Questions on Harry Potter, the character and series [merged]

[freudguy]

I just read Chamber of Secrets (I've seen the movie, too) and have one question.

Tom Riddle created the diary to store his 16 year old self. He becomes more "real" as Ginny becomes weaker due to exposure to the diary & Tom Riddle/Voldemort taking control of her.

As read in Sorcerer's Stone, Voldemort is more or less an evil spirit.


My question: Since Voldemort is still around as a malevolent spirit, does the emergence of the 16 year old Tom Riddle create 2 different Voldemorts? Or does the spirit Voldemort enter the Tom Riddle body?

I'm probably analyzing this too much but I'd like an answer if there is one. I just don't remember if this "paradox" is resolved in the books or not.

[hotaru_san]

They are separate. The "real" Voldy is out wandering around trying to figure out how to get some power. Tom was just waiting around in the diary looking to make trouble. Before finding out what Harry had done to his future self he probably would have been content to keep the Chamber active, but after finding out about Harry he wanted to meet and fight him.

As far as I can see, there's no problem with having two Voldies since one is not real it doesn't present a real problem.

[CloudsMountain]

Chamber of Secrets is actually my least favorite of the series so far, though they made a hell of a movie out of it. I just thought that Rowling was grasping for some big twist she could throw in there. The whole thing with Tom rearranging his name to spell "I am Lord Voldemort" was kinda weak to me. Especially when he supposedly wasn't the real Voldemort. (???)

[DVDGUY1116]

Originally posted by CloudsMountain
Especially when he supposedly wasn't the real Voldemort. (???)

I look at the Tom Riddle from the diary like a interactive memory. He is very similiar to the memories from the Pensieve from later books but you can actually interact with this memory. Eventhough he is a "memory" I still consider him the real Voldemort as Tom Riddle WAS his name when he went to Hogwarts. Tom Riddle in Chamber of Secrets is the real Voldemort manifested as a memory instead of the physical manifestation of Voldemort. I hope this makes sense. Chamber is also my least favorite HP book.

[Pharoh]

At the urging of my son, on Monday I read the third book in the series. Since he had read it, he wanted me to also before we see the movie this weekend. After doing so, I have a few questions.

I thought the book was okay and enjoyable, but not extraordinary. Granted, I rarely read any fiction, so perhaps that is coloring my opinion. My first question is then, should I read the remaining books? Are they better than the third, or at least as good? If they are, and I do trust the opinions of those here, I will probably. Again, I did enjoy the book, but want to make sure I can expect about the same or better. What about the first two, should I go back and read those?

I also have a question on the character of Harry Potter. I knew that the movies made him out to be a much stronger and less afraid character than the first two books did, (or at least I believe that to be true), but I always thought of him as wily and rather clever. In The Prisoner of Azkaban I found him to be neither. He was a somewhat disappointing character, one who seemed to be merely a pawn of events surrounding him. Moreso, he was at times woefully unaware and in the end had very little affect on the outcome. Is this interpretation faulty? Is it that I haven't yet read the first two books? Without any spoilers, does this change, is it unique to this book, assuming it is correct to begin with? Has his character grown, does he continue to?

Truly looking for some more learned thoughts and suggestions. Thanks.

[milo bloom]

You should have started at the beginning. It gives a better introduction to the world.

And I never really thought of Harry as wily and clever, he's just stouthearted. Living with the Dursleys will either break someone or make them stronger than ever. He has Hermione and Ron (and others) that all support him and he supports them.

However, he is a pawn in the events. Remember, his beginning was defeating Voldemort as an infant. He may not seem active, but he sets a lot of things in motion just by existing.

I think you should read the other books, you might not like the first two as much, but the fourth and especially the fifth book really up the level of excitement.

[Kal-El]

Read upto Goblet of Fire (book 4) at least. It's my personal favorite of all 5 so far.

[Blade]

If you don't read a lot of fiction, then I'm not surprised the books don't appeal to you much. I think what sets these books apart is that they are very easy reads with a strong underlying moral sense. Moreover, they build off of years of development in mythological/fantastical worlds that has been going on in fiction since the Brothers Grimm. Rowling has put her own unique spin on it and does a great job of describing that world and the people she populates it with, but at the end of the day, it's still a story about gallantry, magic and monsters.

I do recommend them, but only to people who don't dislike the fantasy genre.

