Sines - Wondering about the page quote. While very appropriate for the first book, the majority of the series is not about Harry being a wizard, but about him and Voldemort. I can't think of any good quote that aren't spoilers though. It just seems that there should be something better that isn't a spoiler. Probably something by Dumbledore. The best I can think of is something from when Harry is concerned he is too much like Voldemort. Dumbledore responds that it's not what you are, but what you do, that is important (Or similar).
: What are you talking about? That quote is great, it captures perfectly the essence of the series. The Dumbledore quote would be good for a trope about choosing good over easy or evil, but not here really.
Sines - Well, the early books are about Harry learning he is a wizard. This eventually doesn't play in any more, but some themes do play in throughout the series. One of those themes would be better used as the page quote. I'm not saying the Your A Wizard quote is bad, it's pretty good. I just have a nagging suspicion theres a better one.
: I have questions about the inclusion of the following tropes
- Card Carrying Villain (Godelot). Who is Godelot? I don't recall him in the books.
- After reading that I Googled Godelot, turns out he was a previous owner of the Elder wand, but didn't really appeared in the books.
- Magical Negro: (Dobby) Not sure about this one, it doesn't fit well enough in my opinion.
- Scary Dogmatic Aliens:(While they are not aliens, Voldemort and the Death Eaters fit the Aliens as Nazis archetype to a T.) Surely this is better put under a different trope, the word "Aliens" does kind of discount them from fitting.
- Steven Ulysses Perhero: Who?
- Remus Lupin, Sirius Black...
- Really Seven Hundred Years Old (Wizards live longer, much longer.): Surely that's only people who have the philosopher's stone?
- Dumbledore is 150+ years old, they don't get to 600+ years but they still live a lot.
- What Kind Of Lame Power Is Heart Anyway (Voldemort doesn't believe The Power Of Love will stop him.). Surely a better example is Harry talking to Dumbledore about [[The Power Of Love]], as Harry doesn't believe it will help.
: I have removed:
because I don't recall that Ginny is the first girl introduced.
: I do, and, yes she is, unless someone else backs that up.
: They met in the bookstore, way before Harry met any other female lead.// Later: Ooh your right it was in the station. - Lets not mention that he met Draco
before then though.
: Linking the boarding school genre to The Good Old British Comp
is rather misleading. Billy Bunter
don't fit those tropes very well, and nor does Harry Potter, apart from minor points. Comprehensives have more in common, both in real life and in fiction, with US High schools than with the boarding schools, though they aren't that much like either. The commonalities are because they're all schools.
: Most comprehensives are uniformed schools which (allegedly) have higher standard of learning (Students are vetted by 11+ examinations). Which is pretty dissimilar to an American high school. Harry Potter is set in more of a private school anyway not a comprehensive.
: You're describing grammar schools. Comprehensives don't select, officially — they're supposed to offer a comprehensive education to everyone within their catchment area. Comps aren't that similar to US high schools, but the pupils go home at the end of the day, and cover the full educational range, unlike boarding schools. On the other hand, school sports are important in Hollywood high schools and boarding schools but not usually in comps. Overall, there are three distinct genres here, all falling within the larger genre of school stories. None of them should be confused with any of the others.
: Damn got em mixed up. I went to a normal high school and didnt even bother taking the 11+. You know my school took the track team pretty seriously (Or at least me and my friends did since we were on it). It depends on the area how important sports are. I still say that they are not similar to American schools - not the least because we are 2 years younger and wear uniforms. But as for being linked to on this page i agree that The Good Old British Comp
doesn't fit here. (Its a private school - no bike sheds)
: The 11+ isn't actually used in the UK any more (except in Northern Ireland).
: Its only been gone a few years its still culturally relevant.
: I've recently noticed that some previously British slang terms — such as "snogging" — seem to be showing up in the American vernacular, and I have begun to wonder if perhaps the Potter books are responsible for importing them. Thoughts?
: It's quite possible, although it may just be that slang that was fermenting in one area of America has started spreading.
: I wont be convinced until you start using Knickers and Wanker. Two of the greatest words we have that you colonials ignore. :D
: I've seen 'em, a couple times. `-`
Tulling: Regarding the Americanitis example: I would very much like to know the reasoning that led to "sorcerer's stone" being considered easier to understand than "philosophers' stone", considering that philosophers exist in the real world, while sorcerers are found solely in fiction. You'd think "the gold-making stone" or somesuch would be more obvious.
