now or never.

5. When Lupin and Tonx arrive at Harry’s birthday party, Harry notices that Tonx looks “radiant” while Lupin looked “unhappy”. Later, as the Minister of Magic arrives, the pair leave quickly, saying “We shouldn’t be here”. Given that Tonx is a Ministry employee, it seems odd that she shouldn’t be around the Minister. What did you think of their behavior and Lupin’s statement?

I had suspected that Tonx might be pregnant because of the way she looked at Remus when she arrived back at the Burrow following Harry's escape from Privet Drive. We have learned through her Aunt Bellatrix that her marriage to Lupin is considered to be disgusting in Wizarding Society (a view not just held by Slytherins). That view is similar to the view held, even to this day by some, of interracial marriages. Such marriages were shunned by society, black and white. For a long time those marriages were even illegal. Often those who would defend the bigoted view would use as their defense "what about the children" and how such children would suffer in society. We learn that even Tonk's parents are not happy about the marriage and of course later on we see that Tonx is targeted by her aunt personally because of what she's done.

What we see here, then, is that the couple have risked everything to marry and while Tonx doesn't seem to care, Remus - who has lived with his condition nearly his whole life - knows exactly what this means and he does love her. He does know what suffering comes not only to his wife, but to their child. Tonk's happiness and Remus' unhappiness are both born from their love for each other, showing itself in different ways.

If the Ministry finds out that Tonx is pregnant it is not clear what the Ministry might do about it - but we can imagine what might happen and so they flee. I had not thought, until I read the other comments here, that Tonx may have been sacked from her job as an Auror. Certainly the Minister of Magic is her former boss since he was the head of the Auror Department. We are seeing evidence of a subplot between Scrimgeour and Tonx - who might be made an example of what happens when one breaks the rules, written and unwritten. If we draw the parallel between Tonx and Remus' marriage and interracial marriages in the past (and in some places still today) we may see why the bigotry goes so deep.

We can also imagine that in the past Scrimgeour and Tonx have had to deal with Greyback in their roles as Aurors and Remus Lupin is an exception as to what the Wizarding World sees as what happens to people when they become a werewolf. Werewolves are a threat to society - and to children in particular - and one could make the case that from Scrimgeour's point of view, Tonx has betrayed the trust placed in her when she became an auror.

Finally, they are both known to be in the Order of the Phoenix and their allegiance lies elsewhere and not with Scrimgeour. He may see this as a threat to his own authority. This is supposed to be happy day for Harry and the last thing Remus and Tonx would want to do is spoil the party. And so they flee.

2007-09-12T22:56:00.000-04:00

Posted at Hogwarts Professor:

I believe J.K. Rowling was married in the Scottish Episcopal Church by the Rev Canon Prof J S Richardson. But if she attends the Church of Scotland, well, that’s quite interesting - the Church of Scotland has no bishops, unlike the Scottish Episcopal Church which does. The Church of Scotland is Presbyterian - John Knox and all that.

She went to a Church of England school when she was young, but I’m not sure it was the happiest of her experiences. The former Archbishop of the Scottish Episcopal Church was pretty radical - much more in line theologically with the American Episcopal Church. In fact, the Scottish Episcopal Church is very much like the American Episcopal Church in theology and politics. It is very progressive. The same cannot be said for the Church of Scotland.

There are also some cultural differences between to the two churches, especially in relation to the Scots (and their relationships with the English, even to this day). These cultural differences are in addition to the theological and political differences between the two denominations.

The Scottish Episcopal Church has been very involved in progressive Scottish national politics - in fact, I think it was one of the sponsoring institutions to bring about the creation of the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Episcopal Church, from the witness of my friends in Scotland, is fairly burned out and no match for the descendants of John Knox. In fact, one of my friends attempted to go to the local Scottish Episcopal Church but she was a little late and the vicar had locked the front door, even though it was Sunday. His view was if you weren’t there on time, you should go somewhere else.

My guess is still the play is on the first name - Pius (said satirically) - and his “false piety” made him blind to the evil around him, even weakened him to be used by those he should be opposing. That certainly is a problem in the Church today.

Questions raised about Rowlings critical view of the RC Church

2007-09-11T20:14:00.000-04:00

Questions are being raised of Rowling's possible criticism of the Roman Catholic Church, and in particular the Pope during the period of the rise of the Nazis in Germany. One of John Granger's posters at HogwartsProfessor raises this question:

During Vold War II the Minister of Magic is Pius Thicknesse. Pius is a rather unusual name. Try this - Pius XII ” Hitler’s Pope.” Kind of fits - His Thickness(e) Pius XII. Anything linking to the number 12? Pius XII rather “thick” in not fully recognizing Hitler’s evil. I’ve followed the thread here on Deathly Hallows regarding Nazi Echoes but have not yet seen anything on this point.

Is Pius Thicknesse a takeoff on Pius XII? I thought not, though I do think that she may be indeed engaging in some serious satire of institutionalism, even in the Church. But I had a different church in mind when I read Deathly Hallows. Here's my response at HogwartsProfessor.com:

The “Deathly Hallows” themselves are reminiscent of bishops vestments and their so-called vestibules of power . The “Invisibility Cloak” is much like the Bishop’s Cope. The Resurrection Stone (and it’s original location in a ring) is like the Bishop’s Ring. And the wand is akin to the crozier, or the staff carried by a bishop.

But a true Christian leader does not find power in those things, and yet so often for the institutional church those “trappings of power” become far more important than what is in the heart. Leaders will seek cover under those “deathly hallows” rather than in the place God looks - the human heart.

Being an Episcopalian/Anglican whose denomination is in a global crisis that appears to be heading for schism - I read between the lines of Rowling's possible criticisms of the institutional church - but I thought of my own, not the Roman Catholic Church as I read. Episcopalians, like Roman Catholics, have many of the same trappings of power where the preservation of the institution trumps the heart of the believer. We have bishops. They may begin with the best of intentions but are often sucked into the vortex of institutional power, especially when their own moral foundations are compromised or lost to the spirit of the age and self-preservation.

But criticism and satire do not necessarily mean hostility to the institution, especially when the criticism comes in the form of satire. In fact, some of the greatest satirists were reformers who sought recovery for the institution, not its demolition.

Institutionalists though, when faced with criticism, often feel threatened by the criticism as though the institution is the same as “the Church.” They seek to protect the institution, finding their identity in it, rather than in Christ. I might venture to say that Rowling may have some criticisms of the institutionalism of the Church (or government), but not in the effort to destroy it (the Ministry of Magic recovers as we learn, it is not destroyed). I found it satirical, but I also found it strangely encouraging. I agreed with her. I just couldn’t believe what I was reading!

I will admit, though, that my thoughts were directed more toward my own “institutional” church and not toward the Roman Catholic Church. Jo Rowling is a Scottish Episcopalian, she too is in the Anglican Communion. I do not know how much she is aware of the crisis in the Communion, but her criticisms of institutionalism (whether it is progressive or traditional) were extraordinary in their timing.

In fact, I am going to the meeting of the Episcopal House of Bishops in New Orleans later this month and I’m taking my copy of Deathly Hallows with me. I expect that I will spend a lot of time out in the hall waiting to hear what the bishops decide to do for the future of the Episcopal Church in the Anglican Communion (and I will be reporting on their deliberations at my blog) but while I wait for word, I intend to spend that time reading Deathly Hallows.

I never expected to find such spot-on criticism/satire that institutionalism does not make one a believer. And in fact, Harry is the Believer - the Seeker - for he recognizes that his power is not found in the institutional trappings of power (The Deathly Hallows), but in pursuing the healing and restoration of the soul.

2007-09-08T20:30:00.000-04:00

From the SugarQuill Boards

17) What was your reaction when you found out that remorse could help put the soul back together? Did you think that it would come up later in the book? Or that maybe Voldemort was capable of showing guilt?

ME: I was frankly - even though I have been advocating that Jo Rowling was writing from a Christian perspective - shocked. Remorse - or as Christians call it, Repentance - is a key ingredient to "salvation." It's not enough that God might want to save people and then take a hike and watch from His Undisclosed Location. No, Christians believe that people play a part in that salvation (well, a problem with that did lead to the Protestant Reformation, but never mind). Repentance and Confession are key ingredients to being saved. That Rowling would extend this tenet (or I might maintain - truth) to Voldemort was simply astonishing. This wasn't just a "vanquish the enemy and triumph" moment. It was an opportunity for transformation for even the worst, which is at the heart of the Gospel (see Paul, who was no friend of Christians and took part in the stoning of Stephen in Acts). We will Harry see extend Grace. Such things do restore the soul, even in real life.

So we have presented to us in Deathly Hallows that the soul is restored through repentance and acts of grace. That just blows my mind.

Flashback

2007-09-07T22:15:00.000-04:00

Wombat 3 was an O.

Outstanding? We still can't quite figure out how we managed that. Here's the story here. More about the WOMBAT 3 is here. Our previous WOMBAT (2) was an E. Weren't sure how we managed that one either, but the last one did us in. We didn't take the first WOMBAT - we believe that came out in March 2006. We don't actually remember March 2006, but trust that it did happen.

2007-09-07T22:12:00.001-04:00

The Night Deathly Hallows was released to the world.

We were live-blogging from the Fairfax (VA) Borders. Read all about it here.

Tip of the TeaCup to Sword of Gryffindor

2007-09-07T20:40:00.000-04:00

We are long-time fans of Sword of Gryffindor - hint, we also go by the name of ZoeRose. In addition to being one of the authors of the book, The Plots Thickens, we also were part of John Granger's original HP6 class at B&U (we still think there's something funny about Draco and werewolves, but nevermind!). We then joined the original boards at HogwartsProfessor (now a traditional blog) as John Granger wrote his latest books, and we continued writing under the name ZoeRose.

SoG has picked up Shell Cottage. One of the best piece of news about this is to discover yet another Bob Dylan fan - Travis Prinzi!! Hooray - a full round of butterbeer for everyone - on the house. Thanks for dropping by! We created Shell Cottage because our mainblog, BabyBlueOnline.org has so many HP fans who hadn't finished the book (some are missionaries overseas and have to wait for the book to be hand delivered) we didn't know how to run stories without being a big time spoil sport. So, rather than run the risk of spoilers, we created Shell Cottage (and made sure to warn folks before they clicked the link). We've been parking essays we like, essays we've written, and other creative things that catch our eye.

So welcome to Shell Cottage! Get yourself a cup of tea and thanks for dropping by!