As for the books, I personally was a bit underwhelmed by the first book. It is, however, very short, and it is an extremely easy read (like all the books), so it doesn't take long to get through. I thought that book 2 was significantly better than 1, and that they just got better and better up to book 4 (which is my personal favorite so far). I was a bit let down by book 5 though. I think I need to reread it, but I'm waiting for the 3rd movie to come out first.

This was originally planned as a 7 book series (to coincide with the 7 years of instruction at Hogwarts), so Harry's not always going to seem the sharpest character in the books. He's still pretty young at the point where you're at in the series.

Also, I've always thought the movies had done a very poor job of portraying anyone but the 3 main characters. While they are central to the overall story, it's always been their interaction with the other characters in the books that I loved the most.

[Pharoh]

Originally posted by Blade
If you don't read a lot of fiction, then I'm not surprised the books don't appeal to you much. I think what sets these books apart is that they are very easy reads with a strong underlying moral sense. Moreover, they build off of years of development in mythological/fantastical worlds that has been going on in fiction since the Brothers Grimm. Rowling has put her own unique spin on it and does a great job of describing that world and the people she populates it with, but at the end of the day, it's still a story about gallantry, magic and monsters.

I do recommend them, but only to people who don't dislike the fantasy genre.

As for the books, I personally was a bit underwhelmed by the first book. It is, however, very short, and it is an extremely easy read (like all the books), so it doesn't take long to get through. I thought that book 2 was significantly better than 1, and that they just got better and better up to book 4 (which is my personal favorite so far). I was a bit let down by book 5 though. I think I need to reread it, but I'm waiting for the 3rd movie to come out first.

This was originally planned as a 7 book series (to coincide with the 7 years of instruction at Hogwarts), so Harry's not always going to seem the sharpest character in the books. He's still pretty young at the point where you're at in the series.

Also, I've always thought the movies had done a very poor job of portraying anyone but the 3 main characters. While they are central to the overall story, it's always been their interaction with the other characters in the books that I loved the most.


Thanks for the answer, (thanks as well to milo bloom and Kal-El for responding).

I don't dislike the fantasy/sci-fi genre at all. When I have read fiction in the past that was the main type I chose to read. Maybe I was just expecting a bit more, maybe the films colored my perceptions too much. I think I will give the 4th book a read and see what happens. Thanks again.

[milo bloom]

The only reason I felt slightly let down by Book 5 was that it was still too short. It was over a year late, but it still seems like she had to cut stuff for length.

I'd love a set of books that fill in little bits and pieces over the seven years. Sorta like LOTR's History of Middle Earth series (which I know are just Tolkien's notes, but still)

[PalmerJoss]

Originally posted by milo bloom
The only reason I felt slightly let down by Book 5 was that it was still too short.

Really? Too short? If anything, I felt that Book 5 was about 400 pages too long! An awful lot of what happened in the book could have been trimmed out IMO. It almost seemed like the author just kept writing simply to make the book longer. I hope that books 6 and 7 don't follow the same pattern, because I felt let down by book 5 overall. It was a decent read, but not anywhere near as great as books 3 and 4.

[AgtFox]

I'm troubled by the too short comment as well. Book 5 was the largest of the books and as said before a lot could be cut out for the movie. Book 4 I'm not sure what they're going to do...there's a lot of meat in it.

[milo bloom]

I can't really pin it down, maybe it was just rushed writing, but it seems that she would be giving a lot of attention to some things, then rush over others. Like she was trying to get the book done and only explaining what was absolutely neccesary.

Still a great read.

[mllefoo]

The problem with book five was how petulant Harry became, though justifiably so since he's supposed to be an angry teenager by that point. Also, a couple of really bad things happen in the book that many people took exception to, but I won't spoil it for those who haven't read it yet.

Although these books were meant as children's books, they get darker and scarier as the series progresses. They are a light read and pretty entertaining. If you take them as they are meant to be, you should enjoy them.

I always get a kick out of people who try to read more into the books than is probably there.

[SeekOnce]

Originally posted by mllefoo
The problem with book five was how petulant Harry became, though justifiably so since he's supposed to be an angry teenager by that point.
Personally, this is what I liked most about Order of the Phoenix. He seemed more real and genuine because of it.

But that's just me.

[DRG]

Ranking them, I'd say:

Goblet of Fire
Order of the Phoenix
Prisoner of Azkaban
Sorcerer's/Philosopher's Stone
Chamber of Secrets

While I've listed the first two books at the bottom, they're still rather good. I think Azkaban and the others are less enjoyable reads if you don't read the first two, even if you've seen the movies.

