Talk:Harry Potter/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive

Archives
1 2 3 4 5 6

Not sure where you get the idea that Hogwarts is in Scotland...can you explain please? JHK

If you travel north on a train from King's Cross station for the length of time that the journey is, you will end up in Scotland. J. K. Rowling has confirmed this in an interview; see [1]. This is never made explicit in the books, so perhaps it shouldn't be in the article. However, I would contend that it is wrong to say that Hogwarts is in England. I would accept 'Great Britain' as a compromise. Sjn28

Since Hogwarts can only really be reached by magic, I'm not sure normal rules of time and distance apply -- I think GB is better. JHK

There is an actual place where Muggles see a sign "Do not enter" or something. Havn't you read Hogwarts, a History? (-: I think it is good enough that it is implied in the books and J.K. Rowling confirms it. It means people who have read the book would learn something by coming here. Eean

But it isn't implied in the books. The fact that JK Rowling says that that particular train would end up in Scotland based on time traveled is kind of irrelevant, IMO. After all, none of the teachers (except perhaps, MacGonagall) seem particularly Scottish... However, as you will JHK

I've just remembered something else. In one of the Comic Relief books (Fabulous Beasts and Where To Find Them), the author mentions that a nest of horrific giant spiders (I forget the exact name) has been rumoured to exist in a forest in Scotland. There is an annotation by Harry (or Ron) that says "confirmed by Harry Potter and Ron Weasley". Presumably this refers to when they meet Aragog in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. I'm sorry if this sounds vague, but I don't have my copies of the books with me. Could some kind person please check the reference for me? Thanks. Sjn28

Yep -- it's there at the end of the Acromantula entry. I just checked. JHK

Hagrid is also rather stereotypically Scottish.... --Paul Drye

I strengthened the Scotland bit because of this: "Hogwarts ... Logically it had to be set in a secluded place, and pretty soon I settled on Scotland in my mind." Fraser, L., An interview with J.K.Rowling, Mammoth, London, 2000. ISBN 0-7497-4394-8. pp 20-21. Nevilley 11:43 Jan 21, 2003 (UTC) (moved from way down there to this more relevant spot!)

The philosopher/sorceror change was I believe a marketing decision. Sorceror was more 'exciting' and apparently no-one in America has ever heard of the Philosopher's Stone

Sure, because of the pathetic state of US schools. It's sad really. And yes, I'm a product of US schooling. And yes, I have known what a philsopher's stone was for years. --Dante Alighieri
As a product of US schooling as well, I know what a philosopher's stone is. So apparently we aren't all as uneducated as it makes you feel good to believe.
I'm an Australian, and the only reason I even knew about the legend of the Philosopher's Stone (prior to Harry Potter) is because of a Carl Barks comic in which Scrooge McDuck sets out to find it. So some Americans are certainly aware of it. Andrewa 11:00 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)
What on earth is the sorceror's stone supposed to be?
At least the philosophers stone turns lead into gold. CheeseDreams 01:12, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

While we have all become accustomed to seeing pro-Harry Potter articles on Wikipedia, I can't recall ever having seen an article that talks about the negative side of Harry Potter. Namely, that the books and movies promote witchcraft, paganism, and godless materialism.

Despite what Harry Potter would have you believe, witchcraft is most definitely NOT "cool." I don't expect to change anybody's mind, but it would be nice to see just a LITTLE bit of balance here. Not all of the ideas that come from the minds of the creative Left are worth propogating, and if there was ever a concrete example of this, Harry Potter would be it.