PS - Friends, do check out the SoG podcast. We never miss it!

2007-09-05T20:28:00.000-04:00

Chapter Six: The Ghoul in Pajamas

1)When you first read this chapter, did you really think that the Trio wouldn’t return for their last year at Hogwarts? Until this point, the book has been following a rather familiar pattern of Harry leaving the Dursley’s to spend the remainder of the summer at the Burrow.

I had thought that they would return when I started the book, but it was clear once I saw the Ghoul and the amount of work that had gone in to getting Ron ready to go, that they really were going to go on a Road Trip.

2)When discussing Voldemort and the Ministry, how are Ron and Harry treated by Bill and Mr. Weasley in this chapter compared to how they were treated in Order of the Phoenix? Do you think Bill and Mr. Weasley really feel that they are ready to discuss matters like adults or do they still want to protect them, like Mrs. Weasley?

I think it's clear the Bill and Mr. Weasley understand that Ron and Harry are of age. Mrs. Weasley is a mother hen who protects her children (as we seem demonstrated big time at the book's finale) and she shows her love for them by trying to convince them not to go. I think they understand that too.

3)Mrs. Weasley has seen Harry and her children encounter many dangers throughout their lives—did she really think that her ploy to keep them separated would work?

No, I don't. I think it's her "love language" - it's how she demonstrated her love to her children (and Harry in her mind and heart is now one of her kids). The kids seem to get that too and while they put up resistance it's clear that there is no bitterness or resentment (just frustration). And in fact, we see demonstrated that Mrs. Weasley does let her children go - if they get past her, then obviously they are ready for the world. I mean, we had Bill in Egypt and Charlie in Romania - and the twins never finished school but opened up their store. There are no "Mama's boys" (or girls even) in this family.

4)Ginny is surprised that Harry really is going to leave school and hunt down Voldemort; Harry lets it slip when the two of them are setting the table for dinner (pg. 89, American version). The idea that Ginny might come along is never discussed and Harry is determined to keep her in the dark regarding his plans. Considering how comfortable Harry and Ginny are together, what does this say about Harry’s relationship with Ginny compared to Harry’s relationship with Ron and Hermione?

First of all, Ginny is not of age, she is not an "adult" in the eyes of the Wizarding World, and so she doesn't have the authority (and Harry doesn't have the right to ask her either - then he'd feel the Wrath of Mrs. Weasley). Harry's relationship with Ginny is much more like a husband will be to his wife - he will want to protect her and that would over shadow anything else he'd do. He's in love with her and and he's still very young and inexperienced on how to handle romantic love. They haven't had a full year either in their relationship and so it hasn't gone through all the seasons to develop either, something Harry has had with Ron and Hermione. The have all literally grown up together.

5) Compare and contrast Ron’s plan with Hermione’s plan. Which one seems better thought out? Which one seems riskier? Why didn’t Hermione use a Fidelius Charm, like Harry’s parents used rather than risk not being able to reverse the Memory Charm? What would you have done if you were Ron or Hermione?

I think both plans seem thought-out in their own way, each with major risks. Ron has to figure out how to protect his family and the best way to do that is for Ron to appear to still be at home with a horrible disease. It's an excellent plan, as long as he is never identified anywhere else. Hermione is convinced that her parents will just blend in with everyone else in Australia and it's far enough away that no one will actually go looking for them. If something happens to her, her parents can still live a happy life. It's an extraordinary plan too - and took a great deal of humility on her part that she would be willing to have her parents not even know she exists. But that is also tragic in that they don't even know to think about her - and so outside the Weasleys and Harry, no one really else cares about Hermione. No wonder she took it so hard when Ron left. Both plans were creative and thoughtful. I think I would have asked for advice from Tonx.

6) This is the second time we’ve seen Hermione meddle with a person’s mind—the first being Cormac McLaggin, the second being her parents. Is what Hermione is doing unethical? Do you think she finds any part of Memory Modifying ethically sticky—or can she justify it? In what other instances have we seen a rather ruthless Hermione and were her actions justifiable or not? What do you feel about Memory Modification? Is it ever really a positive thing?

I think she thinks its extraordinarily humane - she really is thinking not of herself (except that she doesn't want her parents killed) but what would be best for her parents. I am sure her parents would think very differently - she did the thinking for them. An who wouldn't want to live in Australia for a while?

7) Just for fun—do you think Mr. Weasley ever got Sirius’s bike up and running? Do you think he ever took Mrs. Weasley for a moonlit ride on it?

Yes, yes! Of course he did! I am sure he did. My guess is that instead of taking Mrs. Weasley out, he may have loaned it to George for a while. That's what I would have done. And I can bet that George would have "improved" it before turning it over to Harry.

8) Several times in the past, Harry has tried to talk his friends out of coming with him on his adventures. Why is Harry so unable to accept help from people?

For his entire life he has had to be self-sufficient to survive. There is core to him that still believes all the things the Dursley's said to him when he was a child. He does not want to trouble others, he doesn't not want to be a bother, he feels that it's his responsibility to handle it. And he does have survivors guilt. His mother paid the ultimate price to save his life - that's a lot to live down. And I think it also - which of course, Voldemort figured out - gave him a sense of accomplishment when he could save others as he was saved. It was like making his mother's sacrifice worth it.

9)When you heard about the method used to destroy a Horcrux, what was your first thought? Did you think at some point the Trio would venture back to the Chamber of Secrets to see if there were any leftover basilisk fangs hanging around? What did you think were some of the other magical methods of destroying Horcruxes?

I did not think of the Chamber of Secrets because I assumed the snake was long gone and nothing was left. I could not figure out how they would destroy the horcruxes. That was one of the surprises of the book for me.

10) Many Death Eaters torture and kill just for fun and murder is part of the process of creating a Horcrux; are you surprised that none of them have at least one spare Horcrux around? Many of them come from old pureblood families that could potentially have access to this type of magic—are you surprised that Bellatrix or Lucius does not have a Horcrux “life insurance” policy? What does this tell you about Voldemort compared to his followers?

He did not value his soul as a whole. He was totally abandoned and unloved - he never knew love. Even the Death Eaters had known some love, even Bella. What bit of love they knew must have kept them from even considering such a vile act. But of course, this is also why the Death Eaters were so fascinated by Voldemort. He really was evil. He didn't just do evil things, there was something more corrupt about him, that evil possessed him. Even the Death Eaters seemed to have choices, though they most often made the wrong ones - sometimes, like Lucius and Narcissa and Draco Malfoy - their capacity to still love caused them to choose differently, even in spite of themselves.

11) Admit it—you gave a little (word that Cap'n Kathy hates) of joy when you saw Hermione pull out Hogwarts, A History! Did you think it would help play a role in the plot at all?

No, I didn't. But how could she leave home without it?

2007-09-04T18:30:00.000-04:00

The following was posted over at the Cafe:

Some of you who are regulars here at the Cafe have told me that you have finished Deathly Hallows. Especially you, ElfGirl - who had to have her copy hand delivered to her Undisclosed Location!

Still, we know there are a few out there who haven't finished and we so we continue to post over at Shell Cottage and keep the Cafe as spoiler-free as possible. I've joined an online study of the book and will be publishing some of my answers to the weekly questions asked at the study over at Shell Cottage. I've posted some other things of interest I've found - the artists in particular have been busy expressing their own commentary through art. In fact, there are lots of ways people share their thoughts and ideas about the Harry Potter series. I prefer the creative essays, but some write fiction and some make videos and some draw some of the most amazing art. My favorite places to read commentary are at SugarQuill where they are going through the book chapter by chapter, Leaky Cauldron's "Leaky Lounge" where they are also discussing the book, and New Clues, where you must stick to the canon (which is the books written by J.K. Rowling), Sword of Gryffindor, HP Progs, and of course John Granger's great blog at Hogwarts Professor.

The Leaky Cauldron, MuggleNet, Sword of Gryffindor, and HP Progs and I recommend them. They are all available at also have great podcastsiTunes. One of the best things about the Leaky Caludron's "Pottercast" (beside the trio-hosts there) is guest Steve Vander Ark, the Master of the HP Lexicon who joins the podcast for the weekly feature "Canon Conundrums." Those of us who have been fans of Star Trek will recognize Steve's name, but Steve also hosts one of the most extraordinary places anywhere to go to learn about the Harry Potter universe, the Lexicon. Even J.K. Rowling goes there when she has to remember something. But please remember, it's also "spoiler-central" so be careful before you go.

2007-09-04T18:19:00.000-04:00

Here's another posting I did over at Leaky. This is on the Epilogue:

I've been thinking about that last line in the Epilogue, "All is well," which seems - on first glance - to be so simplistic, a nice, neat, wrap-up. Nothing flourishing, no Great Gatsby-ish ending. Just three words: All is well.

Now some have written about Julian of Norwich and her attributed writings on All is well. But what's come to my mind has been the hymn, It is Well, since it is about all being well in the midst of great suffering. Written by a man who lost his children at sea, he returns to the place where they were lost and writes:

When peace like a river, attendeth my way,
When sorrows like sea billows roll;
Whatever my lot, Thou hast taught me to say,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.

It is well, with my soul,
It is well, with my soul,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.

Though Satan should buffet, though trials should come,
Let this blest assurance control,
That Christ has regarded my helpless estate,
And hath shed His own blood for my soul.

My sin, oh, the bliss of this glorious thought!
My sin, not in part but the whole,
Is nailed to the cross, and I bear it no more,
Praise the Lord, praise the Lord, O my soul!

It is well, with my soul,
It is well, with my soul,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.

And Lord, haste the day when my faith shall be sight,
The clouds be rolled back as a scroll;
The trump shall resound, and the Lord shall descend,
Even so, it is well with my soul.

It is well, with my soul,
It is well, with my soul,
It is well, it is well, with my soul.

-Horatio Spafford 1873

Since so much of Deathly Hallows, and the Harry Potter series is about the state of Harry's soul, Horcuxed infested though it once was, it is now well, it is now whole. He has had his battles of the soul, the dark nights of the soul, and now all is well. The faith written in these lines were written where there had been much suffering, and certainly Harry has known that suffering as well. But the hope he had going through his suffering, covered by the blood as he was as well, has brought him to this place of joy. All is well.

2007-09-04T18:09:00.001-04:00

I've joined a book club at SugarQuill that's studying Deathly Hallows. I've come in at Chapter Five. I'll post future answers here as well. Here are my answers to the questions asked for Chapter Five:

1) The chapter is full of teases about character deaths before the final reveal of Mad-Eye's death. When everyone is waiting at the Burrow for the others to arrive, did you think anyone had not survived? If so, who do you think died?