For me, Prisoner was great simply because it was such a sudden and sharp turn into darkness. The story itself is a bit anticlimactic comapred to the others, but the tonal shift is jarring, in a good way.

Goblet of Fire is my favorite just because it is such an epic. Everything seems important, the stakes have been raised, and there are loads of great twists and character moments. It packs so much in that I don't care how long it is. Hell, I would've liked more!

Order of the Phoenix doesn't quite pull that off, and has some pacing issues (namely an overlong wait before we get to Hogwarts). But there is such wonderful looming fear, a sense of dread throughout the book. Granted some of this is due to the fact that they leaked the fact that someone dies, and it created a bit of suspense and anxiety every time a major character was in danger. But even besides that, it conveys a sort of hopelessness in Harry's life that might have been off-putting for many, but it made the story so rich for me.

[Nick Danger]

The person who lent me his collection didn't like Book 5 at all. He thought it was boring, and he wanted more magical adventure.

My wife and I found the increased character interaction and greater depth of worldview was fascinating.

So where did all Harry's gold come from? In the first book, for younger children, you accept that he's suddenly rich and can buy all the candy he wants. By the latest book, you become aware that there's a whole economy and that money doesn't appear from nowhere.

[AgtFox]

They never talk about it that I know of, but I am guessing the Potter family (the pure wizard half of Harry's ancestors) was rather wealthy. Then again (spoilers for things that happen after Prisoner of Azkaban):
Sirius could have shared some of his family's fortune with James or left it in the bank for Harry when he grew of age to go to Hogwarts.

I would go more with the former than the spoiler material. I doubt Harry's mom had any wizard wealth given that she is a mudblood. It seems the pure wizards, outside of the Weasley's, are the ones with the fortunes (like the Malfoys and the family talked about above).

[movie diva]

His parentes left him well off, he even thinks the Dursleys would try to get the gold if they knew about it.

[Ginwen]

I may be imagining things, but I'm pretty sure the money thing was addressed in the first book (he needed money to buy all his school supplies).

[AgtFox]

Originally posted by Ginwen
I may be imagining things, but I'm pretty sure the money thing was addressed in the first book (he needed money to buy all his school supplies).
It was addressed, but there was never any word on how James Potter came up with all that money. I'm conjecturing that the Potter family (purebloods) was rich beyond belief or I take the other, spoilerific, route.

[Kal-El]

I may be wrong but weren't the Potters Aurors? I'm guessing those pay good in the Wizarding world, maybe they accumulated it from that?

[silentbob007]

Originally posted by Kal-El
I may be wrong but weren't the Potters Aurors? I'm guessing those pay good in the Wizarding world, maybe they accumulated it from that?

I don't believe we have ever found out what the Potters did for a living ... only that they were members of the Order of the Phoenix.

[AgtFox]

bob is correct. I was just looking at a Q&A that J.K. Rowling did and she was asked what Harry's parents did for a living and Rowling said something like, "I can't tell you that because it is a plot point that hasn't been discussed yet".

I still say the Potters were rich or my spoiler section.

[madara]

As I re-read HP novels I once again find myself baffled at some of topography descriptions Rowling uses when Harry and gang are out about the grounds.

Is the front doors not the one pictured in this map facing the lake? Or are there two "front" doors, one that actually faces the north with road leading to garg gate?

http://www.hp-lexicon.org/atlas/hogwarts/atlas-h-ecmap.html

Otherwise alot things Rowling claims can be seen when Harry and gang leave the front doors confuses me. Best example of this The Goblet of Fire when it states they go out the front doors and stare straight down the road leading to front gates waiting for the Beauxbatons. Hmm, they are facing south with huge castle to north in way of that view? Then after the Beauxbaton carriage lands they claim to see the lake clearly where Durmstrang appears. I fail to see where its possible to see both ends with such large castle mass in the way. I never been near a castle I suppose I am tripping up on elevation or that its broken into parts more then I think?

[Nefarious]

I fail to see where its possible to see both ends with such large castle mass in the way.

Magic.



Seriously, though, I re-read it and compared to the maps. Possible explanations are:

1) She made a mistake and the presentation conflicts w/ the map.


2) The section reads that the students lined up "in front" of the castle. Maybe it shouldn't be interpreted to be AT the front, though, and they are just standing in front of it more to the side and can look left and see the front gates, see the forest straight ahead, and the lake to the right.

I think #1 makes the most sense :)

[Nick Danger]

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/photopost/data/825/thumbs/8799BABF01LucyLawless.jpg

A wizard did it.