Well, doesn't your argument presuppose that magic and/or witchcraft is REAL? Witchcraft can be neither cool nor uncool unless it exists. --Dante Alighieri
I was rather under the impression that JK Rowling was Right-wing not left-wing. For example, supporting public schools (which is absolute anaethema to the left). CheeseDreams 01:12, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There are frequent references to witchcraft in the Bible, and the strong condemnations of such practices which we read there do not seem to be based so much upon the supposition of fraud as upon the abomination of the magic in itself. (See Deuteronomy 18:11-12; Exodus 22:18, wizards thou shalt not suffer to live - A.V. Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.) The whole narrative of Saul's visit to the witch of En Dor (I Kings 28) implies the reality of the witch's evocation of the shade of Samuel; and from Leviticus 20:27: A man or woman in whom there is a pythonical or divining spirit, dying let them die: they shall stone them: Their blood be upon them, we should naturally infer that the divining spirit was not a mere imposture. The prohibitions of sorcery in the New Testament leave the same impression (Galatians 5:20, compared with Apocalypse 21:8; 22:15; and Acts 8:9; 13:6). Supposing that the belief in witchcraft were an idle superstition, it would be strange that the suggestion should nowhere be made that the evil of these practices only lay in the pretending to the possession of powers which did not really exist.
Without starting a HUGE argument, let me just say that the above argument presupposes the accuracy and the validity of the source material, The Bible. --Dante Alighieri
Of course the WORD of God is accurate. If you say one can be a Christian without the Bible, you have an equal claim of being Mohammedan.
Only if you are a biblical literalist. Most Christians are not. Besides, that completely misses out the philosophical question what if (a) it is the word of god and (b) god was deliberately lying ?. CheeseDreams 01:12, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Also, not-believing in the bible's inerrancy is not the same as being islamic. There are significantly more features to islam. CheeseDreams 01:12, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm not going to touch this one except to say that the MODERN term that has replaced Mohammedan is Muslim, or, in a pinch, practiconer of Islam. --Dante Alighieri
I can't recall ever having seen an article that talks about the negative side of Harry Potter. - So why don't you write the NPOV article "objections to Harry Potter" and link it in? I am sure that such a thing could be interesting and informative - but if you wait for a bunch of HP fans to write it, you could be waiting a while ! :) Nevilley
What I don't understand is how this article is pro-witchcraft, and therefore lacking balance. It looks very balanced to me - doesn't make any value judgements of any kind that I can see, either about witchcraft being cool, or about the writing being any good. --Camembert
Yes but I suppose what the anon. person is saying is that there is not yet any coverage of the *fact* that it has been contraversial in some quarters. If it were possible to have a linked article examining this - without it becoming a propoganda piece for one point of view - wouldn't this be a good thing, in encyclopedic terms? :) Nevilley
Yes. Though I must admit, I wasn't aware there was any controversy about it. I must read the wrong newspapers (or have a short - or selective - memory)... --Camembert
People holding mass book burnings smacks of controversy to me. You most certainly MUST read the wrong papers. ;) --Dante Alighieri
Try searching for HP on Amazon.com - plenty of books re Christian response etc. It honestly is a real issue. 194.117.133.118
Hi 194, why not create an account? You're still anonymous/pseudonymous, but we have a name we can use, and a permanent user page. Use the "Log in" link to do so. --Eloquence 00:29 Nov 27, 2002 (UTC)
Fair enough. If there's an article to be written about it, I'm all for it. Looks like I might learn something :) --Camembert
If such an article is created, it shouldn't be called "Objections to Harry Potter" but rather "Controversy about the Harry Potter books", or something similar. We shouldn't have articles that only present one viewpoint, even if it's done in an NPOV way.--Eloquence
I definitely approve of the creation of such an article, but I also think there should a be at least a few sentences about it here, and not just a link. Tokerboy 00:21 Nov 27, 2002 (UTC)

"The Bible" is commonly understood to refer to a document, currently in print in many different versions, which DOES mandate that witches be put to death in it's text. This says nothing about what individual Christians want. Those who claim to follow the Bible literally perforce must approve of the execution of witches. More liberal interpretations surely obviate the necessity of killing witches, but that does not change what the text itself says. Exodus 22:18, in KJV, NIV and RSE all spell it out quite clearly. --Dante Alighieri