I worried most for those I had thought would die in this novel. I worried about all the Weasleys so breathed a sigh of relief when they all showed up. I worried about Ron through the entire book. in particular. So that was a constant tension. I worried about Tonx, too - and felt relieved when she arrived, actually crossed her off my target list (oh well). I did not expect that Moody would die so early, though. He did go out in a blaze of glory, though - and now what had seemed to be his paranoia in Order of the Phoenix when he and the other members of Harry's Guard came for Harry at Privet Drive turned out to be accurate after all.

2) Ted and Andromeda try to reassure themselves that Tonx is OK. How did you feel about their reaction, and what is shows about being a parent to an auror? Are they too confident in Tonx' abilities?

As anyone who has family in the armed forces or is a police officer or fire fighter, this is how one has to cope. Each time the family member goes out to sea, or goes to work, or answers the phone - there is always the opportunity that they may not come back. What family members rely on, beside prayer, is knowing that their loved ones are trained well in what they do and that they love what they do. For Tonx's parents, they know that she is well-trained and she loves what she does.

3) Lupin argues that Harry should have killed Stan or stunned him off the broom, but Harry insists it would be wrong to kill someone who was under Imperius. Who do you think is right? What should Harry have done to fend off Stan, now that we know the Disarming Spell alerted Voldemort to his presence? What about the morality of killing the other Death Eaters by stunning them off the brooms? If it's wrong to kill Stan, why is it OK to kill the other Death Eaters, if there are spells to fend them off?

Lupin is right - it was naive of Harry to think that his "childhood" spells should do the trick. But at the same time, war is not just knowing what weapons to use, but how to use them. Harry is engaging (unintentionally though it may be) in psychological warfare - he continually does not do what is expected and that "disarms" his opponents. Harry also shows that he is guided by moral principles in his decision-making processes, rather than his own self-preservation. Lupin is playing the parent-role here, desiring Harry to survive and so to employ tactics that will ensure his survival ("kill before being killed"). But Harry continues to be guided by his heart - and that wins him allies in some of the most unforeseen places as the story unfolds. It is one of Harry's strengths, though it is also obvious that since this is his strength, he will need the help of his friends to succeed since his own self-preservation is not high on his list.

4) It's implied that Ron has killed indirectly, as he stunned Death Eaters off their brooms. Were you surprised that any one of the trio would end up killing in this book? Were you OK with Ron's casualness in dealing with his first kill?

This is an excellent question. I do remember pausing a moment when I read this and thinking, oh my goodness, that Death Eater probably died. We don't really know what Ron must have thought about that - we can only observe what Harry observes about it and Harry doesn't pay that much attention to it, as I recall. The point was not so much over the possible killing of a Death Eater as much as it was defense against someone who wanted to kill all of them. Ron was acting defensively, but it showed that this was the real deal and Ron was facing what aurors face. But yes, I was surprised by the little introspection over the death of even a Death Eater. The circumstances though may have overwhelmed what would happen in a normal situation - and of course, this is not a normal night at the Burrow.

5) As George makes his ear pun, Fred remarks, "Pathetic. With the whole wide world of ear-related humor before you, you go for holey?" For fun, come up with a good ear-related joke you'd have used in that situation.

Eh?

6) Why is Lupin so tense and ear-ritable in this chapter? He is normally the one to restrain himself and control his emotions, even during similarly intense moments (like the DOM battle).

He all ready knows that Tonx is pregnant.

7) What was your reaction to the news of Mad Eye Moody's death? Were you more sad or just shell-shocked?

I was very surprised - he was one guy who could take care of himself and he was one person who understood the danger present. He had sometimes seemed paranoid in the past and it turned out he was right. I knew he'd had a long life and had gone out in a blaze of glory, but I was shocked it happened so soon and so fast.

8) Harry and Lupin argue over whether or not Harry is too trusting. Who do you think is right? Is Harry being too naive to assume no one sold the Order out? Should someone have investigated the matter more fully?

Organizations can become dangerously unhealthy when they start turning inward to root out who is loyal and who is not. Lupin has been betrayed before and so is very sensitive to that happening again, but Harry knows that they can't take valuable time figuring out who might have betrayed them. He is also protecting Hagrid who he knows could have said something without thinking and that is probably consuming his thoughts as well. But Harry isn't going to spend time thinking who may be out to get him. He knows he can trust Ron and Hermione and he knows what his mission is.

9) Why do you think Harry is so trusting of everyone in the Order? After numerous betrayals over the years by people he thought were friends/allies (Quirrell, Tom Riddle, fake Moody, Snape), you would think he'd be just a tiny bit more cynical, wouldn't he?

I think most of his rage is pointed at Snape as being the one who betrayed them all. Later he would doubt Dumbledore's integrity, but in many ways Harry is his mother's son, he looks for the best in everyone, except Snape (with reason) and Snape is the focus of all his feelings about betrayal.

10) Did you think anyone had betrayed the Order? If so, who did you think was the traitor? If not, how do you suppose the Death Eaters found out the correct date?

Yes I was very concerned that there was a snitch in their midst. Throughout the book I kept going over in my mind who it might be. I had found it hard to believe that Mundungas could have cooked up the plan himself and wondered about him, but then we never saw him again and so I forgot about him. I kept expecting another person from the Order or Percy to show up at the Mafoy's but it never happened.

11) Did you think Harry had performed the magic against Voldemort, or did you think the wand itself had fended off Voldemort?

I did think his wand was doing it, but I couldn't fathom why. I thought perhaps another wizard was controlling it, rather than Harry (like Snape, for example, if he was good).

12) What was your reaction to finding out about Ollivander. Surprised, or were you expecting it?

I had thought that Ollivander was taken by the Death Eaters because they needed him in regards to Voldemort's wand. I did not expect him to be still alive or that he would show up in his book. That was a surprise.

13) Harry has his first vision into Voldemort's mind since his visions in OotP. Yet, Dumbledore had told Harry in HBP that Voldemort was using occlumency against Harry, and Harry would no longer need to practice Occlumency himself. How did you react to the discovery that Harry still could connect to Voldemort's mind, after the complete absense of this in HBP? In light of this, do you think Dumbledore should have have trained Harry to learn occlumency in HBP? Is Hermione right to tell Harry to let Voldemort out of his mind?

I had thought that Harry's scar was like a "Scar Cam" and that Dumbledore was performing in front of the "scar cam" for Voldemort's benefit, showing not only Harry scenes from Voldemort's past, but Voldemort himself. I thought it was a bit of "psychological" warfare and that you could read Half Blood Prince as a play set up for Voldemort, and not just an education exhibition for Harry. I had thought that Voldemort was present throughout Half Blood Prince but hidden behind Harry's scar. So I thought that it was Voldemort who did not want Harry to know that he was watching rather than closing the "scar cam" down. Voldemort though must not have been doing this because then he would have been tipped off about the Horcrux Hunt and done more to secure his horcruxes. As it was, Voldemort was becoming obsessed about the wand issue. It appears that Voldemort was still not aware throughout Deathly Hallows that Harry was infiltrating his mind - again, a serious mistake for Voldemort.

2007-09-04T18:03:00.000-04:00

The Prince's Tale. The art work is just amazing. "Look ... at ... me."

2007-09-04T17:58:00.001-04:00

The Prince's Tale.

2007-09-03T11:20:00.001-04:00

2007-08-23T21:31:00.000-04:00

Looks like they are headed by to Lacock Abbey in October to shoot night scenes of the next film in the Harry Potter series, The Half Blood Prince (and we know who that is!). What is Lacock Abbey? Here's what Wiki has to say:

Lacock Abbey in the village of Lacock, Wiltshire, England, was founded in the early 13th century by Ela, Countess of Salisbury, as a nunnery of the Augustinian order.
Lacock Abbey was founded by Lady Ela the Countess of Salisbury in the reign of King Henry III. Her husband was William Longespee, an illegitimate son of King Henry II. Generally, Lacock Abbey prospered throughout the Middle Ages. The rich farmlands which it had received from Ela ensured it a sizeable income from wool.
Following the Dissolution of the Monasteries in the mid-16th century, Henry VIII of England sold it to Sir William Sharrington, who converted it into a house starting in 1539, demolishing the abbey church. Few other alterations were made to the monastic buildings themselves: the cloisters, for example, still stand...

Here's what the Leaky Cauldron has to say:

Due to take place sometime in October, HBP crews will film for four days and film scenes between 5pm and 5am. The paper reports that “High Street and Church Street will be closed and the bus stop outside the George Inn looks set to be relocated for the duration.” Readers will remember that the Cloisters of this Abbey were used in “Chamber of Secrets,” famously for the "Dobby is Free" scene.

Ah yes, "Dobby is free."

2007-08-21T11:47:00.001-04:00

And all shall be well and
All manner of thing shall be well
When the tongues of flame are in-folded
Into the crowned knot of fire
And the fire and the rose are one.

TS Eliot, Four Quartets

2007-08-17T20:00:00.001-04:00

2007-08-13T19:28:00.001-04:00

NOTE: Christopher Hitchens writes a review of Deathly Hallows for the New York Times. We know something is amiss when he recommends Philip Pullman over J.K. Rowling.

August 12, 2007

The Boy Who Lived

By CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS

HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS

By J. K. Rowling. Illustrated by Mary GrandPré.

759 pp. Arthur A. Levine Books/Scholastic. $34.99.

In March 1940, in the “midnight of the century” that marked the depth of the Hitler-Stalin pact (or in other words, at a time when civilization was menaced by an alliance between two Voldemorts or “You-Know-Whos”), George Orwell took the time to examine the state of affairs in fantasy fiction for young people. And what he found (in an essay called “Boys’ Weeklies”) was an extraordinary level of addiction to the form of story that was set in English boarding schools. Every week, boys (and girls) from the poorer quarters of industrial towns and from the outer edges of the English-speaking Empire would invest some part of their pocket-money to keep up with the adventures of Billy Bunter, Harry Wharton, Bob Cherry, Jack Blake and the other blazer-wearing denizens of Greyfriars and St. Jim’s. As he wrote:

“It is quite clear that there are tens and scores of thousands of people to whom every detail of life at a ‘posh’ public school is wildly thrilling and romantic. They happen to be outside that mystic world of quadrangles and house-colors, but they can yearn after it, daydream about it, live mentally in it for hours at a stretch. The question is, Who are these people?”

