A Headmaster other than Albus

[oryx_leucoryx]

So here is an idea for an AU scenario. Anyone is free to develop it into a fic, but we can just discuss the what-if:

Sometime between November 2nd 1981 and July 1991 Albus Dumbledore died suddenly. Maybe in some magical mishap, maybe a sudden heart attack, whatever. The important bit is he didn't expect this to happen and had no time to do any ad-hoc cover-ups nor did he have a chance to influence the choice of his replacement or to incorporate his death into some plot. The permanent replacement is chosen by the Board of Governors. If this happens early enough Lucius isn't yet on the board, if later he is on, but probably still trying to earn a reputation as an outstanding member of society who would have never joined forces with Voldemort willingly so I don't think he'd support anyone blatantly against the inclusion of Muggleborns. Anyway, the replacement turns out to be someone not as outwardly impressive as Dumbles - not so showy, with perhaps average or slightly above average magical performance, but a capable administrator with good organizational and interpersonal skills, but most importantly someone who cares about the students' well-being and education. It can be someone from Slughorn's network or even someone who thought well of Albus as long as s/he didn't have a chance to look too closely at how Hogwarts was run, but definitely not an Order member or any other close associate of Dumbles. Maybe an older, more experienced and less idealistic version of Percy.

The members of the Hogwarts staff are as we know them in PS (Care of Magical Creatures is taught by Kettleburn, Hagrid is still a groundskeeper), except for DADA. Depending on timing, Quirrell might be the Muggle Studies teacher. I think the DADA curse should still be active, so the teachers are still being replaced annually (we don't want the new school Head to have it too easy).

So I think this new person shows up and tries to run Hogwarts like a normal school. Some teachers object because that's not the way it was always done, some are relieved to have a professional in charge for a change. The handling of disciplinary matters changes. The inter-House politics change.

And then in the summer of 1991 Quirrell comes back from a sabbatical with a personally transplant. And one Harry Potter oddly doesn't reply to his acceptance letter to Hogwarts. (I doubt the new Head had a reason to look into Harry's situation of hir own initiative earlier, but maybe someone can make a convincing argument for that?) So what now?

Comments

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Madderbrad, I don't know if you've read Red Hen on PS/SS? Her theory was that the maze was a deliberate trap for Quirrelmort, because Dumbledore and his trusted staff members (Snape included) knew Quirrel was a hostage to Voldemort, and the whole setup was meant to immobilize Voldemort and make it possible to rescue Quirrell. Under this theory, Harry and the other kids were never supposed to go anywhere near the maze. It suited Dumbledore that Harry did, however, because Dumbledore decided that Harry was not, after all, a budding dark wizard. But Harry's interference caused Quirrell's death and allowed Voldemort to escape the trap, albeit damaged.

Jodel is so smart.

The Bitter Word, I pretty much love everything you have said.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Madderbrad, I don't know if you've read Red Hen on PS/SS?

No, I don't think I have. I've spent most of my last few years in the fandom pulling the series - certainly the last two books - to pieces. This intriguing next step of putting it all back together again and forming new theories to make sense of Rowling's flawed canon is relatively new to me. But an intellectual exercise that I'm still marvelling at. :-)

... the whole setup was meant to immobilize Voldemort and make it possible to rescue Quirrell.

But why didn't Dumbledore ... with Snape, McGonagall and half of the Ministry's Aurors ... just walk up to Quirrell at breakfast one day and 'rescue' him there and then? Or knock on the door of his quarters the second day of the school year? Subject him to a magical test, ask him to take off his turban? Why the whole elaborate plan for a trap?

But I'm asking this of the same author who based the entirety of her second-largest (third?) book 4 on a similarly ridiculous plan, aren't I?

It's so hard to go back 10 years (for me) and look again at PS and remember what I though of it back then. But surely most readers must have reasoned that Dumbledore *didn't* know about Quirrell ... because otherwise he'd been deliberately placing all the children in danger, etc (one of the accusations against him in the 'reconstructed' theories voiced here). Yes, surely that was the case.

But then Rowling writes the line in DH showing us that Dumbledore (and Snape) KNEW about Quirrell.

So does this confusion (for me, anyway) all lead back to DH? That makes sense; Rowling clearly had given up on trying to write a proper end game, she just couldn't do it, the last book is a literary disaster. Chalk up the "Keep an eye on Quirrell" thing of DH as a flat-out aberration (like so much of that book) and the rest of the series snaps back to what I do think the official 'party line' was - Dumbledore *didn't* know about the danger that Harry was walking into. Even though he would turn omniscient in the last chapters.