"The Bible" contains verses which some say mandate capital punishment, and verses which some say forbid it. It is therefore wrong to assert that just one of these is what "The Bible" says. Further discussion of suffering those who read Harry Potter to live belongs on another page, not the Harry Potter page. -- Someone else 01:32 Nov 27, 2002 (UTC)
You can sit there and write about how "The Bible" does not necessarily mandate that witches be executed as long as you like. It does not alter the text of the document(s) one bit. Feel free to object to my characterization. I've even changed it so that the reference is to Exodus 22:18 rather than the Bible as a whole. If you have a problem with what's in the Bible, I suggest you take it up with the Pope and the heads of the various Protestant faiths... although since we're talking about the Old Testament here, you might want to talk to a few Rabbis as well. --Dante Alighieri
The bible also specifies that children who speak out of turn should be stoned to death, as should anyone wearing cotten/polyester mix shirts. CheeseDreams 01:12, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree that the bible is contradictory on these matters, esp. New vs. Old Testament. However, even suggesting so can bring any god-fearing Christian up in arms -- it's all a natural flow and development! And it all coincidentally supports their belief system and no other! ;-) We should keep the article as it is now, or add a direct reference, but as SE said this is perhaps too detailed. --Eloquence
It's not too detailed. We're talking about controversy over the books, and Exodus 22:18 is the root of that controversy. How can we talk about one without mentioning the other? --Dante Alighieri
I have no problem with that, but when I read that, I'd like to directly get a quotation, and when we add that, it does in fact become too detailed, so we might want to move this information into a separate article (which should also include a list of all HP book burnings, I'd love to have that list). --Eloquence
Hence the suggestion for a separate article on controversy, which I think we should have. Still, I've made the textual reference quite clear. There's a link to an entry on the Bible and that links to various online Bibles where one could look-up the relevant text. --Dante Alighieri
It's false to suggest that said Christians oppose Harry Potter on the basis of a single Bible verse, or that their opposition depends on a mandate for capital punishment. All that remains is to think of a title for an article that might discuss this. -- Someone else 01:51 Nov 27, 2002 (UTC)
I didn't say that Christians oppose Harry Potter on the basis of a single Bible verse. I also didn't say that their opposition depends on a mandate for capital punishment. I said that the ROOT of the controversy is that passage... which is true. Without that verse, I doubt the witch-burning hysteria of centuries past would ever have occurred. If you think that the witch-burnings and the ideology surrounding them have nothing to do with the current controversy, then I must quite simply disagree with you. That being said, I'm all in favor of an article on Exodus 22:18. Anyone agree? --Dante Alighieri
I'm just saying that a reference invites a detailed discussion. But let's leave it at that until we have a separate article on the issue. --Eloquence

I just wanted to explain why I added that disclaimer about not everyone believing that the Bible mandates capital punishment for witchcraft. According to what I have read at religioustolerance.org, in the original Greek or Aramaic or whatever, the quote about not suffering a witch to live is mistranslated and "witch" means "poisoner" (i.e. a murderer) in the original. I'm not saying this is true (I don't know or care), but it is an interpretation of the Bible. One can believe in the inerrancy of the Bible without believing in capital punishment for witches. Tokerboy 01:53 Nov 27, 2002 (UTC)

The witch of endor is definitely a witch. I very much doubt that poisoners are in the habit of deliberately raising ghosts from the dead. CheeseDreams 01:12, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, the point is that most Christians who have problems with Harry Potter don't read those sort of things. The point of that section of the article is not to talk about all Christians, but those who have problems with the books. As I've stated above, all the major English translations of the Bible say basically the same thing. --Dante Alighieri

I think the current paragraph on the controversy is excellent. I think it meets the requirement really very well indeed, and is a model of NPOV. Nevilley 08:57 Nov 27, 2002 (UTC)

It's definitely better NPOV wise, but it's a false statement. It implies that "Some Christians" oppose Harry Potter because they believe the punishment for witchcraft is death: in actuality, they oppose Harry Potter because they believe witchcraft is evil. -- Someone else
Well, that's just asking for further clarification -- what do they believe "witchcraft" to consist of? What do they believe "evil" to mean? Why do they believe that witchcraft is evil? How do the various prohibitions against witchcraft in scripture fit into it: is the modern belief that witchcraft is evil simply based on the longtime presence of biblical prohibitions against the practice, or is there something more specific which may or may not be directly relatable to the fictional wizardry depicted in fantasy novels, movies, and role-playing games? --Brion 11:55 Nov 27, 2002 (UTC)
As I've stated above, I believe that the hysteria surrounding the Inquisition and the burning of witches (yes, I know, they are not necessarily directly related) has something to do with it. That and Exodus 22:18. --Dante Alighieri
To qualify your post, the two or three centuries in which witchhunts were prominent (mainly the very late mediæval period and the whole of the renaissance) were characterised by persecutions in many non-English speaking countries. The concern was also more a variant of the concern with heresy than a simple literal application of the rule from the Bible. See witchhunt
See Sarem witch trials CheeseDreams 01:12, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To Brion:

  1. First of all, my church has no postion on this.
  2. My understanding of US Christians who object to "witchcraft" is: they think people who try to cast spells or summon demons are (a) disobeying specific biblical injunctions not to do so; (b) running the risk of becoming dominated by evil spirits.