: Ooh! I know this one! In Ye States, philosophers are dead German and French guys who were multisyllabic, given to really long, hard to parse sentences. They are also dead. Sorcerers might never have lived, so could be counted as 'dead', but they don't have a rep for being multisyllabic or hard to parse. Or of being French. Or German.
: Call me shallow, but I think "sorcerer" sounds cooler
than "philosopher." Sure, we all know the above assumption of philosophers isn't quite right, but consider the first, immediate image the titles evoke before you ponder them.
: Ouch. I've been relegated to "the discussion above". I feel cheap, now. :-) Anyway. Yes, sorcerers are cooler than philosophers. For the reasons I gave. Above.
: Also? Alliteration.
: Dang. Yes. All those 's' sounds in "sorcerer's stone" versus "philosopher's stone". Wait. <busts out laughing> Let me go look at the binding of my edition ... <back now> Yes, "Sorcerer" is clearly the superior term. Else, my edition would be titled in an inferior manner. :-)
: And "sorcerer" is more tightly related to the magic setting. People would wonder what philosophers have to do with wizards.
: That brings to mind a question I've always had: why was the actual mythological artifact called "the Philosopher's Stone"?
Firvulag: Philosophy used to have a much broader definition than it does now. For instance science is a relatively new term, it used to be called natrual philosophy. It was/is called the Philosopher's Stone because the people who were interested in it, or thought the could figure out how to create or isolate it were philosophers, often alchemists.
Basically it's Older Than They Think
and was orignally connected with the ideas of science, not magic. Although at the time and place, ancient Egypt, the Middle East and ancient Greece, the distinction between the two wasn't as hard as it is for us.
: The Alchemical Philosophers Stone was the great MacGuffin
for the alchemists. They all wanted to make it and create mounds of gold and infinite life and make their flatus smell like an evening breeze - they thought it would solve everything. The item in the book was based directly on their interpretation. The way the BBC reported it was that when polled a large (And i mean really large) percentage of the American population had never heard of it or plain didn't know what a philosopher was so they changed it to a word they would understand. Everyone i know found that very
: Basically, if you poll a large percantage of Americans and ask them about any word with more than two syllables, you'll get the same results. <sigh> Americans Are Ignorant Boobs
seems like such an attractive trope subject at times. And I'm an American.
: If you do use homer simpson as the picture.
: Anyone who wants more info on the concept of the Philosopher's Stone should read John Granger's books (The Hidden Key to Harry Potter
is the first, I think). I haven't yet read the last book, so I don't yet know how well his theories hold up, but he does include a lot of information about classical literature and about the science of alchemy. For starters, alchemy wasn't the hocus-pocus voodoo start to science that some people think it was, and secondly, it was used even in conjunction with major religions, including Christianity. The search for the Stone was more about purifying your soul, so says Granger — and there's a ton
of symbolism that shows up in Harry Potter
that's related to alchemy, including the colors of certain characters (Albus = white, Black = black, Rubeus = red, and so forth). Anyway, check out the books — they're well worth reading, highly informative (even if his theories don't match up with the end product, but even more if they do
: Everything my tech-geek, Potter-geek and novice book-geek skills tell me points to one conclusion: Deathly Hallows has leaked. After the onrush of idiots the last time around, there's going to be an avalanche of assholes posting spoilers in the next few days. TV tropes should be obscure enough to fly under the radar, but we should nevertheless be more vigilant.
Jordan: A question- what is an example of Schrödinger's Cat
for the series?
: That's a very good question indeed. Wracking my brains, I can't think of who the submitter might have meant.
Zeta: I think they were just mistaking being alive when one adaptation is released and being dead in the source material (which is ahead of the movies) as a Shrodingers Cat
: No, I think someone added it without realizing the Harry Potter
entry that used to be on Schrödinger's Cat
was something of a joke (it mentioned people who weren't sure Sirius Black had been Killed Off for Real
because they Never Found the Body
referring to him as "Schrodinger's Dog").
Because, currently, we do not know
if Snape is Good or Evil, Good pretending to be Evil, Evil pretending to be Good, or what have you. And even if that turns out to be the case let's keep this artical spoiler free till it becomes okay in the fandom to talk about spoilers...
: I agree completely about spoilers, but remember, Snape is already
a Fake Defector to Voldemort's side. Twice over, in fact.
: Speaking of spoilers for Deathly Hallows
, I just removed one. Zeta
, if you're out there... dammit, never do that again!!!
