Another thread about Harry Potter got me wondering…is there ever any basis in the series for the childish names Rowling uses for the characters? I don’t think I’ve read a book since first grade that had characters with names that matched their personalities:
Severus Snape, who turns out be a real hard-ass. Something Lupin, who turns out be a werewolf. Alastor Moody, who turns out be real…moody. And so forth.
Does she ever explain this, perhaps by saying that it’s common for wizards to change their names once they pass a certain age, or something?
It gets annoying, after a while, and the ridiculous names she comes up with for other things the series don’t help either: “Hogwarts”? Come on.
I suppose I’m sort of hijacking my own thread here, but do some people wish that she had made the Harry Potter series less childish? I know teenagers and adults read it and enjoy it (like myself), but it’s always seemed to me like it could’ve been a really, fabulously excellent series if she had targeted it directly at adults. As it stands, it’s a great series for kids that adults can enjoy as well, but I’ve always thought it could be much better.
Its been something like five years. If you haven’t read Book 3 yet, tough.
Lupin’s first name is Remus, like one of the founders of Rome who was raised by wolves.
Rowling created a wonderful world that can be shared by people 5 and up and as I recall children’s books are her thing. Anything that gets the kiddos reading is fine by me. What suggestions do you have that would make the series better that would be more adult?
Well, you have an interesting idea about an adults-aimed version of the books (I agree it might be interesting), but as it stands, it is a kids’ series, and should be judged as such. Nothing wrong with silly names in a kids’ book.
I would think ‘Lupin’ is a family name due to him being a werewolf; Severus is a coincidence or a name given by parents who want a ‘severe’ child; Malfoy intentionally means ‘bad faith’ and the Malfoys would probably revel in that. Moody isn’t really that moody, in my reading of him.
I have wondered why some wizards have Latinate names and some English. I would have assumed it was a class difference, were it not for Harry Potter’s family originally being of the same class as the Malfoys. There doesn’t seem to be a consistent reason.
Hogwarts does seem a bit of a silly, ugly name, though, I agree.
I don’t disagree that the books do a fantastic job of getting kids to read, and if I had the opportunity to change them to be more adult, I doubt I would in the end. But I often wish that they were more serious: darker and less childish.
Like I said, the names are really the biggest thing that annoys me. Everything seems like it came out of a cartoon. The “whomping willow”, “muggles”, Mundungus Fletcher, Cornelius Fudge - they sound like names a five-year-old would come up with.
Kid: chuckle chuckle “I named him Fudge”. giggle
They are getting better as Harry gets older, though. But the names still make me wince, especially as the rest of the subject matter gets more serious.
But who am I to argue with several hundred million dollars?
But isn’t there indication in one of the books that he’s an afflicted werewolf, not a born one? That is to say, he was once a normal (wizard) human, but then got bitten by a werewolf and therefore turned into one.
I know some of the names are rather simple and even telegraph a character’s secrets (Rita Skeeter, for example) but I don’t have a problem with them. I liked that Dolores Umbridge’s name sounded like the word “umbrage” which means offense or resentment. And like Albert said, if it helps kids read or learn new words, there’s nothing wrong with it.
Well, I already linked to this webpage in the Voldemort thread going here in CS, but since the question came up here I will include it here - Remus Lupin.
Actually, I very much enjoy Rowling’s character names. I literally laughed out loud at Sirius Black’s name, and I encouraged my niece and nephew to look up the meanings of the names as a kind of bonus treasure hunt. I especially love the many “layers” in Sirius’ name: Sirius the dog star, Sirius the dark star, the constellation Canis major and the Black Dog of Depression, which Sirius has in spades.
Plus, how many times do kids get exposure to Latin in a fun context? (Ludo Bagman: “Ludus” means sports or games, and “bagman,” although not Latin, is self-explanatory.)