I personally sympathize with the (B) concern, but bear in mind that the whole issue presumes several things:

  • that God exists
  • that people should obey the Bible
  • that evil spirits exist

--Ed Poor

And that
  • evil spirits can dominate the body
  • god won't prevent such occurances
  • Jesus didn't imprison the devil and mignons during his alleged descent to hell
and most importantly of all
  • people don't want evil spirits to dominate their body
which relies on the definition of evil. CheeseDreams 01:12, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Also look at Deuteronomy 18:11-12. --Dante Alighieri

The Old Testament laws in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy applied to the covenant community of God's people prior to the coming of Christ... they were rules that were to be enforced (but if you read the Old Testament histories, they weren't very often) upon those who were part of God's people.

So, not anyone apart from the Jews then. CheeseDreams 01:12, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Therefore, one was not supposed to claim to be part of God's people and at the same time be a practicing sorcerer, idolater, etc. The penalty was to be 'cut off from the people.' In these cases, usually the death penalty. The ancient world was a harsh world. We are very naive if we self-righteously judge it by today's politically correct standards.

No, being cut off from the people means exile, or excommunication, a very harsh penalty indeed (at that time). CheeseDreams 01:12, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In the New Testament, similar behavior standards for God's people apply. (God's character has not changed, so what pleases/displeases Him is the same.) One is not supposed to claim to be a Christian and practice witchcraft, sorcery, idol worship, etc. The penalty in the New Testament is to be cut off from God's people -- but in the case of the New Testament, it is excommunication (if the church member refuses to repent), with a view that the person could possibly be won back.

Where does the new testament condemn sorcery? CheeseDreams 01:12, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Christ did not change what is acceptable behavior among God's people... He changed how the penalties would be handled. We are warned by Christ not to take up the sword as a means of handling matters in the church. When the church has taken up the sword (i.e., the Crusades), it turned out very badly for everyone involved.

According to Paul, Christ rendered Mosaic law (i.e. the torah - genesis, exodus, leviticus, numbers, and deuteronomy) irrelevant, and not to be obeyed. CheeseDreams 01:12, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The problem in American Christianity is that many try to apply the rules of behavior for the believing community to non-Christians and others outside the community of believers.. Let's take the case of a Pagan. Is the Pagan a Christian? No. If they are not a professing member of a Christian church, then what penalty should the Pagan face at the hands of the church? None, because they are not under the jurisdiction of the God's people. (The Pagan is still answerable to God, however.) The church could urge the Pagan to repent and become a Christian, but that's about it.

Answerable to which God? CheeseDreams 01:12, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Otherwise, we are under the commandment to look out for what's best for our neighbor, no matter who or what they are, because all of mankind is made in God's image, even if they are in rebellion against Him.

However, if said Pagan is a full-fledged practicing Pagan, AND also claims to be a full fledged member in good standing at his local evangelical church, and refuses to leave one side or the other, then the local church is to help that person decide which way they are going to go, and keep that person's double-mindedness or hypocrisy from infecting the church.

Paganism and simultaneous christianity isn't necessarily hypocrisy. For example, you can be a Saint Thomas Christian, and a Hindu, with very little difficulty. You can also be a buddhist, and have no issues whatsoever. CheeseDreams 01:12, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See I Corinthians 5 : 9-13. In verse 12 of that passage the Apostle Paul says, "For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church you are to judge? God judges those outside." In otherwords, the church is to clean up it's own act, and leave the judging of those outside the church to God. It's similar to to Jesus' commandment to take the log out of our own eye before we criticize our neighbor for the speck of sawdust in his eye.