Zeta: "Suffice to say, this site contains major spoilers for a lot of media. About the only thing we won't spoil is The Mousetrap." The warning is there, right on the front page. Unless you want a new rule introduced to say everyone has to avoid posting new tropes till the media related in question is over a certain age since release . . .
: No, I'm sorry. We have spoiler tags, and this is something the entire Internet
will be angry at you about for spoiling. Be intelligent, please. Removing several others, too.
Though, IMHO, we should
have policies about spoilers. `.` Or, at least, guidelines.
Also, warning Deathly Hallows spoilers
, he didn't actually come Back from the Dead — he was protected from Voldemort's spell by accepting his own death.
: I just have one thing to say about this issue: Spoil At Your Own Risk
: Just finished the book after six hours. Not spoiling anything (though the ending was satisfying), but what's the rule of thumb on spoilers for media as famous as Harry Potter? Wait for a week or two before posting it on discussion boards? A month?
: For really big things that tend to make people angry, we've historically created pages just for the spoilers. Doctor Who New Series Tropes
, for example. Should we do this for Harry Potter too, temporarily, just to put a sort of pressure governor on it?
: I'd be for that.
: If one is created, definitely put Fake Defector there for Snape; he does it so many times it makes one's head spin, Distant Finale, and Kill 'em All (can be said to be C-List Fodder, but unsure)
. Back from the Dead
doesn't quite fit; Not Quite Dead
sums it up better. But what did the contributor who added (I saw on edit history) Dis Continuity
mean by that? Oh yes, and add Spoil At Your Own Risk
And how do we not have Sliding Scale of Idealism Versus Cynicism
on there already? Without giving anything in the final book away, the tone of the series gets progressively and noticeably darker and grimmer as deaths pile up and Harry becomes more bitter. It seems to slide back towards idealism at the end of Deathly Hallows, when The Power of Love holds firm, Voldemort gets his Karmic Death, and all the main characters live happily ever after.
: It gets darker, but stays idealistic, IMHO, though not as much as it was at the beginning.
: Just a note before we get too far removed from this: a) the problem everyone had with HP spoilers was that it wasn't available anywhere
yet. b) The Doctor Who and Torchwood spoiler pages are due to Americanitis; they're there because they haven't been shown in the States. When would we be able to move in HP&DH examples?
: Xanatos Gambit
or Xanatos Roulette
? One or the other's been going on...
: I'd say gambit. It's established, repeatedly, that DD's not omniscient, and some of his schemes backfire. His gift to Ron is "useful item with special qualities that he's likely to need" more than "item that will come in handy on the 15th of May, right after Harry strips naked."
He's closer to "Firefly's gang bets on Saffron's inevitable betrayal" than to "Robbers depend on FBI happening to lock down the exact sector they're in, with a lot to choose from and no particular reason to choose this one." None of it depends on stuff that he couldn't possibly have known.
Be: Although technically there'd be no reason for the FBI to lock down any sector other than the one the robbers were in...unless you're not talking about Die Hard at all.
: After having read book 7, I'm thinking that quite a few of the side characters deserve a Crouching Moron, Hidden Badass entry, especially Neville.
: I'd call that character development, myself, and that particular case has been going on for a while now.
: Wormtail's death was more You Have Failed Me — he was killed by a contingency plan of Voldemort's built into his replacement hand as punishment for showing Harry mercy.
Deus Ex Biotica
: So... what is Anyone Can Die
doing here? The last book makes it very, very clear that, no matter how narratively appropos it is, some characters (by which I mean, Harry, Ron, and Hermione) simply cannot kick the can
. Barring someone defending this, I'll delete it soon.
Oh, and there is no defense for changing the name of the Philosopher's Stone.
: "Philosopher" brings to mind some wise old professor good at quoting proverbs. "Sorcerer" brings to mind a wizard. "Sorcerer" just sounds cooler
Anyone Can Die
is definitely in the atmosphere. Hedwig is killed, when as The Hero's pet, she should have Infant Immortality. Fred is killed, his twin survives — that has got to be painful. And Harry dying was a very real possibility.
: Yes, but the "Philosopher's Stone" is a real thing (or as real as a legend can be). You can't say the same about a "Sorcerer's Stone". And it doesn't even make sense in story - there's no evidence that anyone
in Harry Potter
is referred to as a "sorcerer", and these people have some weird
names. Mugwump anyone?
Seven-of-diamonds: Every fan I know felt like no one was safe after book 5, especially the Trio.
