Potter It Forward, if you can

I have been struggling for the past two weeks with the writing of my next post for this blog. Why? Because I have been caught up in this whole "Potter It Forward" movement and decided that my next entry should be that message I would write if I ever decided to Potter It Forward and slip a message to new Harry Potter readers into new copies of the HP books at my local bookstores.


The problem is: the majesty of the idea has got me a little bit paralyzed.


What exactly could I write to express just how much of an impact these books have had on my life, how important I feel they are both as models for how children's and young adult novels should be written and as wonderful, exciting, intriguing stories in themselves, how significant they have been in bringing the excitement of reading to a whole new generation? How do I say all that without writing a message that actually turns out to be longer than the Harry Potter novel into which I slip it?


I don't know where to begin. And I certainly wouldn't know where to end.


I think the whole "Potter It Forward" idea to be quite remarkable. I have had to stop myself from going to Chapters just to go through all their copies of the Harry Potter books to collect any PIF messages I may find. I hope to goodness someone will (if they haven't already) create a website where we can post our messages and read other people's messages at our leisure.


The Harry Potter books have literally changed our world. They have infiltrated every aspect of our lives and they have created a common language that so many of us can speak, no matter where we live. They are a point of connection that helps us bridge the gaps between us in terms of age, gender identity, race, religion, cultural background, economic status, and any other aspect of our identity that you can imagine. And that might normally keep us apart.


If I wear my Gryffindor scarf, people smile at me on the street. People nod and point and smile and laugh and, sometimes even, tell me that they were sorted into Hufflepuff, or Ravenclaw or even Slytherin.


I have enjoyed Potter chats with strangers of many different races, of all ages, of every gender identity you can imagine. I'm an middle-aged white guy and yet I have been welcomed as a Harry Potter lover into so many situations by people from all kinds of backgrounds and identities.


How do you sum all that up in a single passage? And how do you deal with the fact that, even if you can sum all that up in a single passage, you've left out the quality of J.K.'s writing, the masterful way she constructs her stories, the living, breathing, incredible true characters she has created.


So, if you're wondering why I haven't posted in a while, that's why. Because there is simply too much to say.

Discovering another diadem

"Beneath her fingernails, the frost makes billions of tiny diadems and coronas on the slats of the bench, a lattice of dumbfounding complexity."

Anthony Doerr, All the Light We Cannot See, 2014 Scribner

One funny way that Joanne Rowling and the Harry Potter books have affected me is in introducing me to words and names in the English language, words and names of which I had never before heard nor read, words and names that now jump at me from the page when I encounter them in my daily life.

It's quite wonderful, really, for me. I already had a decent education in English Literature and the history of Western Europe and North America, through university and into grad school, and my career as a journalist and then a lawyer had exposed me to all kinds of different areas of study, of expertise, of knowledge. So my vocabulary was already pretty good.

That's why it is such a thrill for me to find an author who can expand my knowledge base even further, who can introduce me to names and words and phrases that I had never before encountered.

Rowling is one of those people. And so is Anthony Doerr.

"Diadem" was completely new to me when I first read of the Diadem of Ravenclaw in the Harry Potter books. I had to look it up in a dictionary to find out what it meant.

The second context in which I have found that word, lying like a gleaming jewel in the grass, is in Doerr's novel All The Light We Cannot See. And, amazingly enough, it is from the point of view of a blind character, Marie-Laure, that Doerr presents the word which, for me, has come to convey a sense of dazzling beauty.

"Hermione" is another such word, a name of which I had never heard until a buck-toothed, frizzy-haired little brainiac walked into my life in The Philosopher's Stone. I have already written about my later encounter with another Hermione in another context.

I wonder how long this will continue to happen to me. When I am 90, will I stumble across "diadem" in yet another book and be immediately transported into Rowling's magical world yet again?

For me, some words and names are Rowling's property -- she introduced me to them, she made me cherish them. Anyone else who uses them is merely borrowing them from Harry Potter.

My scarf and the Harry Potter generation

Gryffindor forever!

My Christmas reading has forced me to set aside Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire for the time being. Over the course of the holidays, I've been lucky enough to receive nine new books and, since it is my policy to read every book I get as a present, I've been quite busy reading lately.

That's not to say that Harry has been completely absent from my life, however. We've been experiencing some crazy cold, windy and snowy weather out here, perfect for me to show off my ultra-warm Gryffindor scarf.