Why would there need to be a basis in the series? Why are people called Tom, Dick or (sorry) Harry? Obviously, in real life, there is no way that people’s names would miraculously turn out to reflect their inner selves so accurately, but this is a child’s fantasy. In fact, I doubt that I would have been even slightly interested in the series were it not for Rowling’s delight in wordplay. Admittedly, the cute names get somewhat jarring as the series takes a darker turn.
In the Lord of the Rings, J.R.R. Tolkien uses some very suggestive names. Consider Fredegar “Fatty” Bolger in The Fellowship of the Ring. Obviously, “Fatty” is a nickname, but Bolger is not, and it sounds pretty, well, “bulgy.” How about the Sackville-Bagginses, who would like nothing less than to loot (“sack”) Bilbo’s home?
Although the names are not quite as literal as the ones in Rowling’s books, Dickens used very evocative names for his characters. Consider Magwich (terrifying escaped felon), Jaggers (unscrupulous attorney) and Pip (unformed and frequently foolish git) from Great Expectations. (For anyone tempted to take this opportunity to point out that J.K. Rowling is no Charles Dickens, please don’t bother. I am aware that she is not in his league.)
I’m not trying to disrespect your spoiler box here, but I assume that anyone who reads a thread about names in Harry Potter would expect to encounter some discussion of names in Harry Potter, so here goes.
The name “Severus” is not only suggestive of severity (and perhaps the removal of an errant limb or two). It is also a historical reference, I suspect. According to Max I. Dimont in Jews, God and History, Julius Severus was a Roman general who the Emperor Hadrian called back from quelling a rebellion by the Celts in order to put down a revolt by the Jews in Jerusalem led by putative messiah Simon Bar Kochba and the Rabbi Akiba in the year 132 A.D. (or 132 C.E., if you prefer.)
It sounds like Severus was NOT a nice fellow:
I’m not entirely sure what Rowling meant by choosing Severus as a name. It’s a lot more ambiguous than most of her other choices. Does it refer to Severus Snape’s general harshness, or to his relentlessness in battle (which I suspect will be manifest as the fight against Voldemort and the Death Eaters ramps up)? Who knows? After all, Snape is by far the most ambiguous and ambivalent character in the series. To my mind, it’s questions like these that make Rowling’s books interesting.
Sorry if this is phrased somewhat awkwardly, but I lost my first attempt at posting, and it’s getting late.
She does it because it’s funny. And a little bit clever. And partially they’re ‘clues’ if you’re paying attention.
She never intended her books to be loved by all ages and all-comers, she wrote them for herself and for kids. So naturally enough, her own sense of what felt appropriate completely imbues the series.
Ah, but as a name, “Severus” was not unique to the person you mention. In fact, there was an entire dynasty of Severan emperors, lasting from 193-235 A.D. The first was Septimus Severus, followed by Caracalla, Macrinus, Elagabalus, and Alexander Severus. Unless Rowling specifically states that Snape’s name is a reference to Julius Severus, I would chalk it us as simply a classical name with a connotation of harshness.
I haven’t read any of the books although my youngest has read them all. I have seen the movies and I thought the the names were terrific, just another example of her attention to detail. I find them very imaginative. Even Hogwarts are a kind of lily I think.
Next you’re going to tell me that Dickens had something in mind when he named a scientifically, methodical headmaster Gradgrind, and a harsh teacher M’Choakumchild.
Sackville-Baggins is actually a sort of wordplay on Bag End (and Baggins). The Sackville-Bagginses are the kind of stuck-up, snobby people who frenchify their name in order to make it sound “better”. (I don’t have the reference on hand, but Tom Shippey mentions it in his book “J.R.R. Tolkien: Author of the century”)
Tolkiens primary interest was in languages (esp. germanic), and hence names are very important. Actually most of the names in LOTR means something and are related closely to the things/beings that bears the name. The starting point in his creation of Middle-Earth was to create af world in which his made-up elven languages could be spoken. Tolkien was primarily a philologist and secondly an author.