They may not have been on the death list, but Anyone Can Die
is more about the reader thinking they -might- be on the death list, thus creating suspense. Rowling even said that she considered everyone a possibility while she was writing.
- Philosopher's Stone is the original, and thus has priority.
- There's definitely an Anyone Can Die; consider how many fans thought Harry was going to bite it.
: Why is Chekhovs Invisible Gun
here? From the article; "Chekhovs Invisible Gun is less convincing because the producers don't even bother to refer to or show it beforehand." The item in question was
shown beforehand, several times.
: Since the deluminator
is a "device... that is introduced conspicuously and will become very, very important later on," it is a straight Chekhov's Gun
: Yes, that's what I thought.
: "When an Ass Pull
tries to become Chekhov's Gun
through a hastily applied Hand Wave
The key word here is tries
, because what makes Chekhov's Gun
work is foreshadowing of the Applied Phlebotinum
's importance before it is used." If you ask me, the Deluminator as device for Ron to get back to Harry was very Asspulley, that function was Never foreshadowed and just appeared out of nothing, it was almost a Deus ex Machina x_X.
: That's what makes it a twist. Now, if it turned out to be a Horcrux or deathly hallow, or had a completely unrelated power like Super Strength
or allowing a non-Animagus to shapeshift, that would be stretching it. To call this an Ass Pull
, I think, would be to say she had no intention of giving the deluminator
its purpose in Book 7 when she introduced it in Book 1
and got the idea at the last minute. I doubt that.
: It HAD a completely unrelated power >_> It wasn't that Asspull, but come on...it went from being a device that just shuts lights off to a device that helps find people, whenever they are, and that power appeared just when Ron had run and needed to get back to the group, that part didn't had any foreshadowing...that's why I think it was an invisible Chekhovs gun, that part at least.
Seven-of-diamonds: I kind of figured the unrelated power was an explanation for how Dumbledore always knew what was going on with Harry because he could listen in on whoever said his name but it still didn't have anything to do with turning off lights.
: I never thought of Ginny as a Mary Sue
until I read a very well-documented livejournal post about her- the perfection of the character, her kickass powers, her speshal beauty, her ability to be rude and never called on it because she is Destined For The Hero...
I think whether or not everybody agrees, Mary Sue
deserves to be on there. If not for Ginny than for Hermione, whom JK has said is based off her her.
: Hermione? Bushy-haired, buck-teethed, bossy, arrogant, annoying, "insufferable know-it-all" Hermione a Mary Sue
? Lol — good one.
Rinny: I think Hermione's got as many moments as Ginny does, especially in Goblet of Fire
. Remember the Yule Ball.
Be: In Hermione's case, those are the exception rather than the rule. I can think of five or six cases where Hermione gets punished, put down or whatever; I can't think of any for Ginny.
: And talking of Mary Sues, then there's the people who would bring up Harry himself
: HAHAHA DISREGARD THIS DELETED EDIT, I SUCK COCKS:
- Yandere (Umbridge, particularly in the film version of Order of the Phoenix)
TK: "Technicolor Eyes
(Harry Potter)" - What? Last I checked, green is a perfectly normal eye color, in fact my blue-green are odder. Granted the color is said to be "significant" but looking at the description for the Technicolor Eyes entry, I still don't think Harry's green eyes fit?
Sines: Some eye trope must fit the bill here. Considering how Harry is repeatedly said to look like his father, but that he has his mother's eyes. This grows in importance as we find out that Harry is far more like his mother than his father, combined with all other sorts of symbolism it should show up somewhere, but I'm not sure which trope fits.
: Deleted this addition by Nev
- Yeah, because no way would the thousand people in the school, including Dumbledore, have Expelliarmused that wand or anything. Not to mention you can't Apparate out of Hogwarts, so you either would have to walk him all the way to the gates or put him on a broom with you, both of which are horrible ideas and give Harry endless opportunities to escape.
because it is argumentative natter, and because the objection is bogus and silly; if Crouch were to have kidnapped Harry at the start of the school year instead of what he did
do in canon, he's certainly smart enough not to do it in front of a thousand people including Dumbledore. And might I suggest Incarcerous, Mobilicorpus
and either disillusioning or Harry's own invisibility cloak as a way of securing him and getting him unnoticed beyond the anti-apparition wards? It doesn't take more than 30 seconds' thought to come up with a better plan than "manipulate a 9-month-long international competition so that the 14-year-old boy I want to abduct wins and seizes a specially-enchanted cup that will bring him to me".