So what exactly was the Inquisition, Crusades, and Albigensian Crusade, about? CheeseDreams 01:12, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What a shame more Christians don't agree with you. --Dante Alighieri
Fine, the Old Testament applies fully, according to "most Christians".
I hope they will be sacrificing their livestock to God and require their first-born sons to be devoted to the service of the LORD, then, as is instructed in Exodus 22: 29-30. If they don't, they're sinners because, according to "them", every word of the Old Testament is still valid and every Law within it must be obeyed.
Your posts about Exodus 22:18 did not address anything I had written. You effectively demolished a straw man of your own making. I never even addressed this question, and nothing I said leads logically to the conclusion you were postulating. Read what I wrote and not what you think I wrote.
I said the civil law of Moses (your strawman fell in this category) was a foreshadowing of a better thing, which was the law fulfilled the righteousness of Jesus Christ. Regarding the moral law, it is still in effect, because just treatment of others and just worship of God is still the duty of all men, and God's character has not changed, so what pleases/displeases Him is the same.
Well, I have to disagree with some of your assertions. First of all, regarding the New Testament reinterpreting the Old Testament: there is nothing to stop some "Christians" from picking and chosing Bible verses to suit their own needs. Just because YOU interpret your religion this way does not mean that OTHERS do. Let's not get too far from the point here. The paragraph in question is about the controversy over the Harry Potter books. The controversy over the books is largely a conservative Christian phenomenon. The root of that controversy must surely include such Biblical proscriptions against witchcraft as Exodus 22:18 and Deuteronomy 18:11-12. Nothing you have said refutes that. It's not MY fault that some people decide that they will only pay attention to those parts of the Bible that suit their purposes.
There is a religion based entirely around Exodus 22:18 and Deuteronomy 18:11-12? Wow. CheeseDreams 01:12, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Incidentally, I was being sincere, not sarcastic, when I said that it was a shame more Christians don't agree with you. You seem to have a remarkably good grasp of your religion and I think that that's always a good thing. --Dante Alighieri

What the hell does any of this have to do with the article at hand? This looks like talk page abuse to me. Please stop it. --mav

The whole point is the relevence of some of the information in the controversy section. I don't see the abuse. After all, we're talking about the Harry Potter article. --Dante Alighieri

I consider arguments like this perfectly valid and not abuse, they help to refine the arguments and positions presented in the actual article. However, if this becomes a bigger issue, it should be moved to a separate article, as has been previously suggested. --Eloquence

What's the name of the Russian rip-off character of Harry? -- Zoe

Tanya Grotter.

"Scholastic" is mentioned but not defined. Would anyone like to elaborate...? -- Oliver P. 06:09 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, Someone else. But are they officially called Scholastic Press? Their website calls them Scholastic Inc.... -- Oliver P. 06:36 May 11, 2003 (UTC)
I've always found the true name of a publisher to be a multiple choice affair. In this case, Rowling is published by Scholastic Press, a division of Scholastic Inc., under the imprint of Arthur A. Levine Books. So you decide <G>. I suppose whichever is named on the lawsuit would be best. -- Someone else 06:39 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

While we have all become accustomed to seeing pro-Harry Potter articles on Wikipedia, I can't recall ever having seen an article that talks about the negative side of Harry Potter. Namely, that the books and movies promote witchcraft, paganism, and godless materialism. Despite what Harry Potter would have you believe, witchcraft is most definitely NOT "cool." I don't expect to change anybody's mind, but it would be nice to see just a LITTLE bit of balance here. Not all of the ideas that come from the minds of the creative Left are worth propogating, and if there was ever a concrete example of this, Harry Potter would be it.

suggestion - write it & link it in. See HP talk. :) Nevilley
Well, personally, if it comes to cool vs. not cool, I think the witchhunts were rather uncool, but I have no problem if someone adds those rather nutty views to the Harry Potter article, or perhaps a separate one specifically dedicated to that "controversy". That article should also mention the Harry Potter book burnings that took place, and perhaps contrast the reaction to Harry Potter to the one to "Lord of the Rings" (the books for which were written by a devout Catholic, and therefore nihil obstat). --Eloquence

The following paragraph is nonsensicial:

  • In addition, some commentators criticize the books on the grounds that the stories are anti-family: Harry does not obey his abusive, vehemently anti-magic aunt and uncle, but idolizes his deceased parents, themselves a witch and wizard. Later in the series, he establishes a friendship with his godfather, Sirius Black, and spends more time with the all-wizard Weasley family, who are generally depicted as economically poor but generally happy and supportive of each other.

Nothing in the paragraph supports the topic sentence; contrariwise, it details how an orphan overcomes a BAD family situation because of his longing for a GOOD family. In what sense do these "commentators" mean that the book is anti-family? Uncle Ed 19:52 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The American Library Association tracks the number of challenges (formal written complaints made to a library or school about a book's content or appropriateness) made to books. The Harry Potter series are among the most frequently challenged from 1999 to present. The complaints alleged that the books have occult or Satanic themes, are violent, and are anti-family.