[Abob Teff]

As somebody who has pretty much enjoyed the Potter series, but could never get fully enthralled with it: The first 2 books really didn't serve much purpose other than being an extended introduction to the characters. I really felt that one could watch the first 2 movies and skip the books. By the third one though, the books began to pick up.

I still feel that within the books though, that each is hit and miss in different parts. I would say that 5 had to be my favorite, although it was the most hit and miss -- as Milo said, some important parts were glossed over while minor parts were treated with too much delicacy and detail. Probably the best illustration of this is that the Tonks character is merely there -- while she ties into a plotline that seems important, it is actually pretty pointless -- she has no real purpose or payoff.

[shifrbv]

I also have a question on the character of Harry Potter. I knew that the movies made him out to be a much stronger and less afraid character than the first two books did, (or at least I believe that to be true), but I always thought of him as wily and rather clever. In The Prisoner of Azkaban I found him to be neither. He was a somewhat disappointing character, one who seemed to be merely a pawn of events surrounding him. Moreso, he was at times woefully unaware and in the end had very little affect on the outcome. Is this interpretation faulty?

It's interesting that you mention this. I was just thinking to myself that Rowling has a huge task ahead of her in order for me to believe that Harry could ever defeat Voldemort. He doesn't seem very good at anything (except sports) and yet we are to believe that he can possibly do something in this last book. I have a feeling that supporting characters will play a major role in book 7 because Harry seems to just squeak by in everything that he does (book 6 really makes the case for this). He doesn't seem to me like he has any real talent for anything. If he suddenly does seem to get with the program, it won't be believable to me. Harry doesn't even seem like a real wizard to me - not anywhere on par with the professors or Dumbledore. With the exception of his namesake, he's average in every way. It's going to be a huge stretch of the imagination if he suddenly turns out that way. And a huge letdown.

I feel book 7 may end much differently than many people think. Harry's life has never had a happy ending yet.

[Baron Of Hell]

About Harry not being good at anything. Isn't Harry the top student in "Defense against the Dark Arts" class? Maybe with that and the love thing he has the power to take down voldermonrt. He did nearly kill him as a baby.

[namrfumot]

Plus he can cast a massive patronus which as Hermione says is very advanced magic even for older wizards

[wetsprockets]

I guess this is as good a place to ask, but what happened to the Harry/Cho potential romance in books 5 & 6? I mean what happened to end it. I haven't read 5 & 6 since they were first released, so it's been a while. Was it strictly Harry thinking Cho gave up the DA and then after learning the truth, any potential relationship there had already been soured or was there more to it? besides Ginny

Edit: Oy, I feel stupid now. I figured the movie was true to the book with regards to Cho being the one to give up the DA. Guess not. I really do need to re-read the last 2.

[Nefarious]

My take is that Harry & Cho had a mutual physical attraction but once they got around each other they found they didn't have a lot in common.

Harry found her to be too sensitive and lack the fierce loyalty that is such an integral part of who he is. I think they just drifted away due to not having any common bond to hang on to. The last falling out (as I recall) was a result of her admonishment of Hermione for the jinx put on the DA enrollment form.

[wetsprockets]

My take is that Harry & Cho had a mutual physical attraction but once they got around each other they found they didn't have a lot in common.

Harry found her to be too sensitive and lack the fierce loyalty that is such an integral part of who he is. I think they just drifted away due to not having any common bond to hang on to. The last falling out (as I recall) was a result of her admonishment of Hermione for the jinx put on the DA enrollment form.

Thanks! I don't even remember that last thing you mentioned. I think I need to re-read the last 2 books before the 21st.

[Nuff]

...I was just thinking to myself that Rowling has a huge task ahead of her in order for me to believe that Harry could ever defeat Voldemort. He doesn't seem very good at anything (except sports) and yet we are to believe that he can possibly do something in this last book....

I disagree strongly. He has shown a great deal of aptitude in all of the practical areas of magic. Usually he is very near the first non-Hermione character to get something done successfully in classes. And in Defense Against the Dark Arts he surpassed Hermione, a fact that JKR explicitly pointed out multiple times. In fact he was so good at DADA that he *taught* the other students even some ahead of him in year when the teachers would not in book 5.

[burnside986]

I haven't seen anything of the sort but has JK Rowling made any comment in regards to Harry Potter and Tim Hunter from Neil Gaiman's Books of Magic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Books_of_Magic) being fairly similar? Goofy boy with glasses, English, introduced to the world of magic at a young age, pet owl, etc.

