Or perhaps, given how well Harry does in classes taught by Snape (i.e. not very), perhaps Dumbledore thought it best that somebody else teach the subject, at least for the duration of Harry’s tenure as student there. (I don’t know how long Quirrell had taught the subject pre-book 1, but he wasn’t new at the time).
On a related subject, I don’t think anyone’s commented on Snape’s remark that Harry “lacked subtlety” (which, of course, he does); I thought that said a lot both about Harry and about Snape, and their respective personalities. Snape, even when working towards good ends, will always play his cards very close to his chest. Harry, OTOH, will charge straight into the thick of things. This time around, Harry’s approach was pretty damn stupid. Here’s hoping he can learn some subtlety at some point.
Fudge also has a big inferiority complex when it comes to Dumbledore. I think he was afraid that the story of Voldemort’s return was part of a power play by Dumbledore. Considering that Fudge is not too bright, he may have been helped to this conclusion by someone more clever, like Lucius Malfoy. “Minister Fudge, do you see what Dumbledore is doing? Who do you think the magical community will turn to if they fall for Harry’s attention-seeking antics?”
I agree. I had a slight suspicion that she might be working for Voldemort during Harry’s first detention. I thought there might be some ulterior motive for the writing in his own blood. Perhaps some hex to make him unable to lie? But after a while, with nothing coming from the writing, it became clear that she just enjoyed that sort of thing. She enjoyed being the high inquisitor and enforcing the rules, but her enjoyment was too genuine to have a secret motive like working for Voldemort.
I forgot about the present too, which is surprising because Harry had gotten important presents from Sirius before. I also thought it might be a summoning device, and I think Harry said something about how he did not want to be the one to draw Sirius into the open. In fact, when Harry opened the present my first thoughts were about whether he would be able to see Sirius beyond the veil. It was only later that it sunk in that he could have used the mirror earlier and Sirius would not have died. I’m not sure that really sunk in for Harry right away either.
He may have also thought that even opening the present would constitute using it. Given Sirius’ behavior, I half expected the present to be some way for Sirius to get to Hogwarts whenever he wanted, although portkeys are not allowed at Hogwarts, correct? Or is it just apparating that doesn’t work there? I’ve left a present unopened for months before as well, but that was because I never expected to see the person who had given it to me again, and I wanted to wait until I could come to grips with that fact to open their present. Harry seems to have done the opposite, as it was precisely because he thought he might never see Sirius again that he opened the present.
Concerning Harry’s use of an Unforgivable Curse, I recalled something interesting from GoF, specifically from the scene in Chapter 27 in which Sirius is talking about Crouch, Sr.
“[Crouch] rose quickly through the Ministry, and he started ordering very harsh measures against Voldemort’s supporters. The Aurors were given new powers–powers to kill rather than capture, for instance…Crouch fought violence with violence, and authorized the use of the Unforgivable Curses against suspects.”
Now, that’s not terribly specific. Were only Aurors authorized to use the Unforgivables against suspected Death-Eaters, or was it more of a blanket thing? Depending on how the order was phrased, and on whether or not it occurred to Fudge to rescind it (unlikely, I should think), it may have actually been legal for Harry to use the Cruciatus Curse under the circumstances. It’s a bit of a stretch, but it’s possible.
Of course, I think it more likely that it went mostly unnoticed, but it’s still an interesting thought.
Regarding the mirror that Sirius gave to Harry, I just assumed that all channels of communication into Hogwarts were being watched. I assumed that magical communications like that (and the Flue (Floo?) powder) were analogous to wireless transmissions in the Muggle (ahem, real) world. It is possible to trace them and even eavesdrop in our world, and so I figured it would be possible to do the same in the magical world. If this were the case, it would explain why Harry didn’t want to use the gift to contact Sirius as he might have been afraid of having it be traced or tapped. It’s a stretch, but he might have even been afraid that opening the gift would open up the communications channel, like turning a cell phone on. Even if you don’t answer the call, maybe they could trace it.
As a side note, I wonder if Sirius ever tried using the mirror to contact Harry? He couldn’t have known whether Harry had opened up the present or not, and so maybe he sat with the mirror calling out Harry’s name hoping to have somebody to talk to. Sort of a depressing thought…
I really hope Rowling offers up an explanation similar to this in the next book. As it is, the whole mirror thing is a very strange and frustrating part of the book for me. Hopefully it figures into the next book in some way (I don’t believe for a second that Sirius is gone for good, btw), because otherwise there was no point in ever having it.
All I need is for Seamus or someone to say something like “Oh, yeah, I had one of those mirrors once, but the school monitors communications during classes and I was reported” or something like that. It still doesn’t excuse the fact that Harry didn’t even open it, but it would soften the blow a bit.
