If not me, who? If not now, when?

I read, appreciate and enjoy the Harry Potter books and, to a lesser extent, I watch, appreciate and enjoy the Harry Potter movies.

But, as I have stated several times on this blog in the past, I have no interest in learning everything there is to know about Joanne Rowling, the author, or Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson and the other actors who starred in the films. It is enough that J.K. produced a series of novels of such power and fascination -- I don't need to delve into her personal life nor follow every drop of coverage the media offers about her.

And I feel the same about the actors from the films.

Lately, however, Emma Watson, who played Hermione Granger with such charm in the movies, is making it hard for me to continue to ignore her life outside the films.

Some time ago, in fact, I wrote about how impressed I was with her commitment to continue and, in fact, complete her university education.

And now it is her work for the U.N. and the marvellous speech she recently gave on the issue of gender equality and the He For She movement that has me impressed.

Don't get me wrong, I don't necessarily agree with everything Ms. Watson said in that speech. As someone who has spent 10 years of his life working against harassment and discrimination of all kinds in higher education, I was all too aware of the Eurocentrism that pervaded her talk.

And I find it highly ironic that Watson described the first hint she experienced of gender inequity as coming when she was just eight years old and was described as being "bossy" when she wanted to be given the same rights and powers as her male friends.

Why ironic? Because J.K. Rowling used exactly that word, "bossy", when she first introduced the character Watson played, Hermione Granger, in The Philosopher's Stone.

All of that being said, however, there was a great deal to admire in Watson's speech to the U.N., not the least of which is the fact that this world-renowned actress was visibly nervous as she spoke and admitted to the fact as part of her speech. It was clear that the issue means a lot to her and that she wished to be effective in getting her message across.

She spoke slowly, clearly and with a tremor in her voice that added that much more power to her message.

She made another important admission as well. She said, early on, "My life is a sheer privilege," and went on to thank all of the people who offered her opportunity and equity, people she called "the inadvertent feminists who are changing the world today."

Watson recognized that she has been afforded opportunities that few other women have enjoyed and she used that point to acknowledge the responsibility her good fortune placed upon her to use her position of power in our society to speak out about the issue.

Her main point, and the point of the He For She movement, is that both sexes share equally in the fight for gender equity, that men suffer as a result of the imposition of gender stereotypes, even if to a lesser extent then do women.

"I have seen men feel fragile and insecure by a distorted sense of what constitutes male success," she said at one point. And later: "Both men and women should feel free to be sensitive; both men and women should feel free to be strong."

I think there is a great deal of good in what Watson said to the U.N. and I am impressed to the highest degree that 1) she has taken on the responsibility to deliver that message and 2) she has done so with such openness, honesty and emotion.

I became aware of Emma Watson because she played a beloved character in a series of films; I am a fan of Emma Watson because of everything she has done, and continues to do, outside of her film career.

No feet up on Harry Potter

So I'm watching Orange is the New Black on Netflix, the award-winning show about an upper middle class woman who ends up spending a year in prison for a crime she committed when she was younger.

I was just cruising through the first season, trying to figure out what all the buzz is about. So far, I'm not totally sold on it. It's okay, I guess. Kind of hit and miss. Not as funny as I had hoped and somewhat lacking in interesting characters.

Then, out of the blue, there's a scene in the prison library. One of the women is wishing to borrow a book and the inmate who works in the library, thinking she just wants to borrow a thick book to use as a foot stool, refuses to let her borrow The Order of the Phoenix.

It came and went in a flash but I think the line was something like, "You ain't puttin' your feet up on Harry Potter. You want something to stand on, you borrow [James Joyce's] Ulysses. I tried to read that s---. That's for puttin' you feet on."

Now, I've read Ulysses and it's really very good. It doesn't deserve to have people stepping all over it either. But what a moment of joy to be watching this crazy, crude, violent, disturbing television show that seems so far away from J.K.'s magical world and to find that, even in this prison, Harry Potter is revered.

Awesome.

Is it remake time yet? Please...?

By my count, it has now been more than three years since the second part of The Deathly Hallows film hit the theatres.

I have one question: is it still too early to hope that they are finally going to start work on a remake? One that's better than the first? One that actually stays true to the book and doesn't undermine everything J.K. Rowling's awesome original stood for?

Actually, I am only partly kidding. As anyone who has read this blog with any regularity will know, I really detest the last two (and perhaps three) of the films made of Rowling's works.

I have no issues with the actors -- I thought Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint were excellent choices for the major child roles. It's just the decisions made by the screen writers that I abhor.

So, what do you think? Can we start hoping to hear an announcement that work has begun on the remakes soon? And can we ask for veto rights on the script?

On paintings, portraits and plots

I've written before about the role played by paintings in the magical world of Harry Potter, particular the portraits of former Hogwarts headmasters that hang in Dumbledore's office (sorry, I can't bring myself to refer to it as Snape's office).

It is clearly established that people captured in paintings can communicate with the living people who  wander past them. This happens all the time. It is also clearly established that the characters in the paintings actually carry on linear lives, lives that are situated within the same chronological context as the living beings.

These painting people experience events at a particular moment in time, then move on to other events while carrying memories of the earlier event. The Fat Lady recounts several times, for example, how she was attacked in book two, and finally identifies her attacker as Sirius Black. In the final battle for Hogwarts, the painting people carry information from place to place in the castle.