[dvd182]

I haven't seen anything of the sort but has JK Rowling made any comment in regards to Harry Potter and Tim Hunter from Neil Gaiman's Books of Magic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Books_of_Magic) being fairly similar? Goofy boy with glasses, English, introduced to the world of magic at a young age, pet owl, etc.

I'm not sure if Rowling has, but Gaiman addresses it in this interview:

http://www.januarymagazine.com/profiles/gaiman.html

Summary: he feels the similarities are coincedental.

[burnside986]

I've seen that too, basically they both got inspired from the same source material. But I diddn't know if JK herslef has acknowledged the connections. Thanks for the quick answer tho :P

[taffer]

Plus he can cast a massive patronus which as Hermione says is very advanced magic even for older wizards

Yeah. It has been a while since I last read any of the books, but I remember them saying that just being able to cast the patronus spell is a very difficult feat. I believe it is also said that being able to cast a patronus in the form of some animal is expert level magic. Most "ordinary" wizards can only cast an amorphous patronus. Harry being able to cast a patronus in the shape of a deer in the third book should have been impossible for someone so young.

Didn't Harry also pass the Defense Against the Dark Arts part of his O.W.L. exam with flying colors? I seem to remember him studying like mad for every part of the exam, except for Defense Against the Dark Arts which he studied little to none for, but he still got a near perfect score on it.

Harry may be average at most things, but he definitely is not average at Defense Against the Dark Arts.

[young]

yes, he's quite excellent at Defense Against the Dark Arts... for a 6th year student. the patronus is great but, is it good against Voldemort? i don't think it's good against anything except Dementors. is that enough to defeat the most powerful dark wizard?

so far, i do agree that Harry has been blessed w/ extraordinary luck (from a potion, even) and i find his lack of overall skills to be problematic. he is certainly no match for Dumbledore nor even Snape. how is he going to be able to defeat Voldemort unless it's thru more coincidental luck or by Voldemort's own stupidity? (neither of which may be very satisfying to me).

i've seen the movies and thought they were pretty good but never read the books until last week and only b/c the last book is finally coming out. i have several criticisms regarding the whole series including the rather cliche use of the anagram name (I am Lord Voldemort). the books never seemed to me like a great work, but it's pretty good. more like pulp than literature. that isn't to say that i didn't enjoy the books; actually, i stayed up pretty late to find out what happens next... that's a pretty good indicator.

[Nefarious]

Voldemort has several weaknesses which have been put out there. I would suspect that his defeat will come from attacking those aspects in some way.

1) Completely underestimates the power of love
2) Fears mortality to the point he was willing to split his soul multiple times over.
3) Feared Dumbledore and basically ran away in his showdown with him. So he's so powerful but the only person he -wants- to kill is some kid?!?


Harry's strengths have been mentioned:

1) Ability to love
2) Fierce loyalty
3) As pointed out with the Boggart - his biggest fear is fear itself.
4) He beat out the crucio from both Mad-Eye Moody (or Barty Crouch - how ever you want to look at it) and Voldemort in book 4.

His spat with Snape at the end of book 6 was telling from the message that was being sent. Become an expert in non-verbal spells or you will never defeat Voldy. Control your emotions (this one was being hit on hard in book 5, too, with Umbridge).

Also hit upon hard in Book 5 (or was it 6?) in a talk with Dumbledore was the reality of the choices we make. The prophecy could have gone unfulfilled...and still could if both just said they weren't going to do anything.

[Sean O'Hara]

<blockquote>Plus he can cast a massive patronus which as Hermione says is very advanced magic even for older wizards</blockquote>Which is undermined when Harry manages to teach most of Dumbledore's Army to create one, including, I believe, Neville.

[Drop]

<blockquote>Plus he can cast a massive patronus which as Hermione says is very advanced magic even for older wizards</blockquote>Which is undermined when Harry manages to teach most of Dumbledore's Army to create one, including, I believe, Neville.

Harry's is still more impressive. It seems the other patronus are small and Harry as the potential for the big one, as seen in PoA. I don't get the Neville remark, he has the potential to be one of the most powerful magicians, he just lacks confidence (which he has built up some).

[Nefarious]

She actually defines a category for Harry's patronus ability (corpeal patronus). It is significant enough of a feat to impress the Wizengamot (sp?).

As for Neville being able to do it. I would liken that to saying I can play basketball. That doesn't make me Michael Jordon good at it.