The "it was essential that he ... try his strength" nonsense that suggests that Dumbledore knew about everything would be a second DH error similar to the "keep an eye on Quirrell".

I really do think that Rowling just attempted those twists in DH without thinking at all about what it meant for the entire series.

Okay. "All HP errors lead back to DH". I can live with that. :-)

[borg-princess.livejournal.com]

surely most readers must have reasoned that Dumbledore *didn't* know about Quirrell ... because otherwise he'd been deliberately placing all the children in danger

This is the guy who let Draco cannonball around Hogwarts setting death traps willy-nilly, which could've killed at least two students. I'm pretty sure 'protecting the students' was not at the top of his list of priorities.

The funny thing is that I clicked onto a post called 'Harry Potter Characterisations, an albus dumbledore rant' because I thought it was a post from this comm and only realized when I started reading that it was actually on fanficrants and protesting the OPPOSITE of what's being argued on this page, that Dumbledore isn't neglectful and would NEVER leave a child in an abusive situation and ofc he has everyone's best interests at heart. LOL.

why didn't Dumbledore ... with Snape, McGonagall and half of the Ministry's Aurors ... just walk up to Quirrell at breakfast one day and 'rescue' him there and then? Or knock on the door of his quarters the second day of the school year? Subject him to a magical test, ask him to take off his turban? Why the whole elaborate plan for a trap?

Jodel's point in the essay, iirc, was that Dumbledore likes to have proof of wrongdoing- having Quirrelmort attempting to break into the Mirror of Erised to get at the stone would have him caught red-handed. Presumably he was going to return with witnesses from the MoM in time to catch Quirrelmort in the act- and then...um, IDK, they'd...de-possess him somehow and get rid of that fragment of Voldemort? No clue.

(Random, but if someone played a prank on Quirrel, say, if the twins snatched away his turban and there's a freaking face on the back of his head, what would people think? I mean, it'd be pretty damn scary, but would anyone be like zomgwtf, that's Voldemort'? Maybe he'd be all like 'no, guys, it's my conjoined twin, it's totes fine, okay'?)

I just feel bad for Quirrell. Everyone assumes he was a baddie in cahoots with Voldy, but who was the fly on the wall that can guarantee he was 100% voluntarily possessed? People are all 'he was ambitious, he was into dark stuff, blah blah blah', but IDK why they'd think this guy would give up his body to the Dark Lord. Obv Ginny didn't volunteer, but it's this big thing that she's rescued, while Quirrell gets sacrificed without a second thought to trying to save him.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

I love your icon. It's how I feel at the moment about HP. :-)

This is the guy who let Draco cannonball around Hogwarts setting death traps willy-nilly, which could've killed at least two students. I'm pretty sure 'protecting the students' was not at the top of his list of priorities.

Thank you for the reminder. Yes, that's a damning indictment of Dumbledore, nothing more is really needed, case closed. But the DH quotes shuffle PS over as more evidence for the prosecution anyway.

Rowling really didn't care at all by the end, did she? I'm pretty sure she wants her readers to see Dumbledore as a Good Guy. Her twist in the last book was that he bordered on evil back when he was a teenager, but was 100% 'good' during all the time he was headmaster, I'm pretty sure that is the official position. And she has Harry assure him that he was 'the best'. No-one EVER slams him for putting the kids in jeopardy (that I know). Malfoy persuades the board to relieve him of duty in CoS due to charges of incompetence, that's all. And Umbridge and Fudge aren't concerned about the kids being in danger, just Dumbledore usurping their political power.

But that Draco thing is there in black and white. And even if he hadn't initially thought that Draco would be so incompetent/careless as to harm other students with his hit-and-miss attitude, after Katie he should have.

... Dumbledore likes to have proof of wrongdoing ...

Yeah, either that, or I thought maybe some (left-wing) readers would laud Dumbledore's being extra-specially conscious of Quirrell's 'rights' and so forth.

I just feel bad for Quirrell. Everyone assumes he was a baddie in cahoots with Voldy, but who was the fly on the wall that can guarantee he was 100% voluntarily possessed?

I don't remember where the assumption came from. I know I've read several fanfics which stated that as fact, or that Quirrell was 'collateral damage', that he couldn't be rescued, it was too late for him. I totally forget what canon evidence there is for that though.