My sister knit this scarf for me a couple of years ago, following a pattern that recreated the scarves from the first movie stitch for stitch. It's a spectacular garment and draws a lot of attention every time I wear it.

For example, the other day I was standing at a street corner, wearing my scarf and waiting for the light to change, when a woman approached and said, "Your inner geek is showing."

I laughed and said, "So is your inner geek, if you recognize this scarf and where it comes from!"

We had a chuckle together and then went our separate ways.

Later the same day, I had a man stop me in the lobby of my building. "That's Gryffindor, isn't it?" he said.

"Yep," I agreed.

He shook his head. "I'm Ravenclaw myself."

Even later the same day, I was coming down on the elevator and a woman asked if my scarf represented "Mount Allison University or you know," and she then whispered, "Hogwarts?"

"It's Gryffindor, all right," I told her, holding out the Gryffindor crest on the scarf.

Two other people in the elevator nodded. "I thought so," said one.

The woman, encouraged, then told me she has been online, looking up the Harry Potter theme park and really wants to go. "It looks fantastic," she whispered.

What do these encounters tell me? Well, first they tell me that, even though it's now been almost seven years since J.K. Rowling published The Deathly Hallows, the Harry Potter phenomenon is still going strong.

And second, that even though my nieces, nephews and young friends tell me that Harry Potter is no longer in fashion for young readers like themselves, there are still a lot of people of all ages who love Harry Potter anyway.

Think about it. The Philosopher's Stone was first published in 1997, now almost 17 years ago. A person who was ten years old when it first came out would be 26, going on 27 today. The Harry Potter generation are now young adults, probably with children of their own.

And those of us who were already grown up in 1997 but loved the books anyway. Well, we're heading into middle age and beyond!

Harry Potter lives. But it's not so much the kids who are keeping it alive.

My Gryffindor scarf is proof of that!

A glorious Gryffindor surprise waiting under my tree

Christmas brought a Harry Potter surprise for me in the form of a fabulous Gryffindor scarf knitted by my sister. She tells me the pattern writers studied freeze-frame images from the movies in order to ensure that the knitted scarf would recreate, stitch by stitch, the scarves worn by our favourite characters. And she ordered the Gryffindor crest over the internet to add even more authenticity to the scarf. It's fantastic and warm and I love wearing it.

This photo was taken this afternoon as we began a walk through the woods with our dog. I guess, considering the popularity of the Harry Potter books and films, I shouldn't be surprised that the first person we encountered on our walk looked me up and down and said, "Gryffindor, huh? I consider myself more of a Ravenclaw".

A great response that made my day. The fact that I also found another Harry Potter surprise under the tree (the Blu Ray of The Deathly Hallows, Part 2) made this an even better day. I sat down this afternoon and evening with some friends who are visiting from out of town to watch both Part 1 and Part 2. They're huge Potter fans too so it was a pleasure to get the chance to watch the movies with them and then hear their thoughts on them as well.

I'm excited to get the chance to watch the special features on the discs too -- I watched part of the Daniel Radcliffe - J.K. Rowling conversation and was delighted with the quality of the discussion. I'm looking forward to watching that soon too. More on my recent conversations and the Blu Ray experience in upcoming posts.

Poor old Hufflepuff House

I often wonder about the fourth house at Hogwarts: Hufflepuff. With the Far Friar as its ghost and the non-descript Professor Sprout as its head, it often seems to me to be the forgotten house.

Certainly, Hufflepuff never seems to compete seriously for the House Cup (in The Philosopher's Stone, for example, Hufflepuff falls to fourth place when Dumbledore awards his year-end points to the hero trio and Neville) nor for the Quidditch Cup. In fact, when loyalties are tested, Hufflepuff members are less likely to support Harry than are Gryffindors and Ravenclaws.

In that first novel, the Sorting Hat describes the qualities valued by Hufflepuff as being loyalty, a sense of justice and a willingness to work hard. Very laudable characteristics, to be sure, but hardly up to the same calibre as Gryffindor (bravery, daring and nerve), Ravenclaw (a ready mind, wit and learning) or even Slytherin (cunning).

Now turn to The Order of the Phoenix and the Sorting Hat is almost dismissive of Hufflepuff. In describing the students each school founder wanted to accept into his or her house, the Hat says Slytherin wanted those of purest blood, Ravenclaw sought those who were the most intelligent and Gryffindor recruited those with brave deeds to their name. Hufflepuff? Well, she'll take what's left and "treat them all the same".

Wow. That's not a stirring recommendation for Hufflepuff, is it?