[shifrbv]

so far, i do agree that Harry has been blessed w/ extraordinary luck (from a potion, even) and i find his lack of overall skills to be problematic. he is certainly no match for Dumbledore nor even Snape. how is he going to be able to defeat Voldemort unless it's thru more coincidental luck or by Voldemort's own stupidity? (neither of which may be very satisfying to me).


Yes, and what people here seem to be overlooking is that Harry is still a kid. I guess JKR's whole thing is to show the kid overcoming the adult. But in reality, it's not believable. The people he's dealing with have so much more experience. It's like the comment that just because someone plays basketball, that doesn't make them Michael Jordan (a seasoned professional athlete). That's why Harry has had help or luck all along the way. Does anyone here believe that Book 6 would have ended as it did if Harry had to do everything alone? No way. That's why I believe other more experienced characters have to have a much larger role in the final book for it to be in any way believable.

[Nefarious]

Yes, and what people here seem to be overlooking is that Harry is still a kid. I guess JKR's whole thing is to show the kid overcoming the adult. But in reality, it's not believable. The people he's dealing with have so much more experience. It's like the comment that just because someone plays basketball, that doesn't make them Michael Jordan (a seasoned professional athlete). That's why Harry has had help or luck all along the way. Does anyone here believe that Book 6 would have ended as it did if Harry had to do everything alone? No way. That's why I believe other more experienced characters have to have a much larger role in the final book for it to be in any way believable.

JKR has shown him doing a good bit alone.

He faced Quirrell/Voldemort alone in book 1.
He faced Tom Riddle & the basilisk alone in book 2.
He fought off the dementors at the end of book 3.
He faced Voldemort and a crowd of death eaters alone at the end of book 4.
He fought off dementors again in book 5 and, for the most part, held his own against the death eaters at the end.
He probably did his least impressive stuff in book 6 because in the end he was mostly an observer until he got his butt handed to him by Snape.

[pinata242]

He faced Quirrell/Voldemort alone in book 1.
With a little help from Ron's Chess ability and Heromine's book (herbology and potions, iirc) smarts. He wouldn't have got to Q/V alone... Plus he didn't do anything in that battle, he just couldn't be touched by Voldemort and, by extension, Quirrell.

He faced Tom Riddle & the basilisk alone in book 2.
With a little help from a loyal Phoenix that just happened to tear the basilisk's eyes out and bring him a sword.

He fought off the dementors at the end of book 3.
With a little help from Heromine's Time Turner. He sure didn't fight off the dementors the "first" time.

He faced Voldemort and a crowd of death eaters alone at the end of book 4.
Very true! But he was lucky to get the Priori Incantum to save his ass. Otherwise he would have died with Cedric.

He fought off dementors again in book 5 and, for the most part, held his own against the death eaters at the end.
2 Dementors would be a walk in the park after POA. I don't think he could have done much at the ministry alone, though. The D.A. and the Order have to be given part of the W there. And Dumbledore saved his ass from Voldemort.

He probably did his least impressive stuff in book 6 because in the end he was mostly an observer until he got his butt handed to him by Snape.
Yes, but it also proved that The Order and the remnants of the D.A. can hold their own against the worst of the Death Eaters that remain.

He'll need help along the way in Book 7, there's no doubt, but no one will be able to help him confront Voldemort.

[sjrab16]

He faced Quirrell/Voldemort alone in book 1.
With a little help from Ron's Chess ability and Heromine's book (herbology and potions, iirc) smarts. He wouldn't have got to Q/V alone... Plus he didn't do anything in that battle, he just couldn't be touched by Voldemort and, by extension, Quirrell.

He faced Tom Riddle & the basilisk alone in book 2.
With a little help from a loyal Phoenix that just happened to tear the basilisk's eyes out and bring him a sword.

He fought off the dementors at the end of book 3.
With a little help from Heromine's Time Turner. He sure didn't fight off the dementors the "first" time.

He faced Voldemort and a crowd of death eaters alone at the end of book 4.
Very true! But he was lucky to get the Priori Incantum to save his ass. Otherwise he would have died with Cedric.

He fought off dementors again in book 5 and, for the most part, held his own against the death eaters at the end.
2 Dementors would be a walk in the park after POA. I don't think he could have done much at the ministry alone, though. The D.A. and the Order have to be given part of the W there. And Dumbledore saved his ass from Voldemort.

He probably did his least impressive stuff in book 6 because in the end he was mostly an observer until he got his butt handed to him by Snape.
Yes, but it also proved that The Order and the remnants of the D.A. can hold their own against the worst of the Death Eaters that remain.