Be: I have a query - I was always under the impression that a half-blooded person was the offspring of a magical person and a Muggle. If I remember rightly, Seamus comes right out and says that in the first book. From then on, however, people refer to Harry as being a half-blood, where he should be a pure-blood for having two magical parents. It's possible I'm missing something or I'm misremembering, but what's with this?
: Wizarding prejudice means that since Harry's mother was muggle-born, she still "counts" as a muggle, making Harry half-blooded.
: Three fourths-blooded would sound just silly anyway.
: Half-Blood seems to refer to any mix of pure and impure blood. Or a half-blood and anything else. Maybe wizards are Lumpers.
: As far as the pure-blood fanatics are concerned, a non-pure-blood anywhere in one's ancestry 'pollutes' the blood, making one a half-blood. Realistically, the vast majority of wizarding family trees have non-pureblood members, as magical ability is so rare that they would have died out otherwise.
- (Accusations of outdated gender roles led to Rowling adding more "strong women" in book 5, including punky Auror Nymphadora Tonks, and Luna Lovegood. Neville's mother was only given as "Frank's wife" in book 4 but is an ex-Auror in 5. Ginny became a lot more assertive, too — some called it Character Derailment — and her mother, a housewife, became a member of the Order of the Phoenix.)
Is there any proof of this is why there's more strong female characters in book 5? I find it unlikely there would be enough of an outcry for Rowling to notice, considering Rowling already had Hermione and Mc Gonagall
as strong women that there would be . It's not like she regularly bends to the will of outraged fans. Maybe she just felt like some more female characters. If there isn't an answer to this, I'll pull it (if I remember).
Chuckg: Removed this entry under Poor Communication Kills
- That would create a risk of someone unintentionally giving him away. Dumbledore had sacrificed too much to take that kind of risk.
Its an arguable point, its just, the argument would put too much natter on the main page. So, we argue it here. My counterpoint is thus: by not telling anyone that he gave Snape permission to kill him, Dumbledore has condemned Snape to death or life imprisonment in Azkaban for the murder of Albus Dumbledore, and that's assuming
Snape survives the war. Even if Snape is a complete Jerk Ass
, rewarding over a decade of loyal service under ultimately stressful circumstances by letting the guy be sent up the river for following your own direct orders
is what they call a total dick move. You just don't do that to someone and continue to claim that you're a decent person. As for the security concerns involved: while the information would risk exposure if you told everyone in the Order of the Phoenix, if Dumbledore can't trust any one
of them to keep their damn mouth shut, then his entire organization is screwed anyway. Me personally, I'd have let Mad-Eye Moody, Kingsley Shacklebolt, and Harry Potter in on the secret (so that at least one of them survives the war and can clear Snape's name). The first two are picked because Aurors presumably have at least decent mental defense training, are already experienced professionals and can be trusted with classified information, and are the most likely to be able to convince the Department of Magical Law Enforcement to believe what they're saying, being two of the most trusted Aurors or former Aurors around. Harry is chosen because he also has Occlumency training (Voldemort is a master legilimens after all), is also a very close-mouthed person, and most importantly because if Voldemort captures him
, the risk of exposing Snape has suddenly become the least of your problems. Also because the testimony of the Boy Who Lived is worth a lot as well. (Actually, now that I think about it, if Remus has any Occlumency I'd totally let him in on it as well.)
A question for those who read the UK version of Goblet of Fire
: does the illustration for Chapter 36 "The Parting Of The Ways" differ at all from the Scholastic (US) version? In our version, it's of the Dark Mark.
- Ron is a much worse student. Then again, he's also a less talented wizard in general. (Except at wizard chess.)
What? No he isn't. Harry is better than him at Defense Against the Dark Arts, that's it. They're complete equals otherwise. Cut it out with the Ron bashing.
No. Shut up. You're sexist. Just because Tonks, Ginny and Lily had families doesn't mean it's their only goal in life. Ginny and Tonks both explicitly had their own careers, and Lily probably did too. Whoever wrote this may think they're progressive, but they're really just assuming that women can't dare to have kids and careers at the same time.
- Mimimurlough: The title to that trope is rather misleading, so I suggest that you read the article. I mean to point out that these women are treated as mothers, wives or sisters first, not that those are their only roles. For contrast, you can look at Hermione, who did end up a love interrest, but it didn't obscure her role as a key player in the war, as it did with Tonks.
mew4ever23: You would think that there would be some Time Travel Tropes
in this article after Hermione's Time Turner in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. Not sure which tropes apply though.