I wish that the morose veteran of Eton and St. Cyprian’s had been able to join me on the publication night of “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows,” when I went to a bookstore in Stanford, Calif., to collect my embargoed copy on behalf of the Book Review. Never mind the stall that said “Get Your House Colors Here” and was dealing with customers wise in the lore of Ravenclaw and Slytherin. On the floor of the shop, largely transformed into the Gryffindor common room for the occasion, sat dozens of small children listening raptly to a reading from a massively plausible Hagrid. Of the 2,000 or so people in the forecourt, perhaps one-third had taken the trouble to wear prefect gowns and other Hogwarts or quidditch impedimenta. Many wore a lightning-flash on their foreheads: Orwell would have recoiled at seeing the symbol of Sir Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists on otherwise unblemished brows, even if the emblem was tamed by its new white-magic associations. And this was a sideshow to the circus, all across the English-speaking and even non-English world, as the countdown to the witching hour began.

I would give a lot to understand this phenomenon better. Part of it must have to do with the extreme banality and conformity of school life as it is experienced today, with everything oriented toward safety on the one hand and correctness on the other. But this on its own would not explain my youngest daughter a few years ago, sitting for hours on end with her tiny elbow flattening the pages of a fat book, and occasionally laughing out loud at the appearance of Scabbers the rat. (One hears that not all children retain the affection for reading that the Harry Potter books have inculcated: this isn’t true in my house at least.)

Scabbers turns out to mutate into something a bit worse than a rat, and the ancient charm of metamorphosis is one that J. K. Rowling has exploited to the uttermost. Another well-tested appeal, that of the orphan hero, has also been given an intensive workout with the Copperfield-like privations of the eponymous hero. For Orwell, the English school story from Tom Brown to Kipling’s Stalky and Co. was intimately bound up with dreams of wealth and class and snobbery, yet Rowling has succeeded in unmooring it from these considerations and giving us a world of youthful democracy and diversity, in which the humble leading figure has a name that — though it was given to a Shakespearean martial hero and king — could as well belong to an English labor union official. Perhaps Anglophilia continues to play its part, but if I were one of the few surviving teachers of Anglo-Saxon I would rejoice at the way in which such terms as muggle and Wizengamot, and such names as Godric, Wulfric and Dumbledore, had become common currency. At this rate, the teaching of “Beowulf” could be revived. The many Latin incantations and imprecations could also help rekindle interest in the study of a “dead” language.

In other respects, too, one recognizes the school story formula. If a French or German or other “foreign” character appears in the Harry Potter novels, it is always as a cliché: Fleur and Krum both speak as if to be from “the Continent” is a joke in itself. The ban on sexual matters is also observed fairly pedantically, though as time has elapsed Rowling has probably acquired male readers who find themselves having vaguely impure thoughts about Hermione Granger (if not, because the thing seems somehow impossible, about Ginny Weasley). Most interesting of all, perhaps, and as noted by Orwell, “religion is also taboo.” The schoolchildren appear to know nothing of Christianity; in this latest novel Harry and even Hermione are ignorant of two well-known biblical verses encountered in a churchyard. That the main characters nonetheless have a strong moral code and a solid ethical commitment will be a mystery to some — like his holiness the pope and other clerical authorities who have denounced the series — while seeming unexceptionable to many others. As Hermione phrases it, sounding convincingly Kantian or even Russellian about something called the Resurrection Stone:

“How can I possibly prove it doesn’t exist? Do you expect me to get hold of — of all the pebbles in the world and test them? I mean, you could claim that anything’s real if the only basis for believing in it is that nobody’s proved it doesn’t exist.”

For all this apparently staunch secularism, it is ontology that ultimately slackens the tension that ought to have kept these tales vivid and alive. Theologians have never been able to answer the challenge that contrasts God’s claims to simultaneous omnipotence and benevolence: whence then cometh evil? The question is the same if inverted in a Manichean form: how can Voldemort and his wicked forces have such power and yet be unable to destroy a mild-mannered and rather disorganized schoolboy? In a short story this discrepancy might be handled and also swiftly resolved in favor of one outcome or another, but over the course of seven full-length books the mystery, at least for this reader, loses its ability to compel, and in this culminating episode the enterprise actually becomes tedious. Is there really no Death Eater or dementor who is able to grasp the simple advantage of surprise?

The repeated tactic of deus ex machina (without a deus) has a deplorable effect on both the plot and the dialogue. The need for Rowling to play catch-up with her many convolutions infects her characters as well. Here is Harry trying to straighten things out with a servile house-elf:

“ ‘I don’t understand you, Kreacher,’ he said finally. ‘Voldemort tried to kill you, Regulus died to bring Voldemort down, but you were still happy to betray Sirius to Voldemort? You were happy to go to Narcissa and Bellatrix, and pass information to Voldemort through them ...’ ”

Yes, well, one sees why he is confused. The exchange takes place during an abysmally long period during which the threesome of Harry, Hermione and Ron are flung together, with weeks of time to spend camping invisibly and only a few inexplicable escapes from death to alleviate the narrative. The grand context of Hogwarts School is removed, at least until the closing scenes, and Rowling also keeps forgetting that things are either magical or they are not: Hermione’s family surely can’t be any safer from the Dark Lord by moving to Australia, and Hagrid’s corporeal bulk cannot make any difference to his ability, or otherwise, to mount a broomstick. A boring subtext, about the wisdom or otherwise of actually uttering Voldemort’s name, meanwhile robs the apotropaic device of its force.

For some time now the novels have been attempting a kind of secular dramatization of the battle between good and evil. The Ministry of Magic (one of Rowling’s better inventions) has been seeking to impose a version of the Nuremberg Laws on England, classifying its subjects according to blood and maintaining its own Gestapo as well as its own Azkaban gulag. But again, over time and over many, many pages this scenario fails to chill: most of the “muggle” population goes about its ordinary existence, and every time the secret police close in, our heroes are able to “disapparate” — a term that always makes me think of an attempt at English by George W. Bush. The prejudice against bank-monopoly goblins is modeled more or less on anti-Semitism and the foul treatment of elves is meant to put us in mind of slavery, but the overall effect of this is somewhat thin and derivative, and subject to diminishing returns.

In this final volume there is a good deal of loose-end gathering to be done. Which side was Snape really on? Can Neville Longbottom rise above himself? Are the Malfoys as black as they have been painted? Unfortunately — and with the solid exception of Neville, whose gallantry is well evoked — these resolutions prove to possess all the excitement of an old-style Perry Mason-type summing-up, prompted by a stock character who says, “There’s just one thing I don’t understand. ...” Most of all this is true of Voldemort himself, who becomes more tiresome than an Ian Fleming villain, or the vicious but verbose Nicolae Carpathia in the Left Behind series, as he offers boastful explanations that are at once grandiose and vacuous. This bad and pedantic habit persists until the final duel, which at least sees us back in the old school precincts once again. “We must not let in daylight upon magic,” as Walter Bagehot remarked in another connection, and the wish to have everything clarified is eventually self-defeating in its own terms. In her correct determination to bring down the curtain decisively, Rowling has gone further than she should, and given us not so much a happy ending as an ending which suggests that evil has actually been defeated (you should forgive the expression) for good.

Greater authors — Arthur Conan Doyle most notably — have been in the same dilemma when seeking closure. And, like Conan Doyle, Rowling has won imperishable renown for giving us an identifiable hero and a fine caricature of a villain, and for making a fictional bit of King’s Cross station as luminous as a certain address on nearby Baker Street. It is given to few authors to create a world apart, and to populate it as well as illustrate it in the mind. As one who actually did once go to boarding school by steam train, at 8, I enjoyed reading aloud to children and coming across Diagon Alley and Grimmauld Place, and also shuddering at the memory of the sarcastic schoolmasters (and Privet Drives) I have known.

The distinctly slushy close of the story may seem to hold out the faint promise of a sequel, but I honestly think and sincerely hope that this will not occur. The toys have been put firmly back in the box, the wand has been folded up, and the conjuror is discreetly accepting payment while the children clamor for fresh entertainments. (I recommend that they graduate to Philip Pullman, whose daemon scheme is finer than any patronus.) It’s achievement enough that “19 years later,” as the last chapter-heading has it, and quite probably for many decades after that, there will still be millions of adults who recall their initiation to literature as a little touch of Harry in the night.

Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His most recent book is “God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.”

2007-08-10T10:42:00.000-04:00

Review by the author Stephen King from Entertainment Weekly.

And so now the hurly-burly's done, the battle's lost and won — the Battle of Hogwarts, that is — and all the secrets are out of the Sorting Hat. Those who bet Harry Potter would die lost their money; the boy who lived turned out to be exactly that. And if you think that's a spoiler at this late date, you were never much of a Potter fan to begin with. The outrage over the early reviews (Mary Carole McCauley of The Baltimore Sun, Michiko Kakutani of The New York Times) has faded...although the sour taste lingers for many fans.

It lingers for me, too, although it doesn't have anything to do with the ultimately silly concept of ''spoilers,'' or the ethics of jumping the book's pub date. The prepublication vow of omertà was, after all, always a thing concocted by publishers Bloomsbury and Scholastic, and not — so far as I know — a part of either the British Magna Carta or the U.S. Constitution. Nor does Jo Rowling's impassioned protest (''I am staggered that some American newspapers have decided to publish...reviews in complete disregard of the wishes of literally millions of readers, particularly children...'') cut much ice with me. These books ceased to be specifically for children halfway through the series; by Goblet of Fire, Rowling was writing for everyone, and knew it.

The clearest sign of how adult the books had become by the conclusion arrives — and splendidly — in Deathly Hallows, when Mrs. Weasley sees the odious Bellatrix Lestrange trying to finish off Ginny with a Killing Curse. ''NOT MY DAUGHTER, YOU BITCH!'' she cries. It's the most shocking bitch in recent fiction; since there's virtually no cursing (of the linguistic kind, anyway) in the Potter books, this one hits home with almost fatal force. It is totally correct in its context — perfect, really — but it is also a quintessentially adult response to a child's peril.