[borg-princess.livejournal.com]

I love your icon. It's how I feel at the moment about HP. :-)

Mwahaha, how about this one? ^_~

Her twist in the last book was that he bordered on evil back when he was a teenager, but was 100% 'good' during all the time he was headmaster, I'm pretty sure that is the official position.

Not to bring up Snape all the time, but ugh, Dumbles was out to CONQUER THE WORLD AND OPPRESS MUGGLES, he was best buds with the original Dark Wizard way back when, but his reputation's spotless, everyone's all 'aww, but his flaws make him even more perfect because it shows how HUMAN he is!' Meanwhile, no such consideration is given to Snape, he dared to put in his lot with Voldy and he can never be redeemed, he's an evil bigoted racist, etc. etc. when Dumbles was in the same position. Ariana died (possibly by his hand), and he repents, now he's 100% Good Guy; Lily dies (through Snape divulging the prophecy), he repents, BUT HIS SOUL IS FOREVER DAMNED.

/rant.

she has Harry assure him that he was 'the best'. No-one EVER slams him for putting the kids in jeopardy (that I know).

So gross. I can't get over Harry forgiving this guy when he set him up to die, FFS. Harry, the guy characterized by violent temper tantrums, is going to be all 'no, dude, that's cool'?

Malfoy persuades the board to relieve him of duty in CoS due to charges of incompetence, that's all. And Umbridge and Fudge aren't concerned about the kids being in danger, just Dumbledore usurping their political power.

And y'know, these are the BADDIES, so their criticism and vendetta against Dumbledore is proof he's a Good Guy and he's doing the right thing! I would've loved one person on 'the right side' to criticize Dumbledore and have their views taken seriously. (this is why I liked Aberforth, the one person not to buy into the Dumbledore=God BS)

that Draco thing is there in black and white. And even if he hadn't initially thought that Draco would be so incompetent/careless as to harm other students with his hit-and-miss attitude, after Katie he should have.

IFKR? But he was concerned about Draco's ~soul, which, I can't even. IDGI at all. Are we meant to applaud him for wanting to preserve his ~innocence, despite the school being potential collateral damage? (and I can't forgive him for being so dismissive of Snape's soul, like, 'no, kill me, you've already tarnished your soul so badly it won't matter', ugh)

Re: Quirrell, Dumbles keeps referring to him doing crimes instead of making a distinction between him and Voldy (I'm pretty sure nobody is all like GINNY ATTACKED PEOPLE after CoS, it's made clear she wasn't the perpetrator), and then there's comments like the following:

'He left Quirrell to die; he shows just as little mercy to his followers as his enemies...'

'Quirrell, full of hatred, greed, and ambition, sharing his soul with Voldemort, could not touch you for this reason...'

Right, because Dumbles knows FOR SURE that Quirrell was this hateful person who SHARED his soul, uh-huh. *side-eyes the hell out of him*

he couldn't be rescued, it was too late for him

It was too late after the unicorn was slain- up til that point, I'm sure they could've at least TRIED to exorcize Voldy's soul, but after the unicorn blood was ingested, that's like, the point of no return because of reasons. (it's a symbol of purity and killing something that precious...something something, IDK)

ETA. sorry for all the edits. I miss 'comment preview'. *sighs*

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Mwahaha, how about this one? ^_~

Heh, love it. The expression on her face!

Reminds me of how I felt when I first discovered Livejournal, back in the early days of my being in the fandom. After a few months I discovered the H/Hr community, and the profusion of icons that adorned the posts and comments will always stick in my memory as a large part of my overall impression of those times and that part of the HP readership. The myriad facial expressions of Emma Watson with all the clever tag lines! Such a pretty girl, too.

(I always pitied the H/G side of the fandom, who had a sad paucity of instances of Wright's homely visage to work with.)

But I digress ...

Meanwhile, no such consideration is given to Snape, he dared to put in his lot with Voldy and he can never be redeemed, he's an evil bigoted racist, etc. etc. when Dumbles was in the same position.

Yeah, but don't forget, Snape had bad PR. Because he was a spy he wasn't able to tell everyone OH HI I AM REDEEMED.

I can even understand why Snape's true allegiance had to be kept a secret; 'need to know' makes perfect operational sense. Of course, Rowling's series is a farce because she had Dumbledore trust absolutely no-one else at all as a second-in-command ... but she had to do that to keep her story from falling apart. Anyway, poor Snape wasn't allowed to tell anyone that he was a good guy.

(And as far as he acted, as a teacher at Hogwarts, he was a nasty sod. But that ground has been covered before in this community.)

