Potter Patronus at Presidency

Literally Literary’s session on Harry Potter on 27^th August, 2013 starts with exploring the common inquiry of why we like Harry Potter and is ensued by the debate over movies versus books. One of the responses which harps on HP as a “cult” is asked for further elaboration-why “cult”? To which there is a spontaneous outburst-“We grew up with Harry Potter”. Issues which come up as the session proceeds are how has Dumbledore been dehumanized in the series or which mythical element in the books does one identify with.
Harry’s credibility as the protagonist falls into doubts by a statement “Harry had done nothing.” The streak of flamboyance in Harry which makes him reluctant about attending classes is frowned upon while another group of die hard Harry fans maintains “Harry may be a hero made by circumstances and destiny, but the nobility of his character makes us love him unquestionably.”

According to some members, the 4^th book in the series had ample evidence of the ‘grandeur factor’ owing to the series of events in the Triwizard Tournament, but the development of its plot has certain glitches. Why does Harry have to participate just because his name has been put into the Goblet of Fire by an unidentified person? Why did the Tournament Cup have to be the Portkey? Why did Barty Crouch, disguising himself as Mad Eye Moody, not kill Harry off during their personal interactions?  This is met with the supposition that in Hogwarts, Harry was immune from danger being under Dumbledore’s wings, and Barty was on the sole mission of presenting Harry before Voldemort. Perhaps the character most obsessed with the ‘grandeur factor’ is Voldemort whose selection of Horcruxes ascertains the fact-Helga Hufflepuff’s cup, Salazar Slytherin’s locket, Ravenclaw’s diadem etc causing  someone to state during the session -“ Voldemort is an attention-whore”.

The Harry Potter series is obsessed with the eternal battle between good and evil and clearly demarcates ‘goodness’ from ‘evilness’ which smacks of Christian ethics. Again, no mention of a God is made throughout the series which heightens suspicion because not all students attending Hogwarts hailed from wizarding communities-there are Muggle-born witches like Hermione who must have been acquainted with the notion of a divine power before she attended Hogwarts. Then did Rowling intend to make the series atheist in nature? Some are of the opinion that the magical world of HP is “polytheistic in line with Christianity”.
Continuing the debate over Rowling’s tendency of stereotyping good and evil, the question is raised-why does the Slytherin house proliferate all the bad witches and wizards while the Gryffindors are glorified as infallible, if not flawless?  This is rebuffed with examples of Horace Slughorn and Severus Snape, hailing from Slytherin, who gained Dumbledore’s confidence and Peter Pettigrew, a Gryffindor and deceiver who joined the Death Eaters. In connection to the terror implanted in the minds of the wizarding world by Voldemort’s reign of tyranny, the possibility arises that Rowling might have been inspired by Nazi Germany.
To adhere to the moralities of the magical world, characters considered as heroes cannot kill but purging is allowed. When Aveda Kedavra-d by Voldemort, Harry counters it with a disarming spell, but he stabs Tom Riddle’s diary (Voldemort’s Horcrux) with the Basilisk fang in the Chamber of Secrets. The only instance where we come across a good character killing an opponent in direct combat is when Molly Weasley’s motherly instinct makes her cast the death curse on Bellatrix Lestrange. 

Is the hero of the book male by default? While Frodo in LOTR is mediocre and feminine, Harry has been portrayed as majestic and very masculine. The three-headed dog in the Philosopher’s Stone and the love triangle between Harry, Hermione and Ron makes one curious if Rowling alluded to the Holy Trinity. Another issue raised is regarding the curbing of magic outside wizarding community and how the Decree for the Reasonable Restriction of Underage Sorcery, a bylaw of the Ministry of Magic, almost led to Harry’s expulsion from Hogwarts. Someone tried to trace a pattern in the reverse order of Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs’ deaths, while such a choice is explained as poetic beautification by another member.  The necessity of revealing that Dumbledore was gay by Rowling in an interview is debated and the play with names like platform 9¾ makes the Potterheads wonder if Rowling meant to stress on the significance of the number 9. Cho Chang and Luna Lovegood are voted as the most superfluous characters in the HP series while Hagrid’s inferiority complex makes him a “weakling” in the eyes of a Potterhead only to be met with a volley of protests from a clan of Rubeus fans. Again, Draco Malfoy gains focus as members try to trace some element of goodness in his character.

A series of striking questions comes up during the session-

What did Rowling, the compulsive spinner, have in mind when she spun the final strands of her yarn back to Lily and Severus’ sepia space—Spinner’s End?

Were the 11 years of oppression in the Muggle world necessary for shaping Harry’s character?

Are Ron-Hermione and Harry-Ginny good matches?

Does “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows” leave too many threads hanging?

How many students attended Hogwarts during Harry’s school life? What fate befalls the Dursleys? Why aren't there any druggies in the HP series?

Since time was terse, the session was wrapped up with the promise that the Potterheads are free to continue the session’s discussion in the Literally Literary blog, created for recording the activities of the Society’s events and for encouraging the interactions of its members.