The problem with the advance reviews — and those that followed in the first post-publication days — is one that has dogged Rowling's magnum opus ever since book 4 (Goblet of Fire), after the series had become a worldwide phenomenon. Due to the Kremlin-like secrecy surrounding the books, all reviews since 2000 or so have been strictly shoot-from-the-lip. The reviewers themselves were often great — Ms. Kakutani ain't exactly chopped liver — but the very popularity of the books has often undone even the best intentions of the best critical writers. In their hurry to churn out column inches, and thus remain members of good standing in the Church of What's Happening Now, very few of the Potter reviewers have said anything worth remembering. Most of this microwaved critical mush sees Harry — not to mention his friends and his adventures — in only two ways: sociologically (''Harry Potter: Boon or Childhood Disease?'') or economically (''Harry Potter and the Chamber of Discount Pricing''). They take a perfunctory wave at things like plot and language, but do little more...and really, how can they? When you have only four days to read a 750-page book, then write an 1,100-word review on it, how much time do you have to really enjoy the book? To think about the book? Jo Rowling set out a sumptuous seven-course meal, carefully prepared, beautifully cooked, and lovingly served out. The kids and adults who fell in love with the series (I among them) savored every mouthful, from the appetizer (Sorcerer's Stone) to the dessert (the gorgeous epilogue of Deathly Hallows). Most reviewers, on the other hand, bolted everything down, then obligingly puked it back up half-digested on the book pages of their respective newspapers.

And because of that, very few mainstream writers, from Salon to The New York Times, have really stopped to consider what Ms. Rowling has wrought, where it came from, or what it may mean for the future. The blogs, by and large, haven't been much better. They seem to care about who lives, who dies, and who's tattling. Beyond that, it's all pretty much duh.

So what did happen? Where did this Ministry of Magic come from?

Well, there were straws in the wind. While the academics and bighead education critics were moaning that reading was dead and kids cared about nothing but their Xboxes, iPods, Avril Lavigne, and High School Musical, the kids they were worried about were quietly turning on to the novels of one Robert Lawrence Stine. Known in college as ''Jovial Bob'' Stine, this fellow gained another nickname later in life, as — ahem — ''the Stephen King of children's literature.'' He wrote his first teen horror novel (Blind Date) in 1986, years before the advent of Pottermania...but soon you couldn't glance at a USA Today best-seller list without seeing three or four of his paperbacks bobbing around in the top 50.

These books drew almost no critical attention — to the best of my knowledge, Michiko Kakutani never reviewed Who Killed the Homecoming Queen? — but the kids gave them plenty of attention, and R.L. Stine rode a wave of kid popularity, partly fueled by the fledgling Internet, to become perhaps the best-selling children's author of the 20th century. Like Rowling, he was a Scholastic author, and I have no doubt that Stine's success was one of the reasons Scholastic took a chance on a young and unknown British writer in the first place. He's largely unknown and uncredited...but of course John the Baptist never got the same press as Jesus either.

Rowling has been far more successful, critically as well as financially, because the Potter books grew as they went along. That, I think, is their great secret (and not so secret at that; to understand the point visually, buy a ticket to Order of the Phoenix and check out former cutie Ron Weasley towering over Harry and Hermione). R.L. Stine's kids are kids forever, and the kids who enjoyed their adventures grew out of them, as inevitably as they outgrew their childhood Nikes. Jo Rowling's kids grew up...and the audience grew up with them.

This wouldn't have mattered so much if she'd been a lousy writer, but she wasn't — she was and is an incredibly gifted novelist. While some of the blogs and the mainstream media have mentioned that Rowling's ambition kept pace with the skyrocketing popularity of her books, they have largely overlooked the fact that her talent also grew. Talent is never static, it's always growing or dying, and the short form on Rowling is this: She was far better than R.L. Stine (an adequate but flavorless writer) when she started, but by the time she penned the final line of Deathly Hallows (''All was well.''), she had become one of the finer stylists in her native country — not as good as Ian McEwan or Ruth Rendell (at least not yet), but easily the peer of Beryl Bainbridge or Martin Amis.

And, of course, there was the magic. It's what kids want more than anything; it's what they crave. That goes back to the Brothers Grimm, Hans Christian Andersen, and good old Alice, chasing after that wascally wabbit. Kids are always looking for the Ministry of Magic, and they usually find it.

One day in my hometown of Bangor, I was walking up the street and observed a dirty-faced boy of about 3 with scabbed knees and a look of extreme concentration on his face. He was sitting on the dirt strip between the sidewalk and the asphalt. He had a stick in his hand and kept jabbing it into the dirt. ''Get down there!'' he cried. ''Get down there, dammit! You can't come out until I say the Special Word! You can't come out until I say so!''

Several people passed by the kid without paying much attention (if any). I slowed, however, and watched as long as I could — probably because I have spent so much time telling the things inhabiting my own imagination to get back down and not come out until I say so. I was charmed by the kid's effortless make-believe (always assuming it was make-believe, heh-heh-heh). And a couple of things occurred to me. One was that if he had been an adult, the cops would have taken him away either to the drunk tank or to our local Dreamboat Manor for a psychiatric exam. Another was that kids exhibiting paranoid-schizophrenic tendencies are simply accepted in most societies. We all understand that kids are crazy until they hit 8 or so, and we cut their groovy, anything-goes minds some slack.

This happened around 1982, while I was getting ready to write a long story about children and monsters (It), and it influenced my thinking on that novel a great deal. Even now, years later, I think of that kid — a little Minister of Magic using a dead twig for a wand — with affection, and hope he didn't consider himself too old for Harry Potter when those books started appearing. He might have; sad to think so, but one thing J.R.R. Tolkien acknowledges that Rowling doesn't is that sometimes — often, really — the magic goes away.

It was children whom Ms. Rowling — like her Fear Street precursor, but with considerably more skill — captivated first, demonstrating with the irrefutable logic of something like 10 bazillion books sold that kids are still perfectly willing to put aside their iPods and Game Boys and pick up a book...if the magic is there. That reading itself is magical is a thing I never doubted. I'd give a lot to know how many teenagers (and preteens) texted this message in the days following the last book's release: DON'T CALL ME TODAY I'M READING.

The same thing probably happened with R.L. Stine's Goosebumps books, but unlike Stine, Rowling brought adults into the reading circle, making it much larger. This is hardly a unique phenomenon, although it seems to be one associated mainly with British authors (there was Huckleberry Finn, of course, a sequel to its YA little brother Tom Sawyer). Alice in Wonderland began as a story told to 10-year-old Alice Liddell by Charles Dodgson (a.k.a. Lewis Carroll); it is now taught in college lit courses. And Watership Down, Richard Adams' version of The Odyssey (featuring rabbits instead of humans), began as a story told to amuse the author's preteen daughters, Juliet and Rosamond, on a long car drive. As a book, though, it was marketed as an ''adult fantasy'' and became an international best-seller.

Maybe it's the British prose. It's hard to resist the hypnotism of those calm and sensible voices, especially when they turn to make-believe. Rowling was always part of that straightforward storytelling tradition (Peter Pan, originally a play by the Scot J.M. Barrie, is another case in point). She never loses sight of her main theme — the power of love to turn bewildered, often frightened, children into decent and responsible adults — but her writing is all about story. She's lucid rather than luminous, but that's okay; when she does express strong feelings, she remains their mistress without denying their truth or power. The sweetest example in Deathly Hallows comes early, with Harry remembering his childhood years in the Dursley house. ''It gave him an odd, empty feeling to remember those times,'' Rowling writes. ''[I]t was like remembering a younger brother whom he had lost.'' Honest; nostalgic; not sloppy. It's a small example of the style that enabled Jo Rowling to bridge the generation gap without breaking a sweat or losing the cheerful dignity that is one of the series' great charms.

Her characters are lively and well-drawn, her pace is impeccable, and although there are occasional continuity drops, the story as a whole hangs together almost perfectly over its 4,000-plus page length.

And she's in full possession of that famously dry British wit, as when Ron, trying to tune in an outlaw news broadcast on his wizard radio, catches a snatch of a pop song called ''A Cauldron Full of Hot Strong Love.'' Must have been some witchy version of Donna Summer doing that one. There's also her wry send-up of the British tabloids — about which I'm sure she knows plenty — in the person of Rita Skeeter, perhaps the best name to be hung on a fictional character since those of Jonathan Swift. When Elphias Doge, the perfect magical English gentleman, calls Rita ''an interfering trout,'' I felt like standing up and giving a cheer. Take that, Page Six! There's a lot of meat on the bones of these books — good writing, honest feeling, a sweet but uncompromising view of human nature...and hard reality: NOT MY DAUGHTER, YOU BITCH! The fact that Harry attracted adults as well as children has never surprised me.

Are the books perfect? Indeed not. Some sections are too long. In Deathly Hallows, for instance, there's an awful lot of wandering around and camping in that tent; it starts to feel like Ms. Rowling running out the clock on the school year to fit the format of the previous six books.

And sometimes she falls prey to the Robinson Crusoe syndrome. In Crusoe, whenever the marooned hero requires something, he ventures out to his ship — which has conveniently run aground on the reef surrounding his desert island — and takes what he needs from stores (in one of the most amusing continuity flubs in the history of English literature, Robinson once swims out naked...then fills his pockets). In much the same manner, whenever Harry and his friends get into a tight corner, they produce some new spell — fire, water to douse the fire, stairs that conveniently turn into a slide — and squiggle free. I accepted most of these, partly because there's enough child in me to react gleefully rather than doubtfully (in a way, the Potter books are The Joy of Magic rather than The Joy of Cooking) but also because I understand that magic is its own thing, and probably boundless. Still, by the time the Battle of Hogwarts was reaching its climax of clumping giants, cheering portraits, and flying wizards, I almost longed for someone to pull out a good old MAC-10 and start blasting away like Rambo.

If all those creative spells — produced at the right moment like the stuff from Crusoe's ship — were a sign of creative exhaustion, it's the only one I saw, and that's pretty amazing. Mostly Rowling is just having fun, knocking herself out, and when a good writer is having fun, the audience is almost always having fun too. You can take that one to the bank (and, Reader, she did).

One last thing: The bighead academics seem to think that Harry's magic will not be strong enough to make a generation of nonreaders (especially the male half) into bookworms...but they wouldn't be the first to underestimate Harry's magic; just look at what happened to Lord Voldemort. And, of course, the bigheads would never have credited Harry's influence in the first place, if the evidence hadn't come in the form of best-seller lists. A literary hero as big as the Beatles? ''Never happen!'' the bigheads would have cried. ''The traditional novel is as dead as Jacob Marley! Ask anyone who knows! Ask us, in other words!''