He'll need help along the way in Book 7, there's no doubt, but no one will be able to help him confront Voldemort.

That is why Harry has always been better, he has the love and support of his friends. Plus just because you are not "book smart", doesn't mean you would be a bad witch/wizard. Like he says in book 5, he just manages to come up with the right thing when he needs it. Sort of a natural behavior for him.

[young]

That is why Harry has always been better, he has the love and support of his friends. Plus just because you are not "book smart", doesn't mean you would be a bad witch/wizard. Like he says in book 5, he just manages to come up with the right thing when he needs it. Sort of a natural behavior for him.

just for me, if he "lucks out" in order to win against voldemort, it'll be very disappointing. or if somehow, all the good guys gang up on him and win... well, to me, that's kind of sappy but, i guess it's ok.

i just expected from the tone of the 1st book onwards, that Harry is/will become the Most-Powerful-Wizard ever... not just that he barely survives. and i expect some sort of mano-a-mano final confrontation.

guess we'll find out soon enough.

[Nick Danger]

I never thought that Harry was on course to be the best wizard ever. But he is a sho-nuff natural born leader. He can get talented people to work together on a common task. He's pretty fair at recruiting. He's charismatic enough that adults, like Umbridge, single him out for special attention.

[the big train]

He probably did his least impressive stuff in book 6 because in the end he was mostly an observer until he got his butt handed to him by Snape.
He nailed a couple Deatheaters with impressive force when he was making his way through the school. He also kicked Malfoy's ass but good.

[Nefarious]

He nailed a couple Deatheaters with impressive force when he was making his way through the school. He also kicked Malfoy's ass but good.

Malfoy punked him pretty good in the beginning, too, though. Also, I don't think Malfoy has ever been portrayed as an exceptionally good wizard. He performs well in potions but not much else.

Harry's efforts against the death-eaters weren't exactly spectacular magic. A few stunning spells that slowed them down.

[silentbob007]

Harry has realized (and stated) that he would not have succeeded without help. This is, I assume, why he doesn't put up a big fight at the end of HBP when Ron and Hermione say that they are going to join him.

While Harry and Voldemort may have a one-on-one duel, I don't see the direct outcome of that as death. Harry has yet to cast a truly successful unforgivable curse, and to be honest, I don't think we've seen one "good" character use one, even against evil.

The characters I'm still interested in ....

Snape. If he's good, he will end up saving Harry's life in a literal way. If he's bad, what a waste of character development and plotting ... he's been thought of as evil by Harry for too long to have it finally end up being true and have that be a satisfying reveal.

Malfoy. His dad's still in prison and even though the task he was assigned was completed, Voldemort will probably still not be happy with him (it seemed to be an obvious and futile way to be gotten rid of ... even his mother thought so). This character suddenly got more interesting and less cardboard-y in HBP (we've never seen an emotional side of Malfoy before) and it would be a shame to see him devolve back into a sneering enemy stereotype. I can see him ending up on Harry's side at the end (perhaps like Snape ... not friends, but not mortal enemies either).

Neville. I'm still not sure this character will not play some vastly important role at the end. While Dumbledore is sure that Harry was the person marked by Voldemort, I think that too much has been put into Neville's character and backstory to have him relegated to the sidelines.

[lizard]

I also have a question on the character of Harry Potter. I knew that the movies made him out to be a much stronger and less afraid character than the first two books did, (or at least I believe that to be true), but I always thought of him as wily and rather clever. In The Prisoner of Azkaban I found him to be neither. He was a somewhat disappointing character, one who seemed to be merely a pawn of events surrounding him. Moreso, he was at times woefully unaware and in the end had very little affect on the outcome. Is this interpretation faulty?
It's interesting that you mention this. I was just thinking to myself that Rowling has a huge task ahead of her in order for me to believe that Harry could ever defeat Voldemort. He doesn't seem very good at [I]anything (except sports) and yet we are to believe that he can possibly do something in this last book. I have a feeling that supporting characters will play a major role in book 7 because Harry seems to just squeak by in everything that he does (book 6 really makes the case for this). He doesn't seem to me like he has any real talent for anything. If he suddenly does seem to get with the program, it won't be believable to me. Harry doesn't even seem like a real wizard to me - not anywhere on par with the professors or Dumbledore. With the exception of his namesake, he's average in every way. It's going to be a huge stretch of the imagination if he suddenly turns out that way. And a huge letdown.

