Follow TV Tropes

Following

History SoYouWantTo / WriteTheNextHarryPotter

Go To



** As with all criticisms, though, take this one with a grain of salt. For example, the book seems to take it for granted that Harry should beat Voldemort by ''strength of arms'' - that is, by being a stronger, more gifted wizard, or by amassing superior firepower in the form of fellow wizards - when, in fact, a case could be made that it's supposed to be the other way around. ''Harry Potter'', like ''Literature/TheLordOfTheRings'', might best be taken as an aversion of the whole RightMakesMight tradition: The hero wins not by out-gunning the villain, but rather by FlawExploitation, generally of the enemy's blindness to some crucial fact[[note]]Christopher Booker goes over this one at length in ''Literature/TheSevenBasicPlots''[[/note]]. In ''TheLordOfTheRings'', for example, Sauron can't begin to imagine that anyone would ever try to destroy the One Ring, so the heroes win despite being horribly outmatched by the sheer power of their BigBad.

to:

** As with all criticisms, though, take this one with a grain of salt. For example, the book seems to take it for granted that Harry should beat Voldemort by ''strength of arms'' - that is, by being a stronger, more gifted wizard, or by amassing superior firepower in the form of fellow wizards - when, in fact, a case could be made that it's supposed to be the other way around. ''Harry Potter'', like ''Literature/TheLordOfTheRings'', might best be taken as an aversion of the whole RightMakesMight tradition: The hero wins not by out-gunning the villain, but rather by FlawExploitation, generally of the enemy's blindness to some crucial fact[[note]]Christopher Booker goes over this one at length in ''Literature/TheSevenBasicPlots''[[/note]]. In ''TheLordOfTheRings'', ''Literature/TheLordOfTheRings'', for example, Sauron can't begin to imagine that anyone would ever try to destroy the One Ring, so the heroes win despite being horribly outmatched by the sheer power of their BigBad.



to:

*''The Sorcerer's Companion: A Guide to the Magical World of Harry Potter'' by Allan Zola Kronzek and Elizabeth Kronzek, a compendium of the lore behind ''Harry Potter'', including mythology, folktales, history, and other cultural elements that influenced Rowling's work.

Added DiffLines:

* What if the setting is that the Wizard World didn't have a Masquerade? What are the consequences of The Muggle world knowing the existence of the Wizard World?

* Maybe the series takes place in a Post Apocalyptic medieval like world where TheMagicReturns and a new civilization is spawned.



* ''TheMagicians'', while good, can be a little ''too'' Potter-esque to be taken seriously. Its constant use of references to Harry Potter (as well as Narnia and other works) make it fall short in terms of being the next ''Harry Potter''.

to:

* ''TheMagicians'', ''Literature/TheMagicians'', while good, can be a little ''too'' Potter-esque to be taken seriously. Its constant use of references to Harry Potter (as well as Narnia and other works) make it fall short in terms of being the next ''Harry Potter''.


''Literature/HarryPotter'' is just ''rolling'' in Aesops, although they're not always directly stated (though some are: Dumbledore was good about discussing it all with Harry at the end of every book ([[spoiler:even after he died]]). Some of the Aesops include:

to:

''Literature/HarryPotter'' ''Harry Potter'' is just ''rolling'' in Aesops, although they're not always directly stated (though some are: Dumbledore was good about discussing it all with Harry at the end of every book ([[spoiler:even after he died]]). Some of the Aesops include:



* ''Literature/HarryPotter'', of course. If you're looking to make the next ''Harry Potter'' and don't know what you're trying to be, it'll be a sad day when you figure out it's a far cry from what you were aiming at.

to:

* ''Literature/HarryPotter'', ''Harry Potter'', of course. If you're looking to make the next ''Harry Potter'' and don't know what you're trying to be, it'll be a sad day when you figure out it's a far cry from what you were aiming at.