But reading was never dead with the kids. Au contraire, right now it's probably healthier than the adult version, which has to cope with what seems like at least 400 boring and pretentious ''literary novels'' each year. While the bigheads have been predicting (and bemoaning) the postliterate society, the kids have been supplementing their Potter with the narratives of Lemony Snicket, the adventures of teenage mastermind Artemis Fowl, Philip Pullman's challenging His Dark Materials trilogy, the Alex Rider adventures, Peter Abrahams' superb Ingrid Levin-Hill mysteries, the stories of those amazing traveling blue jeans. And of course we must not forget the unsinkable (if sometimes smelly) Captain Underpants. Also, how about a tip of the old tiara to R.L. Stine, Jo Rowling's jovial John the Baptist?

I began by quoting Shakespeare; I'll close with the Who: The kids are alright. Just how long they stay that way sort of depends on writers like J.K. Rowling, who know how to tell a good story (important) and do it without talking down (more important) or resorting to a lot of high-flown gibberish (vital). Because if the field is left to a bunch of intellectual Muggles who believe the traditional novel is dead, they'll kill the damn thing.

It's good make-believe I'm talking about. Known in more formal circles as the Ministry of Magic. J.K. Rowling has set the standard: It's a high one, and God bless her for it.

2007-07-30T12:14:00.000-04:00

Rough transcript of Jo Rowling's webchat here. Full version will be put up here on Tuesday.

More than 120,000 questions were sent in for today's webchat and as it’s the first time J.K. Rowling has been able to answer questions so freely.

J.K. Rowling: I’m here and I can’t wait! Bring on the questions!

Leaky Cauldron: What, if anything, did the wizarding world learn, and how did society change, as a direct result of the war with voldemort? (i.E., not as a result of harry, ron and hermione’s future careers.)

J.K. Rowling: The Ministry of Magic was de-corrupted, and with Kingsley at the helm the discrimination that was always latent there was eradicated.

J.K. Rowling: Harry, Ron, Hermione, Ginny et al would of course play a significant part in the re-building of wizarding society through their future careers.

Ryan Love: From your fans at thesnitch.Co.Uk. Weren’t we supposed to see ginny display powerful magical abilities in “deathly hallows” and find out why it’s significant that she’s the seventh child? Was her main role in the books only to be harry’s love interest?

J.K. Rowling: Hi Ryan! Well, I think Ginny demonstrated powerful magic in the final battle, and that for a sixteen year old witch she acquitted herself pretty well. I don’t remember ever saying that her ‘seventh child’ status would prove particularly

J.K. Rowling: important in the last book, though – are you sure I said that?!

J.K. Rowling: No, the Malfoys weaseled their way out of trouble (again) due to the fact that they colluded (albeit out of self-interest) with Harry at the end of the battle. Georgina: Did lucius malfoy, and all the other escaped death eaters, go back to azkaban

Elisabeth: In the chapter of kings cross, are they behind the veil or in some world between the real world and the veil?

J.K. Rowling: You can make up your own mind on this, but I think that Harry entered a kind of limbo between life and death.

Renee: From reading about the original owners of the deathly hallows, the peverell brothers, i’m wondering if harry and voldermort are distantly related voldermorts grandfather ended up with the resurrection stone ring?

J.K. Rowling: Yes, Harry and Voldemort are distantly related through the Peverells.

J.K. Rowling: Of course, nearly all wizarding families are related if you trace them back through the centuries. As was made clear in ‘Deathly hallows’, Peverell blood would run through many wizarding families.

Fomy: What did you feel when you finally wrote the kiss, awaited so much by the fans, of ron and hermione

J.K. Rowling: I loved writing it, and I loved the fact that Hermione took the initiative!

J.K. Rowling: Ron had finally got SPEW and earned himself a snog!

Angela Morrissey: Why is it that albus dumbledore can see harry under his invisibility cloak at certain moments? (during the series is the cloak only infallible to those who do not own a deathly hallow).

J.K. Rowling: Dumbledore, who could perform magic without needing to say the incantation aloud, was using ‘homenum revelio’ -

J.K. Rowling: – the human-presence-revealing spell Hermione makes use of in Deathly Hallows.

Jamie Lewis: What ever happened to winky

J.K. Rowling: She’s still at Hogwarts, and she was one of the oncoming house-elves who attacked the Death Eaters in the final battle.

Katieleigh: Does hermione still continue to do work with spew and is life any better for house elves!

J.K. Rowling: Hermione began her post-Hogwarts career at the Department for the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures

J.K. Rowling: where she was instrumental in greatly improving life for house-elves and their ilk. She then moved (despite her jibe to Scrimgeour) to the Dept. of Magical Law Enforcement

J.K. Rowling: where she was a progressive voice who ensured the eradication of oppressive, pro-pureblood laws.

Tineke: Did teddy grow up living with his grandmother?

J.K. Rowling: Yes, Teddy was raised by Andromeda.

J.K. Rowling: However, unlike Neville, who was also raised by his grandmother

J.K. Rowling: Teddy had his godfather, Harry, and all his father’s friends in the Order, to visit and stay with.

Blodeuwedd: Hi jk, first of all thank you for all the books I have enjoyed each and every one of them could you tell us what professions harry, hermione, ron, ginny and luna go on to have did the trio do their final year at school and take their newts who became hea

J.K. Rowling: Harry did so (just because Voldemort was gone, it didn’t mean that there would not be other Dark witches and wizards in the coming years).

J.K. Rowling: Ron joined George at Weasleys’ Wizarding Wheezes, which became an enormous money-spinner..

J.K. Rowling: After a few years as a celebrated player for the Holyhead Harpies, Ginny retired to have her family and to become the Senior Quidditch correspondent at the Daily Prophet!

Camille: What or who is peeves exactly, is he linked with the blood barons story?

J.K. Rowling: Thank you! I’ve already answered about Hermione. Kingsley became permanent Minister for Magic, and naturally he wanted Harry to head up his new Auror department.

Camille: What or who is peeves exactly, is he linked with the blood barons story?

J.K. Rowling: No, Peeves is not linked to the bloody Baron’s story.

J.K. Rowling: He is a spirit of chaos that entered the building long ago and has proved impossible to eradicate!

Jessie: Were the deathly hallows based on any realworld myth or faerie tale

J.K. Rowling: Perhaps ‘the Pardoner’s Tale’, by Chaucer.

Alicepie: What happend to luna, did she get married who to?

J.K. Rowling: She ended up marrying (rather later than Harry & co) a fellow naturalist and grandson of the great Newt Scamander (Rolf)!

Rosi: What does in essence divided mean?

J.K. Rowling: Dumbledore suspected that the snake’s essence was divided – that it contained part of Voldemort’s soul, and that was why it was so very adept at doing his bidding.

J.K. Rowling: This also explained why Harry, the last and unintended Horcrux, could see so clearly through the snake’s eyes, just as he regularly sees through Voldemort’s.

J.K. Rowling: Dumbledore is thinking aloud here, edging towards the truth with the help of the Pensieve.

Superhans: What was duldeys worst memory?

J.K. Rowling: I think that when Dudley was attacked by the Dementors he saw himself, for the first time, as he really was. This was an extremely painful, but ultimately salutory lesson, and began the transformation in him.

Superhans: What was duldeys worst memory?

Casey Kunze: Who killed remus and tonks I think if I knew this, I would get some closure over the very sad, but understandable, death of two of my favorite characters

J.K. Rowling: I’m so sorry! I met a couple on launch night who had come dressed as Lupin and Tonks, and I felt dreadfully guilty as I signed their books!

J.K. Rowling: Remus was killed by Dolohov and Tonks by Bellatrix.

Laura Trego: Was the absence of snapes portrait in the headmasters office in the last scene innocent or deliberate

J.K. Rowling: It was deliberate. Snape had effectively abandoned his post before dying, so he had not merited inclusion in these august circles.

J.K. Rowling: However, I like to think that Harry would be instrumental in ensuring that Snape’s portrait would appear there in due course.

Stephanie: If the wand chooses the wizard, then why do wands work when passed down from father to son eg neville had his fathers wand

J.K. Rowling: As established by Ollivander, a wizard can use almost any wand, it is simply that a wand that chooses him/her will work best. Where there is a family connection, a wand will work a little better than a wand chosen at random, I think.

James Farrell: How did umbridge manage to conjure a patronus while wearing the locket when harry wasnt able to

J.K. Rowling: Because she is a very nasty piece of work. She has an affinity for this horrible object, which would help rather than hinder her.

Tineke: What happened to percy did he return to his job at the ministry

J.K. Rowling: Yes, the new improved Percy ended up as a high-ranking official under Kingsley.

Su: How did neville get the gryfindor sword, is there a link to the hat

J.K. Rowling: Yes, there is very definitely a link to the hat!

J.K. Rowling: Neville, most worthy Gryffindor, asked for help just as Harry did in the Chamber of secrets, and Gryffindor’s sword was transported into Gryffindor’s old hat

J.K. Rowling: – the Sorting Hat was Gryffindor’s initially, as you know.

J.K. Rowling: Griphook was wrong – Gryffindor did not ‘steal’ the sword, not unless you are a goblin fanatic and believe that all goblin-made objects really belong to the maker.

Steph: Will azkaban still use dementors?

J.K. Rowling: No, definitely not. Kingsley would see to that. The use of Dementors was always a mark of the underlying corruption of the Ministry, as Dumbledore constantly maintained.

Smallbutpowerful: On behalf of all harry potter fans who consider themselves to be hufflepuffs could you please describe the hufflepuff common room as it is the only common room harry hasn’t visited

J.K. Rowling: The Hufflepuff common room is accessed through a portrait near the kitchens, as I am sure you have deduced.

J.K. Rowling: Sorry – I should say ‘painting’ rather than portrait, because it is a still-life.

J.K. Rowling: It is a very cosy and welcoming place, as dissimilar as possible from Snape’s dungeon. Lots of yellow hangings, and fat armchairs, and little underground tunnels leading to the dormitories, all of which have perfectly round doors, like barrel tops.

Camille: How is george getting along without his twin

J.K. Rowling: Well, I don’t think that George would ever get over losing Fred, which makes me feel so sad. However, he names his first child and son Fred, and he goes on to have a very successful career, helped by good old Ron.

Jessica Lynn: Did hagrid have to be able to see thestrals in order to train them if so, whose death did hagrid witness

J.K. Rowling: Hagrid has seen many deaths in quite a long life, so yes, he can see Thestrals.

Allie: What did dumbledore truly see in the mirror of erised

J.K. Rowling: He saw his family alive, whole and happy – Ariana, Percival and Kendra all returned to him, and Aberforth reconciled to him.

Snapedinhalf: You promised that someone will do magic late in life in book 7. I’ve now read it three times but cant work out who it might have been! Please help!!