I suppose we'd have to read the complaints to know WHY the allegation of being anti-family is made. I suspect it is because Harry does not slavishly obey his adoptive parents. -- Someone else 20:04 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

An example of the "reasoning" may be found at this cached webpage [2]:

Additionally, there is a strong anti-family strain in the Potter books. As was mentioned earlier, Harry’s biological parents were murdered. Other than them, the only biological family he has are horrible. Harry’s uncle, aunt and cousin, with whom he lives, are mean, selfish and unloving. They are "Muggles" (non-sorcerers) who make Harry’s life miserable for his beliefs and even make him sleep in a closet!

A closet? CheeseDreams 01:12, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Harry’s witchy friends are made to appear very appealing next to these loutish family members, who could be seen as caricatures of "fundamentalist" Christians. The ordinary human adults of his family are seen as stupid and powerless, while the witches and warlocks are wise and powerful. What sort of message does this send to children about their relatives who might not live lives as fascinating as that portrayed in the books?

-- Feel free to try and make that make sense and incorporate it... I'm sure there are other examples on the web too, if one wades deeply enough into the mire. -- Someone else 20:24 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hedwig does not lead to a page about harry potter's pet :) Ilyanep 20:42 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I've added a disambiguation page for Hedwig, but someone still has to write the article about Hedwig the Owl at Hedwig (Harry Potter). -- Lee M
OK, the article has now been written. Fast work, people. -- Lee M

Comic book fans have noted that a comic book series first published in 1993 by DC Comics called The Books of Magic by Neil Gaiman shares many similarities to Rowling's book. These include a dark haired young boy with glasses who is approached by magic wielding individuals to reveal to him his own potential as a powerful wizard.

I'm not entirely sure this section should be included as there have been literally hundreds of claims that Harry Potter is a derivative of some other work. Unless there is some sort of court action I don't think there is much point in including this kind of speculation.

Incidently I'm pretty sure Gaiman got his idea from "Good Omens" (which was a spoof of the movie The Omen) which he coauthored with Terry Pratchett.

--Imran 10:24 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think it should stay. If you google for this subject, there are plenty of pages that mention this similarity, although without the controversy aspect of Nancy Stouffer. Also, though I don't really think that the books are similar in plot, tone, or audience, there are quite a few more similarities, which I'll add to the article. --DropDeadGorgias 13:48 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I believe Gaiman was asked at some point about this, and he didn't consider the similarities to be any more than superficial: though both are about a boy's initiation into magic, Harry Potter is basically a school story with magic, while Gaiman's work is written with considerably different intent for a much older audience, It's notable that Gaiman hasn't started any legal case concerning the similarities, -- Malcolm Farmer 14:10 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The similarity to Gaiman is minor compared with say the similarity to Le Guin's Wizard of Earthsea.
Yes, that at least has a school for wizards (but then, so does Ankh-Morpork); but a lot of LeGuin's story was about maintaining a balance (Taoism?) and the magic of knowing the True Names of things and people. HP is much more in the long tradition (in England at least) of stories about pupils at a boarding school -- e.g. Angela Brazil, Frank Richards, P.G.Wodehouse, Anthony Buckeridge etc.-- but with the fantasy slant of it being a school that teaches magic.
While the two series have different aims and writing styles, there are many similarities such as both start with an orphan child, the chief antagonist in both cases is a fellow school boy from an aristrocratic background (also notice the snobbery in Roke), magical teachers in specialist fields, magical scaring and duelling, a school "protected" from outsiders. Roke could easily be Durmstrang :-)
However my main aim was to say the comparision could be made between HP and many other books, so why include the Gaiman comparision over others ? --Imran 21:21 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Is Harry Potter and the Dragon's Path to Luck the correct translation of the title of that unauthorised Chinese Harry Potter book? I can't find any mention of that title on Google except on Wikipedia. Instead, it is consistantly called Harry Potter and Leopard Walk Up to Dragon as par media reports.

You're right, I've changed it. Also, I think we should remove the word "originally", because I don't think the unauthorized book has been translated into any other languages... Although I am curious as to what "Leopard Walk Up To Dragon" would translate to. -DropDeadGorgias 20:56 30 Jun 2003 (UTC)
A leopard walks up to a dragon? CheeseDreams 01:12, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this should go in the article, but it's funny - generate parody clues -- Jim Regan 21:52 4 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/a/r/Talk%7EHarry_Potter_Archive_1_5490.html"