** As with all criticisms, though, take this one with a grain of salt. For example, the book seems to take it for granted that Harry should beat Voldemort by ''strength of arms'' - that is, by being a stronger, more gifted wizard, or by amassing superior firepower in the form of fellow wizards - when, in fact, a case could be made that it's supposed to be the other way around. ''Literature/HarryPotter'', like ''Literature/TheLordOfTheRings'', might best be taken as an aversion of the whole RightMakesMight tradition: The hero wins not by out-gunning the villain, but rather by FlawExploitation, generally of the enemy's blindness to some crucial fact[[note]]Christopher Booker goes over this one at length in ''Literature/TheSevenBasicPlots''[[/note]]. In ''TheLordOfTheRings'', for example, Sauron can't begin to imagine that anyone would ever try to destroy the One Ring, so the heroes win despite being horribly outmatched by the sheer power of their BigBad.

to:

** As with all criticisms, though, take this one with a grain of salt. For example, the book seems to take it for granted that Harry should beat Voldemort by ''strength of arms'' - that is, by being a stronger, more gifted wizard, or by amassing superior firepower in the form of fellow wizards - when, in fact, a case could be made that it's supposed to be the other way around. ''Literature/HarryPotter'', ''Harry Potter'', like ''Literature/TheLordOfTheRings'', might best be taken as an aversion of the whole RightMakesMight tradition: The hero wins not by out-gunning the villain, but rather by FlawExploitation, generally of the enemy's blindness to some crucial fact[[note]]Christopher Booker goes over this one at length in ''Literature/TheSevenBasicPlots''[[/note]]. In ''TheLordOfTheRings'', for example, Sauron can't begin to imagine that anyone would ever try to destroy the One Ring, so the heroes win despite being horribly outmatched by the sheer power of their BigBad.



* Nancy Stouffer's ''Literature/TheLegendOfRahAndTheMuggles'', of course. Actually sold as the ''previous'' ''Literature/HarryPotter'', but nobody believed her and rightly so. A true Epic Fail that's a must-read for any aspiring novelist looking for advice on what not to do.
* ''TheMagicians'', while good, can be a little ''too'' Potter-esque to be taken seriously. Its constant use of references to Harry Potter (as well as Narnia and other works) make it fall short in terms of being the next ''HarryPotter'.

to:

* Nancy Stouffer's ''Literature/TheLegendOfRahAndTheMuggles'', of course. Actually sold as the ''previous'' ''Literature/HarryPotter'', ''previous Harry Potter'', but nobody believed her and rightly so. A true Epic Fail that's a must-read for any aspiring novelist looking for advice on what not to do.
* ''TheMagicians'', while good, can be a little ''too'' Potter-esque to be taken seriously. Its constant use of references to Harry Potter (as well as Narnia and other works) make it fall short in terms of being the next ''HarryPotter'.
''Harry Potter''.


There's an air of mystery around ''Harry Potter''. There's also some melodrama and teenage Angst. But the primary story... hrm, sorry, can't think straight this morning. Be back later.

to:

There's an air of mystery around ''Harry Potter''. In fact, ''Harry Potter'' can be described as a MysteryFiction with wizards. There is always a driving question in each book, often centered at the title. "What is and who wants the philosopher's stone?", "what and where is the chamber of secrets?", "who is, how did and why did Sirius Black escape from Azkaban?", "why did the goblet of fire spit out four names instead of three?" etc. That seems to be J. K. Rowling main writing style, as even under pseudodnym, she wrote a detective story.

There's also some melodrama and teenage Angst. But the primary story... hrm, sorry, can't think straight this morning. Be back later.
Angst.


** As with all criticisms, though, take this one with a grain of salt. For example, the book seems to take it for granted that Harry should beat Voldemort by ''strength of arms'' - that is, by being a stronger, more gifted wizard, or by amassing superior firepower in the form of fellow wizards - when, in fact, a case could be made that it's supposed to be the other way around. ''Literature/HarryPotter'', like ''Literature/TheLordOfTheRings'', might best be taken as an aversion of the whole RightMakesMight tradition: The hero wins not by out-gunning the villain, but rather by FlawExploitation, generally of the enemy's blindness to some crucial fact[[note]]Christopher Booker goes over this one at length in ''TheSevenBasicPlots''[[/note]]. In ''TheLordOfTheRings'', for example, Sauron can't begin to imagine that anyone would ever try to destroy the One Ring, so the heroes win despite being horribly outmatched by the sheer power of their BigBad.

