A general thread for discussion of the Harry Potter books. Any new books set in the same world are also on-topic.
Games, films and other adaptations may be more appropriate for other threads if they're being discussed in isolation.
The HBO tv series has its own thread
.
Mod Notes:
- Media threads are primarily for fans of the works they cover. Not everyone will like everything, of course, and that's especially true in a franchise like Harry Potter. It's fine to say a particular story within the franchise doesn't work for you, or to talk about why it doesn't work for you. But please try not to dwell on the negativity for too long. Complaints shouldn't take up too much space on a thread that's intended for fans.
- This is a thread to talk about Harry Potter and the content of the stories, not a place to talk about J. K. Rowling's more controversial views. If there's something newsworthy where Rowling's activities become relevant (e.g. it affects her relationship to new Potter works and adaptations), that's fair enough. Otherwise it's all been said already and we don't need to repeat it.
there doesn't seem to be a general HP topic...
Edited by Mrph1 on May 27th 2025 at 9:17:24 AM
That's a multifaceted question.
Like, I think it's fine that the author didn't want to fix this in this book. While it's a plot point in the series, the series was always about Harry growing up and his direct conflict with Voldemort. And change takes time. It's also fine if it's not Harry who does this. It's not his duty to fix everything wrong with the wizarding world. Which is why I'd be fine with a statement saying that it's something that still needs working on. A sequel hook or just a statement that the wizarding world is healing but healing takes time. That something was learned from this conflict and that the world isn't waiting for the next Voldemort/Grindelwald to happen.
Maybe in an alternate timeline instead of a weird play/book about Harry and Malfoy's kid traveling through time to have some frankly bad-fanfic-level adventure against Voldemort's surprised unexplained daughter, we could've had a more grown up story about Harry and Hermione and Ron as adults trying to do some of those changes.
Clearly this wasn't a book the author was wanting to write (and considering how her views have evolved, maybe that's for the better she didn't write a book about Harry and Hermione's careers in government, if you get my meaning).
Which is itself an issue, what would be required sort of hits the hard wall of what the Author is willing to write.
And you're also right that there's also angles that some of it, JK just... doesn't see it as a problem worth fixing.
Edited by Ghilz on Sep 9th 2025 at 4:34:29 AM
Rowling have said hermoine have done reform, it just as other said no focus her story on that and probably she wanted to said they all have good happy life.
I think another is just how rowling have actually negated to continue the series in anyway beyond cursd child. almost 20 years have happen and it clear she is mostly done with it and focus in her vacant series for better or worst.
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"yeah prequels and book faithfull retaling of the show. But other content furthering harry potter? not so much, she really is focus on casual vacancy that it have a lot of books...that most people dont care because it not harry potter.
Letting aside her views, I find kinda sad how she jsut kinda peak earlier and nobody care that much what she did afterwards
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"[[quoteblock]]"Hey look that statue Dumbledore called a lie? Harry and co are working on making it reflect the truth". [[/quoteblock]
Honestly, Dumbledore calling that statue a lie always felt a bit off... it's literally a symbol of wizards lording over everyone else.
The only lie in that statue was the magical beings looking appreciative of that wizard supremacy, but otherwise it was a pretty good representation of what wizard society was about.
Yes, but the statue very much does not portray an equal relationship, is my point. It basically romanticises wizard supremacy.
Edited by DrunkenNordmann on Sep 9th 2025 at 11:44:52 AM
We learn from history that we do not learn from historyThe statue implies they live together as a single society, which isn't true of the goblin or Centaur. The statue also implies all 3 races are living harmoniously, which isn't true.
That's literally what Dumbledore decries, that the statue paints a false picture and that Wizards are reaping what they've sown from the other cultures.
![]()
![]()
![]()
No worries.
On a different topic my occasional, slow, relisten of OotP reached the OWL exams. Nothing too revelationary there but it did make me wonder what potions result Neville got. Harry notes that as well as himself Neville is looking happier than he's ever been in Potions.
And what results he got in general. We know an O in Herbology and an E in charms but those are the only things definitely stated that I recall.
-
![]()
![]()
Well sort of. I don't think of the end of Lot R in terms of status quo. Technically it's returning to a status quo of centuries ago with the titular Return of the king.
But magically is fading and the elves are leaving and it's the change of the third age to the fourth.
Edited by dcutter2 on Sep 9th 2025 at 11:27:46 AM
Putting aside that LOTR's post plot stuff very much falls into an epilogue barely covered by the book... I don't even see what the comparison is?
For one, in LOTR, the villains represent change, the heroes, by and large, represent status quo and tradition. Your protagonists is a guy from a race of deeply pastoral people adverse to change, a king from a semi-divine lineage who reclaims the family's throne, an Elf, a species trying to fight the inertia that's telling them the world is leaving them behind, and a Dwarf, a race whose entire thing is obstinate refusal of change.
Sauron and Saruman represent change, the later in particular representing industrialization encroaching on the pastoral, and the former representing the perversion of the natural, divinely appointed order.
Neville fear Snape so much a boggart takes Snape's form. I think Neville sees any result that means he never has to see the man again as the happiest day in his life.