I feel book 7 may end much differently than many people think. Harry's life has never had a happy ending yet.Well, now we know that Voldemort was destroyed as much by his own arrogance, overconfidence, and ignorance as by anything that Harry did, despite Harry's considerable courage, doggedness and ingenuity.
And that resolution works for me.

[scott1598]

I am not a reader of the books, but have seen most of the movies. My questions is: if you can't practice magic outside of Hogwart's then what is the overall purpose of even knowing magic and learning about it?
I mean what would these kids and their parents who aren't muggles professions be?
In essence, what is the point of knowing, living for, and understanding magic?

Thanks.

[Ginwen]

I am not a reader of the books, but have seen most of the movies. My questions is: if you can't practice magic outside of Hogwart's then what is the overall purpose of even knowing magic and learning about it?
I mean what would these kids and their parents who aren't muggles professions be?
In essence, what is the point of knowing, living for, and understanding magic?

Thanks.
It's only kids that can't practice magic outside of Hogwarts. Once you're 17 you can practice it wherever, but you're still supposed to avoid using it in front of muggles.

[pinata242]

Only the underage can't do magic outside of school. Your 17th birthday is considered adulthood.

Also if an underage wizard is with an adult (typically parents) then they can perform basic magic and not get caught as The Ministry can only detect magic, not who is using it. So as long as there's reasonable doubt, they don't jump down the throats of underage wizards.

That's why Harry got in trouble in PoA and OotP, because he was alone with Muggles.

[scott1598]

Only the underage can't do magic outside of school. Your 17th birthday is considered adulthood.

Also if an underage wizard is with an adult (typically parents) then they can perform basic magic and not get caught as The Ministry can only detect magic, not who is using it. So as long as there's reasonable doubt, they don't jump down the throats of underage wizards.

That's why Harry got in trouble in PoA and OotP, because he was alone with Muggles.
so what exactly is the purpose of magic when you are 17 and can practice anywhere? what are the realistic options for jobs, etc..beyond school?

[pinata242]

so what exactly is the purpose of magic when you are 17 and can practice anywhere? what are the realistic options for jobs, etc..beyond school?
The only professions I can think of off the top of my head are:
Hogwart's Teacher
Ministry Worker (most people)
Reporter
One-who-works-with-Dragons-in-Romania
Gringott's employee
Author
Shopkeeper
Innkeeper
Wandmaker
Robes Maker
Vigilante-Memory-and-Glory-Stealer
Muggle Tormentor
Prisoner

But the magical world is much smaller than the Muggle one we see so there's less emphasis in the books. Of course they don't need things like janitors either.

[ytrez]

You forgot Auror in your list of professions.

Not to mention herbologist, veterinarian for magical creatures, house witch and quiditch player.

[dvd182]

Healer at St. Mungo's...whatever other health industry positions there are...bus driver...

[pinata242]

You forgot Auror in your list of professions.

Not to mention herbologist, veterinarian for magical creatures, house witch and quiditch player.
I actually had a footnote on Ministry Worker for Auror, but took it out. I meant to include Quidditch Player as well just forgot. I just said off the top of my head, I didn't mean it to be exhaustive. It does show that there's plenty in the books.

[namrfumot]

Of course they don't need things like janitors either.

not true..in the last book Ron drank the polyjuice potion of a guy who worked as a janitor in the ministry. he had to clean up the room with all the rain.

[fumanstan]

For my own amusement, any list of major characters that die throughout the series?

[shumway]

I'll probably forget some, but, off of the top of my head:


Philospher's/Socerer's Stone: Professor Quirrel
Goblet of Fire: I guess the only one that qualifies as major, and only major in this book is Cedric Diggory
Order of the Phoenix: Sirius Black
Half-Blood Prince: Dumbledore
Deathly Hallows: Headwig, Mad-Eye Moody, Dobby, Fred Weasley, Remus Lupin, Nymphadora Tonks, Severus Snape, Bellatrix Lestrange, Lord Voldemort
Others die in books 4,5,6,&7, but, I don't know that they qualify as major. Also, I may have forgotten someone here or there... Crabbe dies in Deathly Hallows, but, as he has always been Draco Malfoy's lackey, I don't know that I would call him major...

[Seeker]

Anyone anal enough to create a complete list of deaths?

Let's add: Colin Creavey, Crabbe, and I'll bet a few more.

[shumway]

Peter Pettigrew, Dirk Cresswell, Ted Tonks, some goblin, more goblins, some unnamed deatheaters by LV himself, Gregorovitch, Grindelwald, Bathilda Bagshot.
That's about what I recall from Book 7 of the minor deaths.