Few of Hufflepuff's members play prominent roles in the novels and even the Cup of Helga Hufflepuff, which is one of the Horcruxes, garners the least attention of all the Horcruxes in both the books and the films.

Being placed in Hufflepuff appears to be an assessment that there's nothing special about you. I find it odd that J.K. quite purposely creates this sort of magical netherworld of the mediocre. Other than Cedric Diggory, I had a hard time naming one of its members.

Basically, Hufflepuff includes a list of minor characters like Hannah Abbott, Susan Bones, Justin Finch-Fletchley and the detested Zacharias Smith. It turns out, of course, that Nymphadora Tonks was also a Hufflepuff, perhaps that House's most distinguished graduate. She and Cedric tend to carry the torch for this undervalued house, I guess.

I wonder if J.K. ever considered having just three houses at Hogwarts?

The film's Voldemort becomes a sad and silly caricature

What did they do to Voldemort?

I mean, honestly, what were Stephen Kloves and David Yates thinking when they decided to rewrite Voldemort for the final film (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2, in case you forgot)?

First, they decide that the destruction of each Horcrux must affect him, either physically or psychologically. Not only is this contrary to J.K. Rowling's original novels, it's also contrary to their own earlier movies.

When Dumbledore destroyed the ring between films five and six, we see no evidence it had any impact on the Dark Lord. When Ron smashes the locket in Part 1, Voldemort doesn't howl in pain (either physical or psychic).

So it's not even internally consistent in the films that the destruction of Hufflepuff's Cup and Ravenclaw's Diadem would somehow damage Voldemort. And yet, there he is, damaged. Weakened, enraged.

This leads to the second, and even more significant, problem I have with the rewriting of Voldemort in Part 2. Instead of being a controlled, imposing, absolutely and resolutely sane villain as he is in the novels, Voldemort of the films degenerates into a giggling psycho.

Remember Hannibal Lecter in The Silence of the Lambs? We feared him because he appeared so sane, so in control, so intelligent and charming and well-spoken, and yet he was capable of such monstrous evil.

That's the Voldemort J.K. created in her novels.

In Part 2, however, he loses that mystique. In the scene where he leads his army to the front doors of Hogwarts to show the school's defenders the apparently dead Harry, Voldemort prances and giggles like the worst version of Batman's enemy, the Joker. He's no longer scary but silly.

Worse, Voldemort's silliness fundamentally changes his encounter with Neville Longbottom. When Neville steps forward in the novel, Voldemort recognises in him all the characterstics he, the Dark Lord, admires: courage, loyalty, purity of blood. Voldemort speaks to Neville with a tone of respect and says he will make a fine Death Eater.

This makes Neville's continued resistance, his resolute commitment to Harry and the cause, even more significant. Neville has spent his life trying to prove himself, to himself, to his grandmother, to the wizarding world. Harry Potter's cause seems to be lost and here is the apparent new ruler of the magical world, extending an invitation to him to join the new regime, to take a respected place in that world. And Neville refuses. His loyalty, his commitment to all things good, make him reject the very acceptance and recognition that he has long hoped for, even if that rejection will likely cost him his life.

In the film version, Voldemort sneers at Neville, treats him with disdain, makes fun of him. This new silly, giggling villain is so lost he can no longer even recognise in others the qualities he has long claimed to admire and respect.

The film's depiction of this scene is, unfortunately, an insult not just to Neville but to Voldemort himself. It's too bad. Kloves and Yates don't seem to have the artistic sensitivity to recognise the elegant subtlety and depth of J.K. Rowling's original novels and the final film in this epic series suffers greatly as a result.

How will Harry find the diadem in the final film?

Help me to understand this.

In the novel The Half-Blood Prince, Harry hides his potions book inside a cabinet in the Room of Requirement and marks the place where he put it by placing a strange sculpture and a rusty tiara on top of the cabinet. This is important because, at the climax of The Deathly Hallows, Harry remembers hiding his potions book and, more specifically, recalls that he used a tiara to mark the spot, a tiara which he then realises is actually the lost diadem of Ravenclaw. This diadem, of course, is a Horcrux.

In the movie version of The Half-Blood Prince, on the other hand, Ginny hides the book while Harry keeps his eyes closed, so he won't be tempted to go looking for it again. Harry never sees the tiara nor does he use it to mark the spot where the book is hidden.

So how are they going to deal with this in the final film? How are they going to explain how Harry suddenly knows where the diadem is?