J.K. Rowling: I’m sorry about this, but I changed my mind!

J.K. Rowling: My very earliest plan for the story involved somebody managing to get to Hogwarts when they had never done magic before, but I had changed my mind by the time I’d written the third book.

Christiana: How did voldemort get his wand back after he was in was exile

J.K. Rowling: Wormtail, desperate to curry favour, salvaged it from the place it had fallen and carried it to him. I admit that would have been a bit of a feat for a rat, but they are highly intelligent creatures!

Amanda: Hiya, ive grown up with harry and the gang, did any of the characters change in any unexpected ways as they grew up

J.K. Rowling: They all became pretty much what I expected/planned them to become.

J.K. Rowling: Of course they changed as I wrote, but nobody surprised me very much!

Ravleen: How much does the fact that voldemort was conceived under a love potion have to do with his nonability to understand love is it more symbolic

J.K. Rowling: It was a symbolic way of showing that he came from a loveless union – but of course, everything would have changed if Merope had survived and raised him herself and loved him.

J.K. Rowling: The enchantment under which Tom Riddle fathered Voldemort is important because it shows coercion, and there can’t be many more prejudicial ways to enter the world than as the result of such a union.

Lechicaneuronline: Do you think snape is a hero

J.K. Rowling: Yes, I do; though a very flawed hero. An anti-hero, perhaps. He is not a particularly likeable man in many ways. He remains rather cruel, a bully, riddled with bitterness and insecurity – and yet he loved, and showed loyalty to that love

J.K. Rowling: and, ultimately, laid down his life because of it. That’s pretty heroic!

James Farrell: Voldemort never told anyone about his horcruxes, so how on earth did regulus black discover his secret

J.K. Rowling: Horcrux magic was not Voldemort’s own invention; as is established in the story, other wizards had done it, though never gone as far as to make six.

J.K. Rowling: Voldemort dropped oblique hints; in his arrogance, he did not believe anybody would be clever enough to understand them.

J.K. Rowling: (He does so in the graveyard of Little Hangleton, in front of Harry). He did this before Regulus and Regulus guessed, correctly, what it was that made Voldemort so convinced he could not die.

Jaclyn: Did lily ever have feelings back for snape

J.K. Rowling: Yes. She might even have grown to love him romantically (she certainly loved him as a friend) if he had not loved Dark Magic so much, and been drawn to such loathesome people and acts.

Boggo: Would you choose the hallow that is the cloak, like youre supposed to, and would you be tempted to use the others

J.K. Rowling: My temptation would be Harry’s, ie, the Stone. But I believe, as does Harry ultimately, that the greatest wisdom is in accepting that we must all die, and moving on.

Cornersoul: So what happens to all the dementors where will they go will they be destroyed if so, how

J.K. Rowling: You cannot destroy Dementors, though you can limit their numbers if you eradicate the conditions in which they multiply, ie, despair and degradation. As I’ve already said, though,

J.K. Rowling: the Ministry no longer used them to torment its opponents.

Michael: Why didnt fawkes come back to help harry I would have thought that since harry was so loyal to dumbledore, fawkes would have been harrys new pet

J.K. Rowling: Something had to leave the school for good when Dumbledore died, and I decided that would be Fawkes. Dumbledore was a very great and irreplacable man, and the loss of Fawkes (and the fact that he was ‘non-transferable’!) expresses this symbolically

Roseweasley: Why was colin creavey still a student at hogwarts when he was muggleborn surely he would have been locked up and interogated, not allowed back to school therefore, he shouldnt have died

J.K. Rowling: Colin wasn’t a student. He sneaked back with the rest of the DA, along with Fred, George and the rest. He ought not to have stayed behind when McGonagall told him to leave, but alas – he did.

Delailah: How does dumbledore understand parseltongue?

J.K. Rowling: Dumbledore understood Mermish, Gobbledegook and Parseltongue. The man was brilliant.

Jessie: Will lockhart ever recover?

J.K. Rowling: No. Nor would I want him to. He’s happy where he is, and I’m happier without him!

Annie: Does the wizarding world now know that snape was dumbledores man, or do they still think he did a bunk

J.K. Rowling: Harry would ensure that Snape’s heroism was known.

J.K. Rowling: Of course, that would not stop Rita Skeeter writing ‘Snape: Scoundrel or Saint?’

Vio91: Is teddy lupin a werewolf

J.K. Rowling: No, he’s a Metamorphmagus like his mother

Nippy23: We see socks a lot throughout the series, such as dobby’s love for them and dumbledore’s claim to see them in the mirror of erised, what’s the reason behind all the socks

J.K. Rowling: Nothing deep and significant, I’m afraid. They’re just a comedy item.

Lady Bella: Whose murders did voldemor use to create each of the horcruxes

J.K. Rowling: The diary – Moaning Myrtle. The cup – Hepzibah Smith, the previous owner. The locket – a Muggle tramp. Nagini – Bertha Jorkins (Voldemort could use a wand once he regained a rudimentary body, as long as the victim was subdued).

J.K. Rowling: The diadem – an Albanian peasant. The ring – Tom Riddle snr.

Sampotterish: Why did dumbledore want ron to keep his deluminator

J.K. Rowling: Because he knew that Ron might need a little more guidance than the other two.

J.K. Rowling: Dumbledore understood Ron’s importance in the trio. He wasn’t the most skilled, or the most intelligent, but he held them together; his humour and his good heart were essential.

Carol: Do dementors have souls

J.K. Rowling: No, that’s what makes them frightening!

Jess Mac: What was the third smell that hermione smelt in the amortentia potion in hbp (ie the particular essence of ron)

J.K. Rowling: I think it was his hair. Every individual has very distinctive-smelling hair, don’t you find?

Natalie: Are house divisions as prevalaent in harry’s children’s hogwarts as in the previous generations

J.K. Rowling: Slytherin has become diluted. It is no longer the pureblood bastion it once was. Nevertheless, its dark reputation lingers, hence Albus Potter’s fears.

Nithya: Lily detested mulciber,averyif snape really loved her,why didnt he sacrifice their company for her sake

J.K. Rowling: Well, that is Snape’s tragedy. Given his time over again he would not have become a Death Eater, but like many insecure, vulnerable people (like Wormtail) he craved membership of something big and powerful, something impressive.

J.K. Rowling: He wanted Lily and he wanted Mulciber too. He never really understood Lily’s aversion; he was so blinded by his attraction to the dark side he thought she would find him impressive if he became a real Death Eater.

Alborz: What does it mean to be the master of death

J.K. Rowling: As Dumbledore explains, the real master of Death accepts that he must die, and that there are much worse things in the world of the living.

J.K. Rowling: It is not about striving for immortality, but about accepting mortality.

Barbara: I was very disappointed to see harry use crucio and seem to enjoy it his failure to perform that kind of curse in the past has been a credit to his character why the change, and did harry later regret having enjoyed deliberately causing pain

J.K. Rowling: Harry is not, and never has been, a saint. Like Snape, he is flawed and mortal.

J.K. Rowling: Harry’s faults are primarily anger and occasional arrogance.

J.K. Rowling: On this occasion, he is very angry and acts accordingly. He is also in an extreme situation, and attempting to defend somebody very good against a violent and murderous opponent.

Nicole: What do you think is the funniest moment you have written in the series

J.K. Rowling: It sounds very vain to answer this! My favourite in this book is probably that line of Ron’s ‘really captures the scope and tragedy of the thing, doesn’t it?’

Courtney: What child did harry give the marauders map to if any

J.K. Rowling: I’ve got a feeling he didn’t give it to any of them, but that James sneaked it out of his father’s desk one day.

Karin: What did petunia wanted to say to hary at the end of the dursleys departing

J.K. Rowling: I think that for one moment she trembled on the verge of wishing Harry luck; that she almost acknowledged that her loathing of his world, and of him, was born out of jealousy.

J.K. Rowling: But she couldn’t do it; years of pretending that ‘normal’ was best had hardened her too much.

Leaky Cauldron: Please pose and answer the question you’d most like to address about the series! (a ha, turned it back on you.)

J.K. Rowling: Oooo, you’re tough.

J.K. Rowling: I must admit, I always wondered why nobody ever asked me what Dumbledore’s wand was made of!

J.K. Rowling: And I couldn’t say that, even when asked ‘what do you wish you’d been asked…’ because it would have sign-posted just how significant that wand would become!

Nora: Is auntie muriels tiara important

J.K. Rowling: No, sorry… except to illustrate what an old bat she is.

Nigel: Can harry speak parseltongue when he is no longer a horcrux?

J.K. Rowling: No, he loses the ability, and is very glad to do so.

Nikki: How did sirius twoway mirror end up with aberforth or is it another twoway mirror

J.K. Rowling: You see Aberforth meeting Mundungus in Hogsmeade. That was the occasion on which Dung, who had taken Sirius’s mirror from Grimmauld Place, sold it to Aberforth.

Tierney Roth: If moody got a magic eye, and wormtail got a magic hand, couldnt there be some way to form a magical ear, if only to cover up the hole and make george look more symmetrical

J.K. Rowling: Yes, he could wear a false ear (I’m starting to giggle at the thought. Perhaps he’s better off with the hole!)

Lucy: What is dumbledores boggart?

J.K. Rowling: The corpse of his sister

Pablo: What is toadface umbridge doing now

J.K. Rowling: Glad to see you like her as much as I do!

J.K. Rowling: She was arrested, interrogated and imprisoned for crimes against Muggleborns.

Tina: Do the muggles notice that there arent any weird things going on now that voldemorts gone

J.K. Rowling: Yes, the world seems a much sunnier place (literally – with the Dementors gone the weather gets better!)

J.K. Rowling: We are having a heavily Dementor-influenced summer here in the UK.

Katie Mosher: How exactly do muggleborns receive magical ability

J.K. Rowling: Muggle-borns will have a witch or wizard somewhere on their family tree, in some cases many, many generations back. The gene re-surfaces in some unexpected places.

Maggie: Is rita skeeter still reporting

J.K. Rowling: Naturally, what could stop Rita? I imagine she immediately dashed off a biography of Harry after he defeated Voldemort. One quarter truth to three quarters rubbish.

Maggie Keir: Was hermione able to find her parents and undo the memory damage

J.K. Rowling: Yes, she brought them home straight away.

Lola Victorpujebet: Was minerva in love with albus

J.K. Rowling: No! Not everybody falls in love with everybody else…

Rachel Nell: Jkr, thank you for such amazing books! I would like to know how come noone seemed to know that lily and snape were friends in school they were obviously meeting for chats, etc didnt james know their past

J.K. Rowling: Thank you for your thank you!