to:

** As with all criticisms, though, take this one with a grain of salt. For example, the book seems to take it for granted that Harry should beat Voldemort by ''strength of arms'' - that is, by being a stronger, more gifted wizard, or by amassing superior firepower in the form of fellow wizards - when, in fact, a case could be made that it's supposed to be the other way around. ''Literature/HarryPotter'', like ''Literature/TheLordOfTheRings'', might best be taken as an aversion of the whole RightMakesMight tradition: The hero wins not by out-gunning the villain, but rather by FlawExploitation, generally of the enemy's blindness to some crucial fact[[note]]Christopher Booker goes over this one at length in ''TheSevenBasicPlots''[[/note]].''Literature/TheSevenBasicPlots''[[/note]]. In ''TheLordOfTheRings'', for example, Sauron can't begin to imagine that anyone would ever try to destroy the One Ring, so the heroes win despite being horribly outmatched by the sheer power of their BigBad.


Rowling used animal totems for various characters, including deer (Harry and his parents [[spoiler:and Severus Snape]]), a wolf, a rat, an otter, and so forth. This can be an effective way to characterize your cast quickly and vividly so you have a basis to write around as you flesh them out. Hey, ''ElfQuest'' did it too.

to:

Rowling used animal totems for various characters, including deer (Harry and his parents [[spoiler:and Severus Snape]]), a wolf, a rat, an otter, and so forth. This can be an effective way to characterize your cast quickly and vividly so you have a basis to write around as you flesh them out. Hey, ''ElfQuest'' ''ComicBook/ElfQuest'' did it too.


''Literature/HarryPotter'' is just ''rolling'' in Aesops, although they're not always directly stated (though some are: Dumbledore was good about discussing it all with Harry at the end of every book ([[spoiler:even after he died]])). Some of the Aesops include:

to:

''Literature/HarryPotter'' is just ''rolling'' in Aesops, although they're not always directly stated (though some are: Dumbledore was good about discussing it all with Harry at the end of every book ([[spoiler:even after he died]])).died]]). Some of the Aesops include:


While the details surrounding the popularity of ''Literature/HarryPotter'' can at times be sketchy -- just how popular ''was'' the first book before the media got ahold of the story?[[note]]There may not have been a "before" -- [[TheBBC Radio 4]] picked up on it right back when [[Literature/HarryPotterAndThePhilosophersStone the first book]] was released in 1997[[/note]] -- the fact is that author J. K. Rowling somehow managed to get a whole generation of kids totally hooked on a series of {{door stopper}}s each larger than the last (well, okay, the last two started to shrink a bit, but still).

to:

While the details surrounding the popularity of ''Literature/HarryPotter'' can at times be sketchy -- just how popular ''was'' the first book before the media got ahold of the story?[[note]]There may not have been a "before" -- [[TheBBC [[Creator/TheBBC Radio 4]] picked up on it right back when [[Literature/HarryPotterAndThePhilosophersStone the first book]] was released in 1997[[/note]] -- the fact is that author J. K. Rowling somehow managed to get a whole generation of kids totally hooked on a series of {{door stopper}}s each larger than the last (well, okay, the last two started to shrink a bit, but still).



to:

* ''Literature/TheChroniclesOfNarnia'', in particular ''The Magician's Nephew'' and, of course, ''The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe''. ''Harry Potter'' is really the "next" Narnia, and Rowling makes copious references to it, but at the same time, ''Narnia'' did things that ''Potter'' never did (such as the inclusion of SantaClaus as a real figure, for just one example). Reading both might help to give your story a broader perspective, and integrating elements from Narnia into a ''Harry Potter''-like work can turn it into something unique.



