A rat by any other name....

I am trying to figure out the thought processes that lie behind the French translations of the Harry Potter books.


And I am hoping that someone out there can help me.


I am currently engrossed in the third novel, Harry Potter et le Prisonnier d'Azkaban. It's slow going (because my understanding of written French is not perfect) but excellent.


What I am noticing, however, is that certain names get translated/changed while others do not. The most notable of the names that are not translated are those of our hero trio: Harry Potter, Hermione Granger and Ron Weasley are all the same in the French translation. The Dursleys retain their English names, as do Professors McGonagall and Dumbledore. And the two major new characters in the third book remain "Sirius Black" and "R.J. Lupin".


But Professor Snape is changed to "Rogue", Hogwarts becomes "Poudlard", Hogsmeade becomes "Pré-au-lard" and Neville Longbottom becomes "Neville Londubat". As I have discussed before, Tom Riddle becomes "Elvis Jedusor" and Draco Malfoy becomes "Drago Malefoy" (note, Crabbe and Goyle remain Crabbe and Goyle).


Among the animals, Hedwig and Errol keep their names (perhaps owls are exempt) while Scabbers is translated into "Croutard" and Cruickshanks becomes "Pattenrond".


I could go on and on (and maybe I should to see if a pattern develops) but, as things are now, I don't understand when the translators decided to keep a name the same and when they chose to "translate" it.


I would think that Sirius Black would be a fairly easy translation: Sirius Noir. But that translation is not made.


I wonder why? I am not intending to criticize the translators -- I think they do a tremendous job -- and I am certainly not questioning how they translate the names when they choose to do so.


I just don't understand the pattern of translation/non-translation for the names of people, places and pets.

Personal sacrifice, personal loss: Who suffered most?

A friend, who is also a bit of a Harry Potter fan, sent me this captioned picture today and it got me thinking: of all the characters in the Rowling world who themselves survived the entire situation, which one would you say suffered most as a result of the Voldemort's rise to power and the war to defeat him?

The caption would suggest that Hermione made the greatest sacrifice and I might be willing consider this possibility (that Hermione made the greatest sacrifice of all by erasing herself from her parents’ memories) if it weren’t reversible.

But she can reverse it.

What cannot be reversed are the Weasley family’s losses (one son dead, two sons injured), nor the losses suffered by Mrs. Tonks (her husband [Ted Tonks], daughter [Nymphadora Tonks], son-in-law [Remus Lupin] and sister [Bellatrix Lestrange] were all killed, leaving her alone with a half-werewolf grandson). 

And you have to figure that Hermione and Ron set out for Australia fairly soon after the war ended with Voldemort’s death to track down her parents, reverse the obliviate spells she cast on them and remind them who she is!

Note, in Chapter five (the last chapter I’ve finished) of The Way Forward, my fan fiction post-Deathly Hallows novel, I make it clear that Hermione and Ron go to Australia to retrieve her parents!

I will have to take some more time to think about this question as I am sure there are a whole cast of characters, minor or major, who suffered great losses as a result of the events of the Rowling books.

The "club-house leader" is Mrs. Tonks, by the way. But is there someone out there who sacrificed more?

Filmic regression: Lupin meets Granger in a strange world

So, Hermione Granger and Remus Lupin are together again!


I just caught the teaser trailer for the upcoming film Regression, starring the delightful Ms. Watson. It looks like a reasonably interesting thriller, with lots of eerie stuff, a chilling mystery and numerous dark and rainy nights.


From the trailer, I can't really tell what accent Ms. Watson uses in the film: English, as in Harry Potter, mid-Atlantic (as in The Perks of Being a Wallflower) or something else. She seems to do a lot of crying in the film, unfortunately. Did she ever give us a scene of outright weeping in the eight Harry Potter movies?


Ethan Hawke also stars but the big surprise was to find David Thewlis in a fairly major role. Now, I know Thewlis has been a busy working actor but, until he portrayed Remus Lupin in the magical movies, I had never really noticed him.


Now, he's back with Watson again in another supernatural film.


He's not in the trailer enough to make any kind of assessment of his performance but it will be interesting to see how he does. I always liked him in HP so I expect he'll be fairly strong.


It makes you wonder, however, whether casting directors worry about putting two major Potter actors in the same post-Potter film. Doesn't it seem like they're running a risk that movie-goers won't be able to get beyond the Rowling connection to enjoy them in their new roles?