I just finished reading last night/this morning. I thought it was excellent, the best one in the series. (But it has been a few years since I read the first two.) In a different thread a while back, I was pretty dismissive of Rowling, saying that the HP books are calculated and formulaic. Reading this one, I felt kind of guilty for that. It’s actually very well written, and considering it’s around 900 pages, pretty well controlled. The day I bought it, I was just flipping through to see how long it was, and before I knew it I was 200 pages in.
The pacing of it emphasized the feelings the characters were going through instead of just the events of the plot; you really felt Harry’s frustration and anxiety throughout. And the O.W.L.s, like real-life aptitude tests, you spend the whole year dreading and then they pass in a blur.
And there were many passages that were too clever to dismiss as “well, it’s okay for young-adult literature.” Like the bit about the elevator in the Ministry of Magic, which has been going through a detailed description of every floor: “‘Department of Mysteries,’ said the cool female voice, and left it at that.” Or the nametags: “HARRY POTTER: RESCUE MISSION.” And just about every aspects of the thestrals – a great way of keeping the dark-but-ultimately-uplifting tone of the series, as well as finding a way to expand on the whole mythology of Hogwarts. (“You thought carriages that drove themselves were cool? That’s not the half of it.”)
Exactly, and you worded it perfectly. I remember reading the first one and being so angry and frustrated with Snape’s treatment of Harry, and it was the same here with Umbridge. Rowling has a real talent for taking these very broad characters and using them to get across some fairly subtle themes. Like the fact that adults are fallible, and most of them are just trying to do their best. And like Lamia described, the fact that people can be unplesant without being truly evil. And that there’s usually a reason for their being unpleasant. And what’s more, that you don’t have to like everyone, and you’re not a failure if not everybody likes you, either.
There were some complaints at the beginning of the thread that the ending was anti-climactic, and that there was a huge deus ex machina at the end. That seems kind of like complaining that a Bond film has gadgets and sexy women – it’s just what they do.
One other thing, the illustrations were brilliant. Especially the one with Harry and Cho sitting at the table for their Valentine’s Day date – it really brought that whole scene to life.
And about Sirius’ mirror: I didn’t think it was a plot hole, or vague at all. When Sirius gave it to him, he described it as something to use if Snape ever gave him trouble. Harry decided then and there that he would never use it; he had seen Sirius and Snape fighting just the night before, and he didn’t want to do anything to endanger Sirius. Plus, as in the rest of the book, he was being self-obsessed and completely absorbed in his own problems, in this case, extra class with Snape. He put it away and completely forgot about it. The scene at the end when he finds the mirror wasn’t ambiguous, it was “bittersweet.” A memory of Sirius and his support, but also an ironic reminder that Harry could’ve avoided the whole thing if he’d just listened instead of trying to do everything himself.
Here we go with the illustrations again.
So I checked Amazon.com and Amazon.co.uk. Hoho. The US edition has illustrations, but the one sold in the UK doesn’t.
I should have anticipated someone would ask! I don’t remember. Fred and George were going somewhere and they said something about keeping their peckers up. You don’t recall one of them saying something about “keeping a stiff upper lip”, do you?
Oh – Since this is on a new page… The question is how is “keep our peckers up” changed in the American version? I’m guessing it’s something like “Fred and I managed to keep stiff upper lips somehow,” but that’s not really an everyday phrase around here and it sounds a little awkward.
Found it! The line in question is on page 226-227 of the American edition, and the word “peckers” was simply replaced with “spirits”. “Fred and I managed to keep our spirits up somehow.”
Oh, man, what a comparison. Now I have a picture of an old woman dressed as a sterotypical fortune teller running around with her hands on her head, going “Tre-tre-tre-tre-tre-tre-tre-tre-tre-tre.”
You know, I was just going to suggest “spirits”! Thanks, Lamia. I read earlier in this thread that the American version has illustrations. That probably accounts for the page-number discrepance between where we each found the quote.
Maybe this isn’t the place to say this, but I don’t see why two English-speaking countries have to have different versions. IMO having American kids read the same version as British kids can only help their vocabularies. Saying “jumper” instead of “pully”, “trainers” instead of “sneakers”, and “lift”, “chemist’s”, and so forth would allow kids to learn just a little bit more about other places. And how many American children know about Christmas crackers? (This is a custom that I really wish would catch on, since I find them to be quite fun.)
Someone posted earlier about the marketing decision that lead to The Philosopher’s Stone being changed to The Sorcerer’s Stone. Marketing decisions can be pretty stupid, but in this case it removes a layer of depth. The Philosopher’s Stone is an actual myth, and its maker (Nicholas Flammel) appears to have been a real person. Of course there are probably not many kids who will bother looking it up; but there may come a time in their lives that the legend of the Philosopher’s Stone or Flammel comes up and they think, “Wow! That was in *Harry Potter! Cool.”