J.K. Rowling: Yes, it was known that they were friendly and then stopped being friends. Nothing more than that would be widely known.

J.K. Rowling: James always suspected Snape harboured deeper feelings for Lily, which was a factor in James’ behaviour to Snape.

Abbey: Will the chuddley cannons ever win the quidditch world cup

J.K. Rowling: Bless them, perhaps. But they’d need to replace the entire team and down several cauldrons of Felix Felicitas.

Hayleyhaha: Why did regulus have a change of heart

J.K. Rowling: He was not prepared for the reality of life as a Death Eater. It was Voldemort’s attempted murder of Kreacher that really turned him.

Stephval: Is scorpius as misguided as his father, or has draco improved and taught his child(ren) better

J.K. Rowling: Scorpius has a lot going against him, not least that name. However, I think Scorpius would be an improvement on his father, whom misfortune has sobered!

[The previous question was posed after the answer appeared.]

J.K. Rowling: Sorry, technical hitch – just answered a question before seeing it!

J.K. Rowling: I am clearly getting better at Legilimency.

Lona: Did draco and harry lose their animosity towards eachother when voldemort died

J.K. Rowling: Not really. There would be a kind of rapprochement, in that Harry knows Draco hated being a Death Eater, and would not have killed Dumbledore; similarly, Draco would feel a grudging gratitude towards Harry for saving his life.

J.K. Rowling: Real friendship would be out of the question, though. Too much had happened prior to the final battle.

Hannah: Why was snape so badly groomed

J.K. Rowling: Hmm. Good question. Poor eyesight? Did he look in the mirror and believe he was gorgeous as he was?

J.K. Rowling: I think it more likely that he valued other qualities in himself!

J.K. Rowling: I think not. I imagine that it was squashed into the ground by a centaur’s hoof as the centaurs dashed to the aid of the Hogwarts fighters, and thereafter became buried.

Adwait313: Has the jinx on the dada teaching post at hogwarts been lifted

J.K. Rowling: Yes, at last! Incidentally, I know some have asked about Quirrell with regard to this question.

J.K. Rowling: He was teaching at Hogwarts for more than a year, but NOT in the post of D.A.D.A. teacher. He was previously Muggle Studies professor.

Emily: What ever happened to aberforth

J.K. Rowling: He is still there, at the Hog’s Head, playing w

Lee: I recently purchsed nimbus twothousand it has a terrible knack of veering left is their anything I can do (wihout the use of a wand it was broken by a hippogriff) to repair it back to it original straight flying state

J.K. Rowling: Hm. I would advise a trip to Arkie Alderton’s Kwik-Repair Shop. Never attempt to mend a broom at home, the consequences can be disastrous.

Abjoppotter: Is narcissa malfoy really a death eater

J.K. Rowling: No, she never had the Dark Mark and was never a fully paid-up member. However, her views were identical to those of her husband until Voldemort planned the death of her son.

Emzzy: Did mr weasley ever get around to fixing sirius motorbike

J.K. Rowling: Of course, and it ended up in Harry’s possession.

Lulu: Do you think dumbledore was a little more fond of ron than either ron or harry believed

J.K. Rowling: Yes, I do. Through Harry’s account of Ron, and from reports of the professors who taught Ron, Dumbledore understood Ron better than Ron ever knew, and liked him, too.

Chelatina: Was firenze ever welcomed back into the herd

J.K. Rowling: Yes, the rest of the herd was forced to acknowledge that Firenze’s pro-human leanings were not shameful, but honourable.

Kristy: What was your favorite scene to write in deathly hallows?

J.K. Rowling: Chapter 34: The Forest Again.

Chely: James patronus is a stag and lilys a doe is that a coincidence?

J.K. Rowling: No, the Patronus often mutates to take the image of the love of one’s life (because they so often become the ‘happy thought’ that generates a Patronus).

Jon: Since voldemort was afraid of death, did he choose to be a ghost if so where does he haunt or is this not possible due to his horcruxes

J.K. Rowling: No, he is not a ghost. He is forced to exist in the stunted form we witnessed in King’s Cross.

Angela Morrissey: Were there seven horcruxes not six as dumbledore intimated to harry if so, does this mean that voldemort had an 8 part soul not a 7

J.K. Rowling: Yes, Voldemort accidentally broke his soul into eight parts, not seven.

Laura Trego: Did hermione really put a memory charm on her parents she says she did but then about 50 pages later tells ron shes never done a memory charm

J.K. Rowling: They are two different charms. She has not wiped her parents’ memories (as she later does to Dolohov and Rowle); she has bewitched them to make them believe that they are different people.

Maura: How come voldemort was no longer employing occlumency against harry, as he was in the 6th book

J.K. Rowling: He is losing control, and unable to prevent Harry seeing into his mind. The connection between them is never fully understood by Voldemort, who does not know that Harry is a Horcrux.

Gandalfxj9: Did krum ever find love

J.K. Rowling: Of course, though he had to go back to his native Bulgaria to do so.

Twinkletoes: Why did you feel that hedwigs death was necessary

J.K. Rowling: The loss of Hedwig represented a loss of innocence and security. She has been almost like a cuddly toy to Harry at times. Voldemort killing her marked the end of childhood. I’m sorry… I know that death upset a LOT of people!

Lecanard: Will we see harry and his friends having their own history on chocolate frogs cards

J.K. Rowling: Definitely, and Ron will describe this as his finest hour.

Mike: What is the incantation for creating a horcrux

J.K. Rowling: I cannot possibly tell you. Some things are better left unsaid.

Samantha: Was snape the only death eater who could produce a full patronus

J.K. Rowling: Yes, because a Patronus is used against things that the Death Eaters generally generate, or fight alongside. They would not need Patronuses.

Jess: How did nagini could see harry and hermione if they were under the invisibility cloak

J.K. Rowling: Snakes’ sense are very different from human ones. They can detect heat and movement in a way that we can’t.

Chucky: Have you had another alternatives as book title apart from deathly hallows

J.K. Rowling: The two other possibilities were ‘the Elder Wand’ (used instead as a chapter title) and ‘the Peverell Quest’, which I decided against quite quickly. I think the word ‘Quest’ is a bit corny!

Iglooanne: What would your patronus be

J.K. Rowling: I’d like an otter, like Hermione, but I’ve got a feeling it might be a large dog.

The Stoic Cycle: Why is it that voldemort is unaware that the gaunt ring is a hallow, when he has worn it (such as in the memory the diary shows harry in book 2)

J.K. Rowling: Wearing the ring would not make the stone work. The stone existed outside the ring originally, and to use it you had to turn it three times in your hand.

Finchburg: Does the dark mark remain on those that voldemort has branded after his death or does the tattoo dissapear now he is gone thanks for considering my question!

J.K. Rowling: My pleasure, Finchburg! The Dark Mark would fade to a scar, not dissimilar to the lightning scar on Harry’s forehead.

J.K. Rowling: Like Harry’s, these scars would no longer burn or hurt.

Katie Mosher: How is the quibbler doing these days

J.K. Rowling: Pretty well, actually. It has returned to its usual condition of advanced lunacy, and is appreciated for its unintentional humour.

Camille: Dear mrs rowling, while im here I want to thank you for making me laugh, cry (a lot! Most of all for sirius!) since im 11 quite a long time for me as im 20 harrys magic and yours will be with me forever! Thanks!

J.K. Rowling: Thank you very much, Camille, and I’m sorry about Sirius. That man’s got a lot of fans.

J.K. Rowling: Mostly female, I might add.

Nicofr: Does winky still drink a lot of butterbear

J.K. Rowling: She’s dried out a bit now.

Isabel: Did bellatrix ever love her husband, or did she have love only for voldemort

J.K. Rowling: She took a pureblood husband, because that was what was expected of her, but her true love was always Voldemort.

jenny: How did snape keep his patronus secret from the rest of the order?

J.K. Rowling: He was careful not to use the talking Patronus means of communication with them. This was not difficult, as his particular job within the Order, ie, as spy, meant that sending a Patronus to any of them might have given away his true allegiance.

Darchey: Did voldemort ever love a girl

J.K. Rowling: No, he loved only power, and himself. He valued people whom he could use to advance his own objectives.

Leo: What would your wand be made of

J.K. Rowling: I’d like Harry’s wand – holly and phoenix feather.

Brian: Did the da keep the coins?

J.K. Rowling: Naturally. They would be like badges or medals of honour – proof that the owner had been at the heart of the fight against Voldemort from the start! I like to imagine Neville showing his to his admiring pupils.

Tracie: How relieved are you that you can finally talk about the series no more secretkeeping!

J.K. Rowling: I’m elated! It is great to be able to do this at last, I’ve looked forward to it for so long!

Lou: How did snape get into grimmauld place to get the second half of the letter, if there were protection spells on the house stopping snape getting in

J.K. Rowling: Snape entered the house immediately after Dumbledore’s death, before Moody put up the spells against him.

Koen Van Der Voort: Why is the scar on harrys forehead lightning shaped

J.K. Rowling: To be honest, because it’s a cool shape. I couldn’t have my hero sport a doughnut-shaped scar.

Louie: Did mariettas pimply formation ever fade

J.K. Rowling: Eventually, but it left a few scars. I loathe a traitor!

Katie B: Why was kings cross the place harry went to when he died

J.K. Rowling: For many reasons. The name works rather well, and it has been established in the books as the gateway between two worlds, and Harry would associate it with moving on between two worlds (don’t forget that it is Harry’s image we see, not necessarily

J.K. Rowling: what is really there.

J.K. Rowling: We seem to have over-run. We’ve had over 120,000 questions, I’ve been told!

J.K. Rowling: What can I say? Thank you so much for sticking with me, and with Harry, for so long. You have made this an incredible journey for Harry’s author.

J.K. Rowling: I like this question, so I’ll take it for my last.

Tess: What muggle song do you imagine would be played at dumbledores funeral

J.K. Rowling: Surely ‘I did it my way’ by Frank Sinatra.

J.K. Rowling: I’m very aware I haven’t answered everything… keep an eye on my website, and I’ll try and answer some more questions in due course!

J.K. Rowling: Thanks very much everybody, I’ve had a great time, and I hope I’ve covered some of the outstanding questions (I hear a distant roar of ‘YOU DIDN’T GET TO MINE!’)

J.K. Rowling: That’s it… I’m Disapparating. Bye!