So that's what happened to Karkaroff

I have often commented on how impressed I am with J.K. Rowling's ability to juggle so many characters, so many locations, so much information about her invented magical world and yet maintain absolute consistency in it over the course of seven novels. The continuity mistakes are few and far between in her seven-book adventure.

She must either have a prodigious memory or an amazing filing system or both.

So I am not at all surprised that, after posing a question in this space some time ago about the fate of Professor Karkaroff (the Durmstrang Head Master who plays such a large role in The Goblet of Fire and then disappears late in the TriWizard Tournament, fleeing in fear when his Dark Mark begins to grow clearer), I find my answer early in The Half-Blood Prince.

Rowling didn't forget Karkaroff. No, she followed up on his story with her usual subtlety and grace.

One hundred pages into book six, she has Remus Lupin drop in for dinner at the Burrow with some updates on how the war is progressing.

"...they've found Igor Karkaroff's body in a shack up north," he says. "The Dark Mark had been set over it -- well, frankly, I'm surprised he stayed alive for even a year after deserting the Death Eaters; Sirius's brother Regulus only managed a few days as far as I can remember."

As is typical for J.K., she manages to connect one small piece of information from the past (tying up the Karkaroff loose end) with a much more important piece of information for the future: confirming that Regulus Black was a Death Eater, then had a change of mind, then died.

This will become very important later in The Half-Blood Prince.

Even more impressive is the fact that this one little comment foreshadows and comments upon the events of book seven. Lupin's point seems to be: unless you are Albus Dumbledore, if Voldemort wants you dead, your time remaining on earth is short.

So, in fact, he's commenting indirectly on how miraculous it is that Harry has survived this long and that Harry, Hermione and Ron manage to stay alive throughout the course of The Deathly Hallows, despite the fact that the Death Eaters, the Snatchers and the Ministry are all hunting for them and anyone who might be sympathetic to the trio is too afraid to help them.

What a wonderful thing an animagus is...

Let's talk for a moment about animaguses. (Or are they "animagi"?)

We learn some things about animagi throughout the course of J.K.'s seven-book adventure but, to be honest, not a whole lot.

We know, for example, that Minerva McGonagall is an animagi and her animal form is a cat. We know that, for the most part, animagi are born not created but we also learn that James Potter (stag), Sirius Black (dog) and Peter Pettigrew (rat) somehow managed to transform themselves into animagi while at Hogwarts.

We learn from Hermione's research that, for some reason, animagi are required to register themselves with the Ministry of Magic, complete with a description of their animal forms. It would appear that failing to register oneself is an offence, subject to some pretty hefty punishment.

Finally, we know that Rita Skeeter is also an unregistered animagus who takes the form of a beetle.And that Skeeter is so afraid of being turned in to the Ministry that she is willing to give up her career and fall into destitution rather than face the punishment for being an unregistered animagus.

Interestingly, like McGonagall, Skeeter's "animal" form has markings on it that represent her glasses. I have to admit, I find that strange since, if McGonagall and Skeeter were born animagi, why would their animal form have markings representing human-made devices that they acquire some time after their birth?

There are a lot of other questions about animagi that I have as well.

As I am now reading The Goblet of Fire, however, the one that currently stands out in my mind is what determines the animal form any particular animagus might take.

And what relationship does that animal form have to your true nature?

Okay, so I have two questions that stand out.

The questions are both, obviously, related. And here is my proposal as to the answers.

First, I believe that the animal form of a natural born animagus is innate within that person. I mean, they're too young to make any kind of decision anyway so it must come from somewhere, right? The fact that the annoying, buzzing Rita Skeeter is a beetle seems to bear this out, doesn't it? You could argue further that McGonagall has cat-like tendencies.

This suggests the answer to the second question: the animal form is clearly related to, and a commentary on, the person's character.

But what about the created animagi? I believe Sirius tells Harry, Hermione and Ron during their pivotal confrontation in the Shrieking Shack in The Prisoner of Azkaban that he and James chose animal forms that were big and strong enough to be safe in the presence of Remus Lupin when he was a werewolf. So it was a choice, plain and simple.

It was natural for James to become a stag in his animal form since it is both big and strong and it matches the form of his corporeal patronus. So that might mean that Sirius' patronus would take the form of a dog but I don't think we ever see it, do we?