** As with all criticisms, though, take this one with a grain of salt. For example, the book seems to take it for granted that Harry should beat Voldemort by ''strength of arms'' - that is, by being a stronger, more gifted wizard, or by amassing superior firepower in the form of fellow wizards - when, in fact, a case could be made that it's supposed to be the other way around. ''Literature/HarryPotter'', like ''Literature/TheLordOfTheRings'', might best be taken as an aversion of the whole RightMakesMight tradition: The hero wins not by out-gunning the villain, but rather by FlawExploitation, generally of the enemy's blindness to some crucial fact[[note]]Christopher Booker goes over this one at length in ''TheSevenBasicPlots''[[note]]. In ''TheLordOfTheRings'', for example, Sauron can't begin to imagine that anyone would ever try to destroy the One Ring, so the heroes win despite being horribly outmatched by the sheer power of their BigBad.

to:

** As with all criticisms, though, take this one with a grain of salt. For example, the book seems to take it for granted that Harry should beat Voldemort by ''strength of arms'' - that is, by being a stronger, more gifted wizard, or by amassing superior firepower in the form of fellow wizards - when, in fact, a case could be made that it's supposed to be the other way around. ''Literature/HarryPotter'', like ''Literature/TheLordOfTheRings'', might best be taken as an aversion of the whole RightMakesMight tradition: The hero wins not by out-gunning the villain, but rather by FlawExploitation, generally of the enemy's blindness to some crucial fact[[note]]Christopher Booker goes over this one at length in ''TheSevenBasicPlots''[[note]].''TheSevenBasicPlots''[[/note]]. In ''TheLordOfTheRings'', for example, Sauron can't begin to imagine that anyone would ever try to destroy the One Ring, so the heroes win despite being horribly outmatched by the sheer power of their BigBad.




to:

* ''TheMagicians'', while good, can be a little ''too'' Potter-esque to be taken seriously. Its constant use of references to Harry Potter (as well as Narnia and other works) make it fall short in terms of being the next ''HarryPotter'.

Added DiffLines:

A good idea; remember when we said there was a lot of EpilepticTrees going on while the series was going (and afterwards)? Check some of those theories out. We now know that Hermione isn't an elderly witch in a young girl's body, but wouldn't it be fun if she was?


* Blood doesn't matter. Not only do we get a few different angles on racism, but we see that Harry's friends and mentors care for him far more than his blood relatives do.

to:

* Blood (or more, status and heritage) doesn't matter. Not only do we get a few different angles on racism, but we see that Harry's friends and mentors care for him far more than his blood relatives do.


* Don't judge a book by its cover. No, I don't mean literally (though you shouldn't play with talking diaries); rather, a character who is friendly and helpful might be evil, and a character who is gruff or even cruel might be the guy you want on your side when the chips are down. Rowling wrote in a lot of greys, averting the BlackAndWhiteMorality that so many kids' books get steeped in.[[hottip:*:And this without falling into moral relativism, either: Harry may be flawed, but he's still firmly on the side of good, and there's still a BigBad who's doing unmistakably evil things and who ultimately pays a terrible price for it.]]

to:

* Don't judge a book by its cover. No, I don't mean literally (though you shouldn't play with talking diaries); rather, a character who is friendly and helpful might be evil, and a character who is gruff or even cruel might be the guy you want on your side when the chips are down. Rowling wrote in a lot of greys, averting the BlackAndWhiteMorality that so many kids' books get steeped in.[[hottip:*:And [[note]]And this without falling into moral relativism, either: Harry may be flawed, but he's still firmly on the side of good, and there's still a BigBad who's doing unmistakably evil things and who ultimately pays a terrible price for it.]][[/note]]


* How to deal with an unjust world. Rowling took a lot of flak for having heroes who do bad things but don't get called on the carpet for them. But if you look at the progression, you see, for example, that at the start of one book Harry might react to a slight against his parents by lashing out with his powers, but by the end, he's laughing off a Rita Skeeter article that the whole wizarding world is going to read. And Delores Umbridge was an extreme example of what it feels like to know the truth but be unable to talk about it.

to:

* How to deal with an unjust world. Rowling took a lot of flak for having heroes who do bad things but don't get called on the carpet for them. But if you look at the progression, you see, for example, that at the start of one book Harry might react to a slight against his parents by lashing out with his powers, but by the end, he's laughing off a Rita Skeeter article that the whole wizarding world is going to read. And Delores Dolores Umbridge was an extreme example of what it feels like to know the truth but be unable to talk about it.

Showing 15 edit(s) of 32

Top

How well does it match the trope?

Example of:

/

Media sources:

/

Report