... so their criticism and vendetta against Dumbledore is proof he's a Good Guy and he's doing the right thing!

It's a pity that we don't have some more clear quotes in DH like the "keep an eye on Quirrell" one that Oryx reminded me of that similarly tells us that Dumbledore knew about the basilisk, or Pettigrew, or Crouch. Instead we've just got the very fuzzy "it was essential ... to let him try his strength" nonsense, which might cover the whole set of Dumbledore-places-everyone-in-needless-jeopardy instances, but has some wriggle room for a staunch pro-Jo Rowling defender.

Are we meant to applaud him for wanting to preserve his ~innocence, despite the school being potential collateral damage?

Ultimately I think we just have to accept that the entire series was as flawed as - gasp! - DH. I mean, the errors are *obvious* in the last book, but then if you work backwards, knowing there's no excuses for things that happened in the past, Rowling's mistakes - well, her "don't look closely, just think what I want you to think because otherwise my story won't make sense" plots - become very clear.

Regarding Quirrell, yes, there's some assumptions made there by the all-knowing - as in, knowing-he-won't-be-contested-in-his-muddled-thinking-and-stupid-plans - Dumbledore. But Rowling took pains to ensure that no good guy held an opposing view or questioned the headmaster - as you've said - so there you go. It was just very lazy writing.

Ultimately there's so much of the series that is left unsaid - or skirted by huge DETOUR! DO NOT GO THERE! road blocks in the plots - that one can only shake one's head at Rowling's horribly lazy writing. Again, this was the most obvious (to me, anyway) in DH, where Harry and Hermione never ever considered options to their passive course through the book. But that sort of thing prevailed in all of the other novels too.

sorry for all the edits. I miss 'comment preview'. *sighs*

Yes, it's a big pain, isn't it? I have no idea why LJ had to rip that feature out when they put the new ones in. Well, time for my own post-and-double-check cycle ...

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

Instead we've just got the very fuzzy "it was essential ... to let him try his strength" nonsense, which might cover the whole set of Dumbledore-places-everyone-in-needless-jeopardy instances, but has some wriggle room for a staunch pro-Jo Rowling defender.

No, it's still BS. You let a child "try his strength" by pitting him against peers. What Dumbledore did was pit a child against a superpowerful adult Dark wizard and his tools. That's like having an eight-year-old from Pop Warner football play against an NFL pro team.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

It's amazing how many (obvious) things I don't see until someone points it out. Thanks; I'll make a note of this one. Love it.

That's like having an eight-year-old from Pop Warner football play against an NFL pro team.

B-but but but what if the eight-year-old from Pop Warner has the Elder Wand? Huh?

*ducks*

:-)

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

It's amazing how many (obvious) things I don't see until someone points it out. Thanks; I'll make a note of this one. Love it.

You're welcome. I understand. There are so many mistakes and problems, no one person can possibly keep up with them all. That's why we need this comm.


B-but but but what if the eight-year-old from Pop Warner has the Elder Wand? Huh?

The last time I checked, wands of any kind aren't used in football. ;-) Besides, Harry didn't have that weapon either, remember?

[sunnyskywalker]

Well, maybe Dumbledore just happened not to mention he thought Harry would try his strength and get killed. There, that Horcrux is taken care of via the Power Voldemort Knows Not: death! And when Harry instead survived and caused Voldemort some damage, well, that's okay too. Whether Harry succeeds or fails, something good will come of it. Win-win!

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

ETA. sorry for all the edits. I miss 'comment preview'. *sighs*

Yeah, whose dumb idea was it to take that feature out? Those of us without paid accounts can't edit at all. Or maybe that was the point--to push more people into getting paid accounts. Too bad for them I'm an excellent proofreader, so that's not going to happen in my case.

[borg-princess.livejournal.com]

Are you sure you can't edit? Because that was the reasoning behind removing the comment preview apparently- now apparently EVERYONE can edit their comments. Which pissed off some of the paid account people who paid for special features that weren't otherwise available, but hey.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

And score another ten points for yet another nifty Hermione icon!! :-)

(Best one yet ... at least for a pro-Hr fan like myself.)

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

Are you sure you can't edit? Because that was the reasoning behind removing the comment preview apparently- now apparently EVERYONE can edit their comments. Which pissed off some of the paid account people who paid for special features that weren't otherwise available, but hey.

I haven't tried. My cynicism caused me to assume that if LJ had changed, it was to make things worse, not better. It never occurred to me that they might have started giving features away.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

I have an unpaid 'Plus' account and I can edit. Here, anyway.