The implication is that English children have a better grasp on myths and legends than American children do. And changing common expressions implies that American children are incapable of figuring things out by their context, or of looking them up. I know that having to stop to look things up might interrupt the flow of the story, but I think that being exposed to unfamiliar things are essential in the learning process. Too, it’s often said that adults underestimate children. Why change things just because an adult editor {in his or her opinion) thinks that something might be to difficult for a child to grasp?
Yes, I’m being too sensitive. I don’t even have kids. But I prefer to read things in as close to their original form as possible.
Regarding illustrations… In the British (original) versions of the books, you don’t have any small pictures at the top of the first page of each chapter? They’re all done by the same person who does the cover art, or at least stylistically they’re the same. Unless I’m mistaken, none of the American versions have any big illustrations. Of course, since I’m poor and can only afford the paperback copies, excepting OotP of course, it may be that the big expensive copies have illustrations. However, since OotP doesn’t have any other than the aforementioned beginning-of-chapter art, I would doubt it.
Well, I think the question you just answered is a great example of why there are 2 different editions. Some British expressions just don’t translate well into American. Many of them have already been mentioned in this thread: “Keep your pecker up,” “snogging,” “git.” And what if one of the professors told Hermione that “I’ll come round tomorrow morning and knock you up?”
These differences in culture & language are just humorous little “what a weird world!” type stories for us as adults. But I imagine that a lot of parents would start to get put off by having their children come up to them every few minutes asking, “Mom, what’s a ‘git’? Mom, what’s ‘snogging’? Mom, how do you keep your pecker up?” I’m not at all a fan of the change from “Philosopher’s Stone” to “Sorcerer’s Stone;” that’s just a prime example of the Ugly Americanism that you describe. But I’m still fine with having separate editions. This most recent one had the perfect balance, I thought – enough of the original expressions and mannerisms that it feels distinctly British, but not so many that you’re knocked out of the story.
“Snogging” and “git” were unchanged in the American edition of OotP, and I’m glad of that. These words don’t have any other meaning in the US, and I think context provides enough information that children could guess at the general meaning. Good way for kids to learn about some of the differences in US and UK English.
I was also happy to see that, in the scene where young James Potter is tormenting Snape, the US edition preserved the British use of the word “pants”. When James flips Snape upside-down it does say that everyone can see his underpants (I’m not sure if that’s the same in the UK edition or not), but then the word “pants” is used twice more and not translated as “underwear” or anything more American-sounding. Another painless vocabulary lesson for the kiddies, although I do wonder if some people who weren’t reading closely might not realize exactly how cruel James is being. Bad enough for a teenaged boy to be threatened with the public removal of his pants in the US sense of the word, but with the British meaning it’s much more embarassing!
I think it is just as well that they changed “keep our peckers up” for US readers, though. I’m sure many American adults have no idea that the phrase has a completely different (and completely innocent) meaning in the UK, and there isn’t enough context to make it clear to readers that George isn’t intending to say something rather racy. Also, there must be plenty of young American readers who don’t even know that “pecker” is US slang for “penis” and might be very embarassed to discover this fact only after parroting a phrase from their favorite new book.
I agree that changing “Philosopher’s Stone” to “Sorcerer’s Stone” was stupid and insulting to American readers. When I went to England last year the only thing my younger sister wanted me to bring back for her was a British edition of the first Harry Potter book. She was still angry that the US editors thought she was too dumb to know what a philosopher’s stone was, and wanted to be able to read the book without feeling condescended to. Many young Harry Potter readers have probably read enough other children/YA fantasy novels to know what a philosopher’s stone is. I don’t see how those that haven’t are helped by calling it the “Sorcerer’s Stone”, since that’s just a made-up name that had no previous meaning to anyone.
It does make me wonder if I should start telling other Americans that I’ve got a degree in Sorcery, though.
But how will they learn the expressions if they never hear them? One “pecks” (gives a little kiss) with the lips – which would be the peckers. It’s a very easy thing to understand, so it should be no problem to explain it to a child. And how many kids know what “knocked up” as in “pregnant” is?
Thanks for clearing that up **Lamia** , I was actually confused by that part because at first Rowling writes that James turns Snape upside down, and his robes go down showing his underwear, and then James threatens to remove Snape's pants. The way that's explained above makes James seem much worse.
From the way JK Rowling describes it, it seems that all wizards wear robes, (sort of like monks wear) but in the movies, and most illustrations show them wearing pants, I always thought this was odd.