Edited by Ghilz on Sep 9th 2025 at 6:27:02 AM
I don't think there are enough meaningful similarities between them besides the fantasy tropes (both have a 'dark lord,both have wise wizards who due and come back ecta) but in general Lord of the rings isn't about the " Status Quo vs Evil change or Govt brought about by the villains" whatever that means,because the government is never subject to change or forceful take over,unless you mean the shire and that's right at the end'
The only other bit is elves leaving middle Earth forever,that's..maybe status quo change
have a listen and have a link to my discord serverNGL, I think, like, a Herbologist would be an interesting protag for a Harry Potter spinoff, in the same way Fantastic Beasts was an interesting spinoff of a guy exploring strange and bizarre creatures before they just whole hog turned it into "the main series, again."
You figure most Herbology careers would require at least some Potions accomplishment, since the primary use of Herbology seems to be for providing potions ingredients.
Edited by KnownUnknown on Sep 9th 2025 at 3:30:12 AM
Anyone who quit Potions and took DADA like Harry would have wanted if not for his career choice, was in for a really nasty surprise that year.
I was so disappointed that Fantastic Beasts the film started with the book done and moved into the Grindwald plot. Just being a travelogue of wizarding world while the book was written would have been enough for me.
if, you know, the author had got help developing the non-Britain parts of the world.
Edited by dcutter2 on Sep 9th 2025 at 11:31:22 AM
Fantastic Beasts sort of ditched its own premise _really_ fast.
Which is a shame coz like... there's a lot of interesting grounds with the other sapient races they could've gone with. Like, those are covered by the titular book! It's not just nifflers!
Yup.
Picturing Neville fistpumping when McGonnagall makes Snape flee. And going with a dead pan "Oh no, anyway" when he learns Snape is dead.
Again, it's criminal that we never learn Neville's reaction that one of his best teacher was the man who tortured his parents.
Edited by Ghilz on Sep 9th 2025 at 6:33:51 AM
Part of that probably is the two very different plots with two very different tones: the light-hearted stuff with the animals that is interwoven but mostly separate to the Gwindeldald stuff; and the dark (even by the standards of the series) stuff about Gwildelwald and WW2 and corruption and abuse and rape and dead babies and child murder and switched babies and love triangles and love potions and a Jewish woman in love with a Muggle joining the muggle-hating Wizard-Nazis (granted, that's Truth in Television, there were Jews who voted for Nazis, but you didn't have to ruin one of the first film's best characters!).
It doesn't help that, as Nicholson pointed out, Scamandar, though a great protagonist, doesn't really have personal beef with Gwindelwald? Or even any major ideological differences other than general hate for bad people. Voldemort killed Harry's parents and tormented him his whole life. Maybe the third film changed this (as I said, I've yet to watch it), but Scamada just feels so out-of-place in the conflict. There's a scene at the start where Gwindelward, completely pointlessly and weirdly moustache-twirling, murders his pet. Maybe that could have been used to help make Scamandar hate him, but he never finds out!
Maybe the first film could have been about Scamanda, building up Gwindelwald in the background (basically the same film that was released), but the sequels could have had Dumbledore as the protagonist instead? You struck gold with Jude Law, who could easily have lead the film series. Scamandar could be a side character, but this isn't really his fight.
Edited by king15 on Sep 9th 2025 at 10:44:39 AM
I don't think it is. It's presented as their strength. It's why they resist the ring - The Ring cannot offer them anything. They do not desire anything they do not have in the Shire. The Ring has nothing to offer.
Sam, who is basically the hero of the story, goes right back to being a Hobbit. An exceptional Hobbit, several times mayor of Hobbiton, but he goes right back to that life.
Frodo's inability to return to that life is presented, textually, as his damage. It's what Frodo sacrificed for the quest. Not his finger, but the ability to ever feel content living his pastoral, Hobbit life ever again. It's why Frodo leaves for literal heaven.
To quote the movie "We set out to save the shire. It was saved. But not for me."
Edited by Ghilz on Sep 9th 2025 at 6:52:00 AM
I don't think it's the lack of beef. Plenty of Franchise do well without that. Most Bond films, Bond has no personal Beefs with the villain. Or Mission impossible, most of them, the villains are just dudes.
The main thing is Scamander isn't even interested in what he's doing. The first movie, he's just trying to release a bird back in its habitat. And he gets wrangled into this wider conspiracy and he's mildly curious about Obscurals. But really, he's kind of just dragged along by the plot.
The later films struggle because Dumbledore is like "You're my spy now I guess" and Scamander is like "Sure... whatever". He has no real sign of caring what he's doing - they need to fit in a brother to rescue to motivate him, and people he likes in need of rescue or help. But you never really shake the feeling Newt would rather be anywhere else in these movies.
Meanwhile, Grindelwald has a similar problem. It's often said a strongly motivated villain can carry a plot. But Grindelwald's motivations are like... whatever. He wants to be in charge? What does he personally believe in, stand for? It's not clear. He's a nebulously evil guy who wants to rule the world I guess.

I've addressed KnownUnknown privately but also wish to publicly concede to them and Ghilz and withdraw from debating this adversarially. (apologies if this not how others would describe the previous postings).
That said if we agree it doesn't need to completely solved but needs more than a token acknowledgement, what would be required to fully resolve said plot point?
And actually what points are we actually talking about? Ghilz mentioned House Elf Slavery and King15 Fantastic Racism which I assume to be more pureblood supremacy and that kind of thing.
Those are two different things. Like House Elves because JKR doesn't acknowledge that's even wrong, and Pureblood Supremacy/Ministry Corruption which she does recognise as wrong but isn't explicitly acknowledged as having been worked on.
Because one is 'addressed but not in a way people like' and the other is 'not really addressed'. I'd say?