And what do we make of Peter Pettigrew? Would he really consciously have chosen to be a rat? I mean, a rat is a rat, after all. It's considered vermin by most people and likely to be killed on sight in many situations. Further, it doesn't have much of an ability to defend itself physically from attack, nor would it be safe in the presence of a werewolf.

Pettigrew's animal form seems more of a match for his treacherous character than the result of a sound, conscious decision. Yet, if the above analysis is true, Peter chose to be a rat. Hmmm... maybe he was already aware, while hanging out at Hogwarts with James, Sirius and Remus, that he would someday need to hide.

I have to admit, I don't think I'd be very happy if I were Rita Skeeter either. I mean, how safe is it to be a beetle out there in the world. There you are, flying up to the top of the tower to listen in on Harry's Divination class and suddenly a swallow darts out of nowhere and chomps you down in a single bite!

Scary. It's a wonderful she lasted so long.

Is Rowling speaking to us through Arthur Weasley?

I'm not sure what to make of the following passage from The Goblet of Fire:

At this, the Veela lost control. They launched themselves across the pitch, and began throwing what seemed to be handfuls of fire at the leprechauns. Watching through his Omnioculars, Harry saw that they didn't look remotely beautiful now. On the contrary, their faces were elongating into sharp, cruel-beaked bird heads, and long, scaly wings were bursting from their shoulders -- 

'And that, boys,' yelled Mr. Weasley over the tumult of the crowd below, 'is why you should never go for looks alone!'

I have to admit, I don't like the implication that could be drawn from what Mr. Weasley is saying -- physically attractive people are often evil monsters underneath -- and I particularly don't like the fact that he aims this advice at the boys in the group, leaving out the two girls, Hermione and Ginny.

Before I go into that, however, I will state that my even bigger concern is what this could say about the author, J.K. Rowling herself.

Now, I'm the last person in the world to read a novel and immediately attribute anything and everything that is said in the book (either by individual characters or even the narrator) to the author, but we have already seen that Rowling often puts her philosophy, her thoughts and ideas and opinions, into the mouths of certain of her adult characters.

Certainly, Albus Dumbledore is one such character. I think we can safely argue that Rowling uses Dumbledore to voice her perspective quite often throughout the novels. I would argue that J.K., to a lesser or greater extent, often uses other adult characters who take on parental roles in Harry's life (such as Arthur Weasley, Molly Weasley, Sirius Black and Remus Lupin) to fulfil a similar function: to inject into the narrative the author's perspective and philosophy.

So is Arthur Weasley the voice of the author in this scene? Is he speaking a life-lesson not just to the boys in his family but also to all boys reading the novel?

I hope to goodness that is not Rowling's intention since I find the sentiments expressed (that beauty often hides evil, that feminine beauty, in fact, often hides evil while masculine beauty does not, etc.) highly offensive.

But, if the intention here is not to express the author's philosophy, why is Mr. Weasley's comment included at all? It's not funny. It doesn't tell us anything about the Veela or the situation that is evolving at that moment.

The only thing the comment does is make us think a little less of Arthur Weasley. I've written on other occasions how I often feel Mr. Weasley is not portrayed as a particularly admirable character in these books but this is a low point even for him.

The passage also raises another, less serious question: if pure-bred Veela turn into nasty bird-creatures when angered, what happens to part-Veelas like Fleur Delacour when she gets mad?

What did Snape know about the Map and Messrs M, W, P & P?

As I have said several times before, The Prisoner of Azkaban is probably my favourite of the Harry Potter books and films. So I approach reading this third novel with a great deal of anticipation and, most often, I sit down to the watch the film when I am coming to the end of the book.

I just love the way the film presents the time-turner elements of the story at the end.

My most recent reading, however, has raised some confusion in my mind, confusion with regard to what is actually going on in the scene in which Snape and Lupin square off over the discovery of the Marauders Map in Harry's possession.

What does Snape know about that map? And about "Messrs Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs", its creators?

Certainly, he appears to know a great deal: when he says to Lupin, "You don't think it more likely that he got it directly from the manufacturers", he seems to be indicating that he knows that Lupin and his friends created the map and that Lupin had, in fact, given it to Harry.