And the portraits in the Headmaster's office, in particular, appear to carry the memories, the attitudes, the opinions of the living people they represent. They are an extension of the earlier headmasters and appear to add the experiences and memories they accumulate as painting people to the experiences and memories they held when they were living people.

Does that all make sense?

Okay. So why would Harry ever feel abandoned by Dumbledore in Book Seven? Why would his first goal not be to break into the Headmaster's Office and have a long talk with Dumbledore as a painting person, to obtain the answers to all the questions he has?

If the painting Dumbledore is an extension of the real, formerly living Dumbledore, why would Harry, Hermione and Ron not try to find a way to get to the portrait and find out how to destroy Horcruxes, where the remaining Horcruxes might be, what the deal is with the Hallows, etc.?

And why wouldn't Snape have found some way to help Harry and the gang gain access to Dumbledore's portrait without raising suspicion?

Again, I am concerned that, in creating these magical portraits in so much fascinating detail, J.K. Rowling has set a trap for herself that actually ends up undermining the effectiveness of these wonderful stories she's written. Wouldn't it have been possible to tell the stories without making these portraits so fully functional as to undermine the plots?

Galbraith sparks interest; Warbeck draws yawns

You know, I was aware that J.K. had written a couple of mystery novels under some other name but it never really clicked to me that there were two new J.K. Rowling novels out there that I haven't read.

Now that two friends have mentioned the Robert Galbraith books to me again -- and told me how very good they really are -- I'm all atingle to get my hands on them and enjoy some more original Rowling writing.

More on that soon...

Oddly, the news that Rowling has written a new piece for Pottermore on Celestina Warbeck (the sometimes heard but never seen popular singer of the Harry Potter books) has had absolutely no effect on me. I find I really don't care. Maybe it's because the Warbeck piece doesn't sound like much more than another post-Potter sound-bite.

Birthday wishes for two important people

Happy Birthday, Harry Potter!

Happy Birthday, J.K. Rowling!

I am delighted to celebrate, in my small way, the birthdays of two people who have brought so much happiness to my life. Even if one of them is a fictional character.

I am also delighted to report that, when the CBC news website posted two special Harry Potter editions of their "Who Said It?" quizzes (one of quotes from the HP good guys and the other of quotes from HP villains), I got a perfect score on both.

To be honest, there were two on the villains quiz that I wasn't completely certain about but I was lucky enough to be able to figure both out.

And I am ridiculously proud of that accomplishment.

So Happy Birthday Harry, Happy Birthday J.K. and congrats to me!

The Taboo should have been taboo for J.K.

Let's talk about the "Taboo" for a moment.

We're introduced to the Taboo mid-way through The Deathly Hallows. Ron explains that Voldemort's name has "been jinxed, Harry, that's how they track people! Using his name breaks protective enchantments, it causes some kind of magical disturbance... Anyone who says it is trackable!"

First of all, I agree with Ron. Voldemort and the Death Eaters make very clever use of the Taboo since they know that only people who are members of the Order of the Phoenix or might otherwise prove a threat to the Dark Lord still use the name "Voldemort". The Death Eaters refer to him as "the Dark Lord", for the most part, while the good guys and innocents all prefer to use "You Know Who" or "He Who Will Not be Named".

So placing the Taboo on the word "Voldemort" will provide excellent results for the Death Eaters: they will be able to track really problematic people with few false alarms.

Clever. Very clever.

But let's look at the Taboo itself. As explained in the book, the Taboo allows me to place a jinx on a word so that if you use that word you lose all magical protection that you have sought to place on yourself and I can track where you are.

Wow. That's a pretty powerful tool. And we see it work very powerfully later in The Deathly Hallows when, despite all of their tried and true protective enchantments, the Taboo exposes Harry and the crew to the clutches of the Snatchers.

So why isn't it used more often? For example, if the Death Eaters were so interested in finding Horace Slughorn prior to the events of Book Six, why didn't they just put a Taboo on his name (or on "candied pineapple") in order to find him? Sure, there might be some false alarms but they'd probably be worth the trouble.

Why would they not put the Taboo on the names of all of the Order members in order to find them and break down the enchantments protecting them.

And remember, at the start of The Deathly Hallows, Snape tells Voldemort that, Harry will be taken to a safe house that has been prepared for him and has been "given every protection that the Order and Ministry together can provide". Snape concludes: "there is little chance of taking him once he is there."

Wait a minute? If capturing Harry is job one and they have a weapon as powerful as the Taboo available to them, why wouldn't they try jinxing a whole bunch of names or words associated with Harry and the Order, accepting that the large number of false alarms they might face would be well worth the possibility that the Taboo would eventually beak all of the protective enchantments the Ministry and the Order have put in place and allow them to track and capture Harry?

Let's just say they Tabooed the word "Hagrid"? Wouldn't that be enough? I mean, not that many people would say Hagrid's name about then but members of the Order are sure to do so. Why not use it to track Harry and strip away his protections?

Again, I think the Taboo is a very interesting idea. And I agree that the Death Eaters were very clever to have used it to expose members of the Order.

But, like the Time Turner and Felix Felicis, I wonder if it wasn't a dramatic mistake for Rowling to introduce the Taboo into her world. Once she establishes that this powerful tool exists, she has to consider when and how it might otherwise be used to effect in the story.

Then she has to account for why it was not used (it is an extremely difficult jinx and a person can only cast one Taboo at a time, for example).

If she doesn't, in my opinion, she undermines the drama of her narrative.