I gather it all depends on the 'style' of the LJ post/page. With this particular post of Oyrx's - maybe all the posts on deathtocapslock - I find that I've lost the preview, I'm seeing the funky new fangled AJAX comments, and I can edit.

Five minutes ago I was somewhere else on LJ where it was just like the good old days - there was my 'preview' button, no edit possible.

[borg-princess.livejournal.com]

My understanding of what's happened: with comms/journals that are on the 'default' lj layout, that is, without having a customized layout, they've been subject to the overhaul and left with the ugly new commenting system, but also have bonus editing for those who weren't able to before.

In other customized ljs, thankfully, we weren't included in the 'improvements'- I am praying very fervently that TPTB won't somehow override that with their next lot of failtastic fix-its. :/

[oryx_leucoryx]

Since when does Dumbles care about the law? Only when he can blame someone else with bending the law to politics.

Though he is consistently anti-dementors, so that would be why he didn't bring one of these to eat VaporMort. (Wouldn't that have been interesting? Can a dementor eat the main soul if there are Horcruxes of it lying around?)

[borg-princess.livejournal.com]

Aww, I seem to remember this adorable fic, Pumblechook, with that basic concept- a friendly Dementor who was left behind and fell in with the Hogwarts crowd, helped them by eating up the soul fragments from Horcruxes and even had a love interest in the unlikely form of Moaning Myrtle. But it makes so much sense when I think about it!

ETA. I remember now that it was the Dementor that Lupin faced off against in the train in PoA- it was weakened and that's why it got separated from its fellows and took a while recovering. Even cuter upon reflection. And come on, that name alone- PUMBLECHOOK, hee. <3

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

I LOVE THAT FIC!

Awww, Pumblechook.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Well, I expect they do! Just because DH (and, IMHO, HBP) were more carelessly written than the earlier books. But -

You've asked two very good questions: why are these books such a mess, and why did we ever think they weren't? I believe both have the same answer. My grand unified theory of the Potterverse is called "Harry Potter and the Mores of the 19th Century". I can't remember if you've read it already; if you haven't, you can find it here: http://mary-j-59.livejournal.com/28732.html

Basically, Rowling has a lot of talent, humor and energy, and she also knows a lot of classic British literature. But she was, I think, writing these books completely off the top of her head. There is a lot of emotion in them - at least, the earlier books - and some of us responded to that. There's also her dry wit and all the wacky little details - again, those things were much more obvious in the first books.

But, as someone said, either in the comments to my essay or elsewhere, the echoes of depth so many of us perceived in Rowling were, quite simply, echoes of other literature. She borrowed motifs from Dickens, the Brontes, Dante, Tom Brown's Schooldays, The Worst Witch, fairy tales - you name it. And she threw these things together in a kind of hodgepodge, without considering the implications of anything. And - very important - without rereading, and without rewriting. So you get classic 19th-century anti-Semitic stereotypes in a set of books that purport to be against prejudice; you get bullying heroes in books that purport to be against bullying, and so on. Rowling just borrowed stuff wholesale and never, IMHO, considered the implications of any of it, whether good or bad.*

And that, again in my opinion, is how we ended up with the rather pernicious mess that is Harry Potter.

The other thing you have to consider is the publishing pattern. Rowling had three books ready to go when the first was accepted, and she was publishing a series. The publishers must have been thrilled! Here were these action-packed "boy books", three set to publish and four more to come. The first three books were published in less than two years - I was going to say, about a year, but I don't honestly remember. At any rate, it was fast. And the kids got more and more eager for the sequels, and we adults began reading along. And, honestly, the books were fun. We had a blast at our Harry Potter parties at the library - at least, until we hit HBP. That was just ponderously grim and boring. Nothing to celebrate any more.

So the phenomenon is about 1/2 echoes of other, often truly great, literature, and 1/2 clever marketing. But there was never any real substance to it.

My two cents!

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

My grand unified theory of the Potterverse is called "Harry Potter and the Mores of the 19th Century".

I hadn't read it; thank you for the reference.

In that essay you essentially show the tropes/characters of 19th century literature which Rowling stole for her own work. In my own mind I've never limited her to just the 19th century. :-) Maybe because I've read so few classics. But yes, I've always thought that Rowling copied bits and pieces from all over the place, popular culture, Celtic myth - your literary classics - anywhere and anything, and just tossed them into the pot. *without thinking*. It's those last two words which are the crux as to why the series failed so badly.