So why, then, does Snape allow Lupin to lie to him so blatantly in claiming that the map "looks like a Zonko product to me"?

And why doesn't Snape keep the map and take it to Dumbledore as evidence to support his theory that Lupin is helping his old friend Sirius Black?

We know that Snape is fully aware that Lupin is a werewolf (suggesting the nickname "Moony"); why would Snape not then be able to start to unravel what the other nicknames imply and then figure out how Sirius was able to get past the Dementors and enter the school?

I'm not trying to be critical; I am simply confused. Am I reading this wrong? Is Snape not fully aware of who the manufacturers of the Marauders Map were? Help me figure this out.

A couple of other points on The Prisoner of Azkaban:

On at least two occasions in this book (when Neville breaks a tea cup in Divination and when Hagrid drops a milk jug in his hut), we see magical characters scurry to clean up the mess. Why didn't they deal with the mess with magic?

In the film, when Lupin has his Defence Against the Dark Arts class first face the Boggart, we actually see the Boggart transform into a Dementor on Harry's turn. Lupin doesn't intervene until we, and everyone else, actually see the Dementor. Why, then, does Lupin later suggest that he intervened because he thought it would turn into Lord Voldemort?

In the book, Lupin intervenes before the Boggart transforms, which makes his explanation plausible. But, in the film the Dementor actually appears before Lupin steps in...

Two things to think about, I guess. And please help me to understand what Snape knew and did not know about the Marauders Map and the various nicknames for Lupin and his friends.

J.K. and the art of the family

I'm on a bit of a break from Harry Potter, to be honest. Not for lack of interest, just too many other projects and priorities getting in the way.

I can't say I'm lamenting having to leave HP on the shelf for a while: it should mean that, when I finally come back to him, I'll be coming to him fresh again.

Of course, the simple fact that I'm not reading Harry right now doesn't mean I'm not thinking about Rowling's world. I have... and I've been having some interesting thoughts.

For example, I've been wondering about J.K. Rowling's relationship to families and her representation of family relationships in her books.

It started when I realised that, despite the fact that we meet and get to know a number of Harry's teachers pretty well in the novels, we never actually meet any of their spouses or partners. In fact, not one of the teachers we know pretty well even has a spouse or partner.

Think about that: Dumbledore, McGonagall, Snape, Sprout, Hagrid, Lupin, Lockhart, Flitwick, Trelawny, Moody, Slughorn, Quirrell, Pomfrey, even Umbridge... they're in live-in positions and yet not one of them is shown with a spouse and not one of them mentions a spouse. Sure, Lupin eventually marries Tonks but, at the time they're teaching, they are single. No matter their age.

So what does that say about Rowling and her thoughts about family and longterm relationships?

Now let's count how many actual couples exist in the books. Yes, we have the Weasleys. And the Durlseys, the Malfoys, the Lestranges, the Grangers, the Longbottoms, and the Potters. Who else? Ted Tonks and his wife. Lupin and Tonks.

How many lead normal lives to natural deaths?

The Potters were killed as a young couple. The Longbottoms were tortured into insanity also as a young couple. Lupin and Tonks die just after having their first child.

And then ask yourself the question: how many of the families in the Harry Potter series have more than one child?

The characters who have no siblings include: Harry, Dudley, Hermione, Neville, Voldemort, Draco, Hagrid, Luna. The only multi-children family we see are the Weasleys, the Blacks, the Dumbledores, the Creeveys and the Patil twins. Oh, and Lily and Petunia.

Do you not think of this as strange? Do you not wonder about Rowling and her attitudes toward families based on this incredible under-representation of even moderately normal families in her books?

The average family in the magical world of Harry Potter is a single parent, single child family. Of the five main child characters in the novels (Harry, Hermione, Ron, Neville and Voldemort), three are parentless, one abandons her parents to join the magical world and the fifth is Ron of the massive family.

I don't really know what this all says about J.K. but I just find it strange. And telling. What do you think?

Harry, Dumbledore and the Resurrection Stone

I have a question. When Harry walks into the Forbidden Forest to face his death near the end of The Deathly Hallows and turns the Resurrection Stone thrice in his hand, why doesn't he invite Albus Dumbledore back from death as well as his mother, father, Sirius Black and Remus Lupin?

I think it's really nice, and quite fitting, that Harry calls back those four people.

But why not Dumbledore, the man about whom he has been mooning for the entire duration of the book? It doesn't make sense. Given the opportunity to talk to someone, anyone who is already dead, why wouldn't he choose to talk to the man with all the answers?

It's strange. It doesn't make sense, really, when you consider where Harry's mind has been for months prior to that pivotal moment. I think it's a lovely scene as written (and as filmed, to be honest), but it doesn't seem right to me.

In praise of The Prisoner but with questions

I love The Prisoner of Azkaban. The more often I read the Harry Potter novels, the more I come to recognise how clearly this novel rises above the others in my estimation.

I think J.K. has been quoted as saying that it was the easiest of the books for her to write and I think that shows too, in the quality of the narrative, in the smooth flow of the writing, in the intensity of the experience for the reader. It reads like a spectacular roller coaster ride, a smooth but terrifying journey.

I'm about a fifth of the way through Azkaban again and, as usual, enjoying it very much. I enjoy our first meeting with Stan Shunpike as much on this, my 20th or so reading, as I did on my first reading. I am impressed with the way Rowling, truly one of the most clever writers I've ever read, is able to focus the attention of the story on Ron's rat, Scabbers, in the early part of the book without giving the reader the slightest inkling that the rat is, truly, the central character in the novel.

Rowling simply inserts Scabbers (and his conflict with Hermione's new cat, Crookshanks) as a constantly arising point of conflict between Ron and Hermione and allows her reader to focus on the conflict without recognising that she is putting Scabbers squarely into our field of vision on a regular basis.

I have a couple of questions, though, on issues which I think might be engendered by the speed with which Rowling wrote this book:

1. Why does no one mention, either to Harry or otherwise, that Sirius Black was a member of the Order of the Phoenix in this novel? Shunpike, for example, states in a matter-of-fact way that Black was one of Voldemort's key supporters. Was he? We learn later that he was a member of the Order, the group actually fighting Voldemort. Could his apparent betrayal of James and Lily and his purported murder of 13 people be sufficient to make everyone forget his role with the Order? I would think they would be talking more about his betrayal, in the end, rather than his place with Voldemort.

2. Why does Lupin have "Professor R. J. Lupin"  stamped "in peeling letters" on his case at the start of the book? He wasn't a professor before this year and he doesn't continue to teach afterwards. We get no indication throughout the rest of the novels that he is a trained educator: his position teaching Defense Against the Dark Arts in Harry's third year appears to be a "one of" for him, welcomed employment thanks to Dumbledore. So why would he own a battered old case with "Professor R. J. Lupin" stamped on it in peeling letters?

3. Why do the Weasley's choose to take a holiday in Egypt as their "special treat" with the winnings from the Daily Prophet Grand Prize Galleon Draw? Mr. and Mrs. Weasley had gone to Egypt just the previous Christmas, a trip that their children were apparently welcome to enjoy with them but had chosen not to do so (see The Chamber of Secrets). Wouldn't they have chosen some other place for their celebratory holiday, a place they hadn't just visited?

4. What happens to Crookshanks in the rest of the books? He plays such a big role here and certainly Sirius says later in the book that Crookshanks is "the most intelligent of his kind I've ever met". Yet he doesn't really do much for the rest of the series of novels. Why not?

Picky points, I know. As readers of this blog know, I just love to find these little questions, to point out these minor issues in Rowling's incredible books. I hope I'm not offending any one; I just find it fun to do.

Teddy Lupin: Harry Potter, the Next Generation?

How did I not recognise this? It's sitting there, staring me in the face! Once you see it, it is so obvious you're amazed you didn't notice it as soon as you read the seventh book.

Teddy Lupin is the next generation of the Harry Potter character.

Orphaned in the final battle against the Death Eaters, son of two of Voldemort's staunchest opponents, left to fend for himself in the magical world. With Harry Potter as his god father.

I have to credit Emily and Clare for opening my eyes to this fact this past Christmas. They pointed it out as we watched the extras to The Deathly Hallows, Part 2.

It's brilliant. And it speaks so much to how J.K. Rowling imagined her magical world continuing to develop, even after the end of Voldemort.

If the death of the Dark Lord represents the final defeat of the "pure blood" movement, then it also represents the beginning of the fight against other forms of oppression in the magical world, including the oppression of Goblins, House Elves, Centaurs and, yes, Werewolves.