As I commented just now on your essay, I think it's the skills that a professional author requires as he approaches the 'end game' of a series - the logic, the common sense, the dedication to detail, the ability to see options - which come to the fore and are needed the most. And the closer Rowling got to the end of her series ... the more she failed. I present "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows" as the ultimate proof of that.

And it's those *very same skills* which would have been needed to give anything other than superficial treatment to Rowling's copied literary devices. So I think we can use DH as a sort of proof that Rowling lacked the ability to reason her way through what she'd done in her earlier books.

(Of course, the fact that she never re-read her work means it's only us, and not her, who will ever backtrack and tie all this together.)

Sometimes I come across fans who try to give Rowling a free pass because of her 'world building' ... in the earlier books. Pfah. It's *easy* to 'world build' when you're just tossing anything that catches your fancy into the mix - "off the top of her head", as you say - and there's no demand (yet) on making sense of it all and tying it all together. The hard part comes when you get into that 'end game'.

The sad thing is, billionaire Rowling wouldn't have learnt that lesson. Her interviews, a year after DH was published, had her still trying to lecture people on how to read her work and saturated with self-congratulatory pats on the back as to how clever she'd been. Sigh.

She borrowed motifs from Dickens, the Brontes, Dante, Tom Brown's Schooldays, The Worst Witch, fairy tales

I'm so glad you threw in 'The Worst Witch' there. Look, between the whole British 'public school' genre and The Worst Witch I think Rowling's celebrated 'originality' is very much exaggerated. I watched a couple of episodes of 'The Worst Witch' a few years ago. Okay, the television series was after PS, but the books and a couple of the movies were well before Rowling had her little train journey epiphany. Shucks, her childhood years were right smack in the middle of the books, I believe. Conscious copying or unconscious, I just can't join in the idolatry for her 'original thinking'.

So the phenomenon is about 1/2 echoes of other, often truly great, literature, and 1/2 clever marketing

I didn't know that about the three books being 'ready to go'. I only knew what HP was about with book #4.

It's still amazing that it became *so huge*, though. Would there be any truth to my speculating that, maybe, Rowling's work was the first instance of the British 'public school' genre to be (aggressively) marketed in the USA? I mean ... as an Australian I grew up with Dr. Who, for example, and I'm occasionally bemused by the posts of Americans who have no idea as to the history of the long-running show and think the current series is the best thing since sliced bread. I'm just wondering if Harry Potter was the first mass-marketed infusion of British 'public school' fiction for American children?

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

I actually have an answer for why the series became so popular, especially among people under 40, and it's not at all flattering to those people, but I haven't finished the article yet, so you'll have to wait for the explanation. BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

You DASTARDLY person, you!!!

I'm really curious. The acceptance of the last few books can be chalked up to how huge the HP juggernaut had become - nothing could stop it, it's human nature for fans to clump together and reassure each other that they're right, the series is wonderful, don't the emperor's new clothes look great? - but what made it so popular to start with?

Marketing, maybe, although it would be nice to pull out some real facts about that, about anything that Rowling's publisher did with her first books that had never been done before.

Otherwise ... I honestly did think I might be on to something with my idea that Americans hadn't really been exposed to the whole British Public School thing until Rowling's first books were pushed in front of them. Not being an American I don't really know if there's anything to my theory.

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

It's possible, I guess, but I think it's important to realize that in America, boarding schools are usually considered a form of child abuse, so we don't have romantic ideas about stories featuring them. By "child abuse," I mean we don't send our kids to boarding schools unless (1) the parents are rich and want their kids to go to a fancy prep school; (2) the kids have some horrible mental disorder or behavior problem, in which case they go to a military school or boarding school that combines schooling with therapy. The stereotype of boarding schools in America is that that's where rich, selfish, uninvolved parents send their kids because they don't want to be bothered with actually raising them.

In order to figure out what made HP so popular, you have to compare it with other kids' series that came out at about the same time, such as Warriors, Percy Jackson, and Series of Unfortunate Events. If you look at the differences between those series and HP, you can see what makes HP so popular--and it isn't pretty.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

I didn't know that about US private schools. Mind you, I'm thrown off by the daily US sitcoms which have the school kids wearing normal clothing - THEY SHOULD ALL BE IN SCHOOL UNIFORMS DANG IT - and those bright yellow buses. And the (free?) school lunches.

If you look at the differences between those series and HP, you can see what makes HP so popular--and it isn't pretty.

Do tell ...

(Okay, I'll wait for your article.)