Teddy Lupin represents that future.

It's interesting to note that there are at least three examples in the Harry Potter novels where Werewolves are allowed to join wizarding communities:
- Remus Lupin is, of course, the most famous example, welcomed by Albus Dumbledore to Hogwarts as a student and, later, as a teacher, befriended by James, Sirius and Peter while at school, a respected member of the Order of the Phoenix in both wars against darkness;
- Voldemort and his Death Eaters, the champions of the pure blood cause, include Fenrir Greyback in their army, although it is clear from the way Greyback is treated by Bellatrix at Malfoy Manor that the Werewolf is not seen as an equal; and
- I believe that there was a Werewolf guest at one of Slughorn's parties: Sanguini, wasn't it? Sorry, I don't have access to my books right now and the internet is not helpful on this score.

I think it would be very interesting if someone were to write a fairly serious novel following Teddy Lupin and the challenges he faces growing up in a society that is still not particularly tolerant of his racial background. It could be a real metaphor for the modes of oppression people currently face in our own society.

And, of course, in writing that book, the author could also have some fun with the idea that Teddy is really Harry, the next generation.

Why I think The Prisoner is the best book of the bunch

I haven't posted anything in a while (probably my longest break this year, though I may be wrong on that) due to the simple fact that I am struggling with what I want to say about Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.

I just finished re-reading this the third novel in J.K. Rowling's series last week and thought immediately, "I have to blog about this book". But when I sat down at the keyboard, time and again, words failed me. Why? Because I was struggling to convey just how much I like this book.

For me, The Prisoner of Azkaban is the best of the seven novels. I've read them all enough times to be able to say this with some conviction. Expressing the "why" is by far the tougher challenge.

And, instead of attempting to write paragraph after paragraph extolling the virtues of this novel, its plot and characters, the writing style, etc., I think it might be simpler if I reduced it all down to a list.

So here are the ten reasons I think The Prisoner of Azkaban is the best of Rowling's seven excellent novels:

1. It is the last of the shorter books, which means you can read the whole thing in a brief period of time, in one sitting almost, and get the absolute most intense reading experience from it;

2. It is the first of the more "adult" books in the series; whereas The Philosopher's Stone and The Chamber of Secrets are clearly childrens' books, with simple plots and a great deal of time spent (deliciously) wondering at the magical world into which Harry is suddenly thrust, The Prisoner of Azkaban sets a terrifically complex, subtle and often terrifying adult story in a magical world we already know, with which we are already comfortable;

3. It tells an exceptionally exciting tale of its own but also starts to set the stage for later novels. From first page to last, a shadow (of the Grim, really) looms over Harry and, with her characteristic flair for misdirection, Rowling makes us feel the tension build as Sirius Black slinks closer and closer to our hero. On the flip side, however, Rowling lays down important building blocks for the return of Voldemort, with Trelawney's eerie prediction and Peter Pettigrew's final escape.

4. The novel introduces two extremely important characters who will play significant roles in Harry's life from now to the end of the series: Remus Lupin and Sirius Black;

5. The book stakes philosophical ground in the discussion of good and evil, of perception and truth, that will have reverberations throughout the rest of the novels;

6. The Prisoner of Azkaban gives Hermione her first real chance to shine, to prove herself a worthy heroine to stand beside Harry and Ron, while still not losing that part of her that made her interesting in the first place: her commitment to education, intellect and rationality, even in the face of the scorn of her friends;

7. The book gives us our first real glimpse of the lives of Harry's parents, both through the characters who knew them (Black, Lupin, Snape, Rosemerta, McGonagall, Hagrid, et al) and through Harry's horrific recollection of his parents' last moments alive, a recollection that Rowling carefully builds in each successive encounter with the Dementors;

8. The novel gives us our first real indication that Harry could be a truly great wizard. His perfection of the Patronus Charm, a piece of truly advanced magic, shows us that he does, in fact, have it within him to take on the challenges we are starting to realise lie in wait for him;

9. The book deals with the issue of time in an interesting way, creating a truly memorable set of climactic scenes; and

10. The Prisoner of Azkaban gives us our first warning that Rowling doesn't intend to make Harry's life, nor ours as readers of the series, easy. There are some gruesome scenes in this book and some very violent passages: I find Harry's recollections of his parents' murders incredibly effective, serving notice that we're not reading simple childrens' books any more.

I know. I will probably now read The Goblet of Fire, The Order of the Phoenix and the other books again and declare that each one, in turn, is the best. But right now I have to say that The Prisoner of Azkaban is the standard bearer in the Harry Potter series.

Do you agree? What's your favourite Harry Potter novel and why? Use the Comments function to tell me your thoughts.

Rewriting Remus really works, and other positives from Part 2

Before I move on to more criticisms of the new movie, I want to talk about some of the things I really liked about Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 2.

Because, overall, I really liked this film. Almost as much as I liked Part 1.

For example, I was really happy when the filmmakers included the scene where Harry, Hermione and Ron emerge into the Room of Requirement to be greeted with cheers from the students gathered there. I love that moment in the book and I think they did a nice job of presenting it in the film.

I liked the fact that they rewrote Remus Lupin's answer to Harry when the young wizard tells the returned-from-the-dead Lupin how sorry he is that Lupin has died so soon after the birth of his son. In the book, Lupin speaks only of himself. In the movie, he says something about how both he and "Dora" (Tonks) were sorry they won't be able to see Teddy grow up but trust he will know the important reason for which they died. I like the fact that Lupin, in the film, recognizes his wife's sacrifice as well, something he doesn't do in the book.

In fact, I think that whole scene with the resurrection stone is beautifully done. Well acted, well filmed, very touching and heart warming.

I was surprised and pleased that screenwriter Stephen Kloves added the scene where Hermione and Ron go down to the Chamber of Secrets to fetch the Basilisk fangs and destroy the Cup Horcrux. In the novel, H&R only tell Harry later what they've done: it was nice to see them get a chance for some screen time. The kiss... well, I'm trying to be positive here.

I thought Snape's death and the montage of his memories were really quite wonderful. It was an edited version of the chapter in the book but I thought it captured all the really necessary points. Again, the acting is great and the scene heart-wrenching.

I was also pleased and impressed with the scene between Harry and the Grey Lady. The editing was particularly good there and the scene comes off well.

As I said at the start, overall I was really happy with this film. I think it is a strong addition to the series and a particularly good way to end. The acting is improved over earlier films, especially that of Daniel Radcliffe, and I think the technical aspects of the film are great.

Remember that as you read later posts because, to be honest, I have always found it easier and more interesting to talk about the negatives than to glorify the positives. I don't want you to think I hated the movie as you read your way forward in this blog.

Pondering the complexities of Remus Lupin

I really like the character, Remus Lupin, in the books. He's a good guy but a tortured soul. He knows he what he could have been but he hates what he has become.

I very much liked the way J.K. describes Lupin in the flashbacks Harry experiences to his father's time at Hogwarts. She always says that Lupin wears an expression of delighted surprise at having been included in the cool group at his school.

I think that's a really nice thought and great insight into the character he displays throughout the novels.

The scene in the kitchen at Grimmauld Place in the final novel, where Lupin offers to abandon his family and join up with Harry, Hermione and Ron, though really hard to read, rang true for me in every sense. I thought J.K. captured both Lupin's desperation and fear in that moment and Harry's genuinely angry reaction to his offer.

Most of all, I remember feeling very sad when both Lupin and Tonks die in the seventh book and I worried about their new-born son. I'm going to interpret the epilogue to The Deathly Hallows as implying not only that Teddy does all right as he grows up but also that Lupin's fears that he will be a werewolf too turn out to be unfounded.

Harry versus Remus

One of the things that I like about Rowling's writing is that she pulls no punches. She has a good understanding of what makes her characters tick and isn't afraid to introduce conflict, even between characters who genuinely like each other.

Like the scene about a third of the way through The Deathly Hallows where a desperate Remus Lupin shows up at Grimmauld Place to offer his services to Harry, Hermione and Ron. J.K. recognised that this offer, though genuinely made, would inspire a very negative reaction in Harry, who realistically focuses more on Lupin as a father abandoning his wife and child rather than on Lupin as powerful ally.

It's a tough scene to read and, again, J.K. refuses to take the easy way out when she describes the reactions of Ron and Hermione to Harry's outburst at Lupin. These are people under a great deal of stress and emotions are going to run high.

But she's absolutely right that Harry would put a father's duty to his family over anything else.